Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA-04-123
The Boeing Company 100 N Riverside M/C Chicago, IL 60606 (owner) Gust M. Erikson Puget Western, Inc. 19515 N Creek Parkway ste: #310 Bothell: WA 98011 tel: 425-487-6567 (party of record) PARTIES OF RECORD STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION LUA04-123, SM, ECF Rob Lochmiller Mike Kirkland City of Renton Transportation 1055 S Grady Way MK Property Services, LLC PO Box 1188 Renton, WA 98055 tel: 425-430-7303 (applicant / contact) Kent, WA 98035-1188 tel: 425-888-2993 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) SEP A Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton September 2004 - 9 - NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP Please refer to the attached Figure 9-1. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON ~ OCT 11 2004 RECEIVED Perteet Inc. 9-1 ~ j Bdc ... Blvd ukwlla • ~ <L Tredc Dr J ~ ... DrN 1l <L DrS I Dr 0 0 0 0 8i < 5 ~ t .., SW .lOth 51 --~ t :5 SW 21st 51 SW2JnlSl ;l!! f SW 27th 51 SW28thst ~ SW 34th 51 SW !r-------------+-~~~ I I ~-UPRR-T " CK(1) sw J9th 51 SW 41st 5l KEY Employment Area-Valley ~n~;;:t-f-bd=~F~~~~~;;;;;;;;;±;;:;;;;;;~",;SW~1;I Commercial Light Industrial S tll6th 51 ~ ~ City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension AHEAD OF "rnE c\:RVE Pe rteet L ~ ~ Tukwila Urban Center Employment Area Industrial City Limits Residential Low Density o Residential Single Family Figure 9-1 Neighborhood Detail Map SEP A Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton September 2004 -24- PLAN REDUCTIONS ~ 24-1 Perteet Inc. Sap 21, 2004 -3:38pm mIkeI J:\Trana_~tnmdar8Jvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\D1acIpIIne StudIee\(3) Swface Water\Flgl.nB 4-1 to 44-CAD\22044-F1g 4-5-ExIstIng BasIn Map-Mastar.dwg Layout Name: fig 4-5 ~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. I!:! Civil. Transportation and Surveying City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Surface Water Quantity and Quality Technical Discipline Report FIGURE 4-5 EXISTING DRAINAGE BASINS ~ i i ~ w ~~ ..-~ &MQ!. c;;=> flY ~o C== <1) ~5 w ga ©J ~ ;» ~ ~ ~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE Perteet ~ ... :5 LIMITS ~ t • 51 BNSF sw lOth SI t ... :5 ~ SW34thst S 186t11 SI City of Renton swmst sw ;ji! I;-~ ... Employment Area-Valley Commercial Light Industrial Tukwila Urban Center Employment Area Industrial City Limits Residential Low Density _ Residential Single Family Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 9-1 Neighborhood Detail Map ~ Perteet .. 42!>-152770011.soo.S1S.9900 VOTCclbyA_ s.-ooo E_"_~'_\M!.20' Figure 16-1 Wetland Site Plan STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT ~ I! 'I 1 I '"==.~, 4'/ ~ .-J 1jI' 1'1'= 'I" "J:, tI!ii I~I ~d 1= ......1 I \t ~ [r •• ~ I I I I Ii: i I ' I , I I ! I t----+ I I ~ , I , , ~I IIIII i I .12.. I I I I ii' ~II i!! II! i I ~ II I I i-' ~-I i I !~ ~ rrl I I1J#=Fffl iT I , , I ! i ! I J._.,.t .... L i -..... -.. - I: ..L--l--1 ~ \I r-Rffi' -, _Ii , I ' II I Ii I i I 'Ii nT" : II III f () 11 ! J))(~ . ! -~: ' ~ii I I I I i -j [i' ;1 i.) :U2f~ : ' , I , " I !i' ,I, ,i rlit IFF i Ii-t-- IT" i II 111I I I ! i ,I ~ I Ii II I , '+ " . r ,~ I j , I I JO RttHJl-~~-<-lf't-l----t I I ,', -"1--i--t--~-__ _L::L"i ~I/! . I I! : \ !, ........ ,-, :---r I , £ I ~ I I I I I [-I LJ~L 13+00 ~. !:t~~:..., ml7CD11r~ .... E...a. ........ ~ 14+00 ~-. ~~~~~----___ ' -~~ ~~-- . .~~: . . /.~ ...:.;.'.i·~ . ;::~~t"l':_ ~ .' 15+00 --r--t-1--t I j I I ! --~J i I • i I I 19+00 Figure 14-1 Architectural Elevations 20+00 STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT I , , i I I n-.;.... il 1= , i "" CJv" I ! i ! N-J~-! 11-1 ~! ~ ! I \) ;0 v L .12.. ~ ~ I ~ ~ 'I I -~-~--t--r-~--t-_L , ' M ,-,--t--r-~~ I -----20 T-_ I JJL 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 SCN..E ~ o fEET .. eo ..P.r.'.]') 01" THF. (1 'FVr, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MATCH LINE SEE THIS DRAWING ~ Perteet, .. 425-252·1100 I t-eoo-e1~ 2101 CalbrA_. WeB e,.. WuhIngkJn Il1201 'I'i III U Hi "~ ! f ,U : I' , : n i : if i 1#' I: I , IT; iii .;.J.' i~ i ~ IT; KEY MAP NOlES.;. 1. A ntOROUCH TREE INVENTORY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED wmtIN lltE PROJECT AREA. THIS INFORMATION WAS COWPtLED FROM AN AERIAL. SURVEY AND A FIELD SURVEY. 2. THE CrJY OF' RENTON IS DESIGNING WAl[R AND .SANITARY SEWER lITIUTlES. THESE PROPOSED UTlUT1ES ME NOT SHOWN ON THESE Pt.»IS, BUT WIll BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE RtGHT OF WAY OR £ASEMENf AND WILL NOT EXCEED 12-DIAW£I'ER PIPE. 3. WETlAND BUfFERS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PlANS, BUT ARE PROUDED ON FlGURE 18-1. ~ - - -RIGHT-OF-WAY --... --BURIED POWER --OP --<M:RH£AD POWER --55 --SANJTARY SEWER --SO --STORM DRAIN --0--GAS UN£ --w--WATER UNE ~ BRUSH/lREE UNE -------WETl..AHDBOUHOMY -----ClTYuwrrs SCALf 60 60 120 FEET Figure 10-2f Site! Topographic! Tree Cutting! Land Clearing! Habitat and Utilities Plan I II! I I: ~I Iii li Ii Ii: ,I d I Ii ~ I ,' ,! Ii ~ I Ii " 'I il ~ I: I I.: ,I :1 ~~ I .: ' I J i \. h'I' 1 ,11 : ~ I I !! \ I \ \ \\\ 1 \ 17 I; I\~ :: i i\' ,I \i ~ STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT PROPOSED UPRR TRACK o \:)0 0 (j 0 (j d tt ~~! T:Tt ': ~i+ TI ) ...L.u I 0' Ii 114" I, ~n it' 411 ff I: Ii ~ TIt! ~ II IT ff' 1T1i"#tr I, " I, tt+tTI ITtt4 flIT+:-" ITl' H Ii IT J TIi # 1I11 H !iTT)1 t ( ~ ;·"l-':~·'J'"nF~(l''-'\F. EXISTING POPLAR TREES TO BE REMOVED AS NECESSARY FOR IM:eRUVEMENTS ,,1;'-• .,..,..~ ~ / Perteet ,", 425-252-nOOI1-800-815-9900 2107 Colby Avanue. Su1to900 Everett, WMNnglon 98201 l"!QIES;. 1. A THOROUGH TREE INVENTORY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. THIS INFORtAAnON WI'S COMPILED fROM AN AERIAL SURVEY AND A fiELD SURVEY. 2. THE CrTY OF RENTON IS DESIGNING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER UTlLmES. THESE PROPOSED lITlUTIE$ ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PlANS, BUT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEMENT AND WILL NOT EXCEED 12~ DIAMETER PIPE. J. WETLAND BUmRS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PlANS, BUT ARE PROUDED ON fiGURE 16-1. FIGURE 10-2e 60 i SCALE 60 120 FEET KEY MAP NEW TREES IN LANDSCAPE STRIP SPACED @ 25' / LENGTH OF RETAINING EXISTING SMALL SHRUBS TO BE REMOVED AS NECESSARY FOR !MPROVEMENTS~~ \ '\ I . ----J /., "tl _""L .=:;---.... " .......... It ~ ~-", .. ~ • ~ ... r~ 1-I~ < < ~ '-* C I ~ -,,~>,---~~-rF<&<~ ~ F'lLL :--: _ =-_ ~ __ ~______ _____ _ -----. _ ~, F1yY __ ._ __-~-, -:J ------=== nu.~ nu. , .-~ -=-S.W.-27TH~, d-=-=-----::_::-"::-.. :r: \ "--..•... -.. -.~ -' .~ --------,.;;;;-, . \ .. ~ / /"-~~.~. ---.::'-. ~-, --ExIS;:I~ ;R;;;-DETENTION \ ~ .-./ " TO BE REMOVED VAULT RETAINING Figure 10-2b Site! Topographic! Tree Cutting! Land Clearing! Habitat and Utilities Plan STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT \ LEGEND - - -RIGHT-Of-WAY BURIED POWER OVERHEAD POWER --ss --SANITARY SEWER --SO --STORM DRAIN GAS LINE WATER LINE ~,.,.",-..~-----,~>--..~>~ BRUSHfTREE LINE WETlAND BOUNDARY ~ ·>P'.'.PC'; ~H~( I·~';' FIGURE 10-2e II EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED AS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENTS KEY MAP \ ai vi t I SCALE ! I( FEET 60 60 120 I,} ~~ ~ : ) + , I ~ ,~/ ---_'e' • -, "--, ~' ~f'--.ll' ~---« -'0, '-•••• -~ ••• ~ '~ •• ~,~ -----~ ~ I-------+----!~ _ ---""-1'_ ~;;=-~ , 'I ~-, ,_ w _ '~ _ "~d.,., I, -=-~Cc,==c-~L.-_, ~ ,--, c::-~;'[~ --C 1'-=f-:i"-.:Ti ~'-::-'--" ~:;,. : -00 '-+,, __ ~~ oj ~, -, ,-,'C ,u -':'--~,,-.:-; -'~----\1" ': -~ -l'i il ~ -" -, "'~-7 ''', ---; ~ I-lll!!h l (, -ePu~~TION ~ BLOCK WALL ~ Perteet ,,, -i25-2S2-77001,-800.e15-9900 2707ColbyAvenoo Suite900 EWlrfItl,Washlngton9820, j , III :, --mil EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED NQIES.;. 1. A THOROUGH TREE INVENTORY HAS NOT BEEN CQtolPLET£D WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. THIS INFORMATION WAS COMPILED FROM AN AERIAL SURVEY AND A FIELD SURVEY. 2. THE CITY Of RENTON IS DESIGNING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER UTIUTlES. THESE PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEtol[NT AND WILL NOT EXCEED 12~ DIAMETER PIPE. 3. WETLAND BUFFERS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT ARE PROUDED ON FIGURE 16-1. Figure 10-2c Site! Topographic! Tree Cutting! Land Clearing! Habitat and Utilities Plan STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT 0_' LEGEND ---RIGHT-OF-WAY --"' --BURIED POWER OVERHEAD POWER SANITARY SEWER --" --STORM DRAIN GAS LINE WATER UNE ~ ----,--" ....... -.. BRUSH/TREE LINE WETLAND BOUNDARY ------BUFFER ----------OHW ~ ,~)'~,\r' ... : n-n:, 1 '''\'~. i !I i l§ @II ~ &l <= C3!!III ~ <~ = ~ C= 5 y w ~ ~ :r: u ~ ~ ~ ALL TREES IN EXISTING LANDSCAPE STRIP TO BE REMOVED Perteet ,,, 425-252-770011-800-615-9900 2707 Colby Avenue, 50!109OO Everetl. Wash!ngton 98201 NEW TREES IN LANDSCAPE STRIP SPACED @ 25' TYPICAL FOR LENGTH OF PROJECT ALL TREES IN EXISTING LANDSCAPE STRIP TO BE REMOVEO REMOVE LARGE SHRUBS AS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION t'Iir-i,- -.i...l.-'-~ II I-i t=r !~-- i Figure 10-2d I--~ I -i ~.~ Site! Topographic! Tree Cutting! Land Clearing! Habitat and Utilities Plan STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT 60 FIGURE 10-21'1 FIGURE 10-2f KEY MAP ~ 1. A THOROUGH TREE INVENTORY HAS NOT BEEN COtolPLETED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. THIS INFORMATION WAS COMPILED fROM AN AERIAl SURVEY AND A FIELD SURVEY. 2. THE CITY OF RENTON IS DESIGNING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES. THESE PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT Will BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEt.4ENT AND WILL NOT EXCEED 12" DIAMETER PIPE. J. WETLAND BUFFERS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. BUT ARE PROUDED ON FIGURE 16-1. LEGEND - - -RIGHT-OF-WAY --BP --BURIED POWER --oe --OVERHEAD POWER --ss --SANITARY SEWER --,,--STORM DRAIN --G--GAS LINE i SCALE 60 120 FEET --w--WATER UNE ",-r---r,-rv-.--.-BRUSH/TREE LINE -~ -- - - -WETLAND BOUNDARY ~ .'ii",f\i) 't!. I HI-( l ·t':~· MATCH LINE SEE FIGURE 10-20 ~ Perteet", , ~T1OO11-aoo.e15-011OO 2707 CoIbr A .... , &JibI800 E--.~18201 KE;Y MAP NQIES:. 1. A 1HOROUGH TREE INVENTORY HAS NOT BEEN COWPlETED WITKIN THE PROJECT M£A. THts INfORWATION WAS COWPlL£D FRO .. AN AERW... SURVEY AND A AELD SURVEY. 2. THE CITY Of RENTON IS DESIGNING WATER AND SNrUTARY SEWER ununES. THESE PROPOSED ununES ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE Pl.NIIS. BUT WIll. BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE RtGHT Of' WAY OR EASEMENT AND WILL NOT EXCEED 12-Dw.IETER PIPE. J. WETl.AHD BUFfERS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PlANS, BUT ARE PROUDED ON FlGURE 1 &-1. 1.lliNIl - - -RIGHT-Of-WAY --Ell' --BURIED POWER --OP --0YERti£AIl POWER --ss --SANITARY SEWER --SO --STORM. DRAIN --0--GAS UNE --w--WATER UNE ~ BRUSH/fREE UNE - - - - - - -WETlAND BOUNOM'Y -----CfTYUWITS SCAL£ , 60 . a 60 120 FEET Figure 10-2e Sitel TopographicJ Tree Cutting! Land Clearingl Habitat and Utilities Plan 11 IJ.J STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT n :1.11 1/1/ " II II I /~1 # ,I r ft , ! / n ,'I u. " 'I H 'I i I j, ,'I I Tt , ' if Ii) I.! , 11 I ;; lJ I , ! I I· I , " : I 1'1 { j II i Ii ./1 i I, II! II o .' ": J PROPOSED UPRR TRACK MATCH LINE SEE THIS DRAWING t ~ ~1)OFTHE\.1~;:tv"E. i ~ i co w ~~ v=o 2 ; = W I>=-~ U @!)«,) 0 a: ~ LEGEND - - -RIGHT-OF-WAY --,,--BURIED POWER --0' --OVERHEAD POWER --55 --SANITARY SEWER --SO --STORt.4 DRAIN GAS LINE WATER LINE BRUSH/TREE LINE - - - - - - -WETlAND BOUNDARY -----CflYUt.4ITS RELOCATED INTERURBAN TRAIL ~ ~~~7~!~~~1;~9900 2701 Colby Avenuo. Suite BOO Everett,Walhirlgfon98201 I I I I I I I 1\ , Ii o 10-2e ~ 'I~ (--""~: +=c~-::;; _. J....Jc II I"'~"- /. Ii . {T ~ /' 'I"' I IJ I f :5 z' I I ;;./'0 'I' ...-:---.....j :> I-(1Ii l\ 5-ffi I, 'I": 1-/ ~ Ii \J __ y' 15 15 I 'I,' ,~/.~ I I II I) I FIGURE 10-28 i SCALE 60 60 120 FEET 1\ J c 'CO (J) Z ,g ,': Gil ~ II, AI! I! Iii \ 1'1' I' I ' I \ 1 ' ,I ~I . II \1 KEY MAP II n":"'\ij'i"~ \ \1" i '2~JL'--, II \ 61, ' "nl[h . "b 1 I II 'i \ ~1:2' II \~ ~ ,::[ i (:0 , "1111::' '·1 o ! ~ II:: I 1\ 'I "I \ ;r I r I\~~, il IJ Ii pi:: 1'1 \~ ,i--I~-u \ :,[ 1'\~\lt;1 \1\ \1 L, I it":' I PROPOSED "1 \ II \ I : I I 1\ __ --~_U!RR TRACK i, I Ir \ " I ~ : I , 0"_:"-, z '. ) [ i \~J I [ 'I, i 1';[,-. I \ \ II" bl, I ~ I'!I' I \ 1:2 I' il I I) I 1 1 I' -Idj i i ~ 1 'i'l ,. \ '\Wt' ' , \ 11 ' I' I I "" \ I ~ I 1 'I ::i Ii: I, ( MATCH LINE SEE FIGURE 10-2f I I I I I I I ;1, NEW TREES IN LANDSCAPE STRIP SPACED @ 25' TYPICAL FOR LENGTH OF PROJECT '~ IZ ;--~ -=r: ¥Ih~.··~ \,....... 21+00 1=22+00 2J+OO ........ ~2.4:t"OO~' .... ~2I+OO" 28+«1 J0"~f '~I (~r \i-+--r--1-----1--+-4.8' -1-------+\------I" -'----, I ' r.,11!1~. I II \ . o' ____ ') -,~~"'"Oo ill,'III'" . ~ ~~ ill'! f~,:;1 i -\ i STRANDER BLVD: t ,/(/ -~mL • "'''-~ , ' ,,'< • I i II .J~:=: .1 I 12.5 I 0 \'-Jll' 0 II~il~ ;1 ;c:, /\ II::! ~ Ii ~ I !Ui:?/' 1 I ~. . "Ie ;J \ \ (J) cJJ ' .:::J I:i.i il,~L~;~ \~'------' --.. ----!. J -----------____ ~c-~.:::.., ~c:.:,c.!J ,1 __ ~iJ I' 11::, , I .,.-.--~--.. --., «,' ~ ,',I .~I :1 .': i /". 1:., ----, ----~"'--- ,1 fIl! : 'I i ! r-----fil--j !: - I!ffil II '1(-;/ ' ~ " I I ...... I ~.., \ a.. lL~ I II": t~ '~-~'----"---"i r-L~ I I • f j I: ~ II ' ' iT" : \-., II ; ~ ~ il ;'" ~~~~~_-=:::.=~J_\ _ ">, -J;- ; ~ : :, \'0.... 1'!QIES;. I, IT ' :1 \', ~'F------. itt! I ··'1 : J 11 1 II .I Figure 10-2a 1. A THOROUGH TREE INVENTORY HAS NOT BEEN COIl4PLETED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. THIS INFORt.4ATION WAS COt.4PILED FROt.4 AN AERIAl SURVEY AND A FIELD SURVEY. Site! Topographic! Tree Cutting! 2. THE CITY OF RENTON IS DESIGNING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES. THESE PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEt.4[NT AND Will NOT EXCEED 12-DIAMETER PIPE. 3. WETlAND BUFFERS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT ARE PROUOED ON F"lGURE 16-1. ~ Land Clearing! Habitat and Utilities Plan STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT .. ~~~ -.1 ,,'''THlo {I ';~I. F. w > "" lIJ '" ST \ V1 "Iff'-' -< \ STRA,ND:"R 2S > o Cl '" < S '8Cf:-~ ST ~ ~ SEC. 19, T 23N, R 5E, W.M. ~ C. 25, I_2~N, R45E, .M. BLVD ",~,_~NGSTON RD S 133RD ST~ eo';:;:",'" /-'--'-"--'-'" '<' :, -1 i6T!-1 I 5T ! 1"1 Jr') I :I (SW 41TH ST [Tn / [,~ r I 1-Si: "3RD City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Perteet Figure 4-1 Project Area Zoning Map Figure 4-2 ~ Perteet Map created on 04/15/2004 N A o I +-+ Proposed UPRR Trock -Proposed Extension - -City Boundary Tukwila Zoning Legend Renton Zoning [~z·~ ~g RC Resource Conservation R-1 Residential III LDR Low Density Residential R-8 Residential _ RCM Regional Commercial Mixed Use t!.;;;'M CA Commercial Arterial D TUC Tukwila Urban Center _ CO Commercial Office D CILI Commercial Light Industrial 500 1,000 I Feet 2,000 I IL Industrial -Light _ 1M Industrial -Medium liB IH Industrial -Heavy ~ ~ ~~ ri ~ w ~~ .,.. ~ = I = I!DJ Il= g U au 0 a: ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Tom Meagher. being first duly sworn on oath that he is the Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper. which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to. published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice. a Public Notice was published on July 15. 2005 and July 22. 2005. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum ~JL Tom Meagher Legal Advertising Representative. King County Journal SubscribQ and sworn to me this 22nd day of July. 2005. \"UIIII'/i- '!\\\ ~ L D "'0 '!\" <'\, . (:1.,</ ,:.;, ~ oy········· .. · ... 'lt'~~ ~ ""> ". ~OTJ\Ji>i·· 0" ~ ,. • •• A ~ ca. : "'p = :: en : EXp' : = -~ : 04/28/2009 : -:~\ : ~~ ~~... ~O5.--tJII_~ eo •• -~ ~ O··ft;auc ••• r~ ~ 4'," 'J:;t •• .. ···:·rt~V ~ -"'1 If;ASp.~~\''' . ~arton IIICHH"'\\ Notary Public for the State of Washington. Residing in Auburn. Washington PO Number: Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge. City of Renton Public Notice SW 27th StlStrander Blvd Connection Project The City of Renton of 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 is seek- ing coverage under the Washington Department of Ecology's NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activities. The proposed 4.9-acre project, known as SW 27th St.lStrander Blvd. Connection -Phase 1, Segment 1 will construct 1,450 lin- ear feet of new five-lane roadway extending west from the intersection of Oakesdale Ave. SWISW 27th St., all within King County. Approximately 4.9 acres will be disturbed for con- struction of a roadway and associated sidewalk, mixed use path, landscap- ing, grading roadway fill material import (up to 10,000 Cubic Yards), water, sewer, utility installation, stormo sewer, a stormwater pond and vault, dewatering and temporary sediment controls. Stockpiling will be located on the northwest portion of the project. Stormwater will be treated for sedi- ment by erosion reducing best man- agement practices and silt fence prior to discharging overland to a nearby Category II wetland (over 5 acres in size) at the southeast portion of the project. The majority of the project's construction area is located outside the 25-foot wetland buffer, except for the storm sewer outfalVpipe located within the buffer, approximately two feet away from the wetland. The wet- land is connected to Springbrook Creek (1,500 feet away). Any person desiring to present their views to the Department of Ecology concerning this application may notify Ecology in writing within 30 days from the last date of publication of this notice . Comments may be submitted to: Department of Ecology Stormwater Unit PO Box 47696 Olympia, WA 98504-7696 Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published in the King County Journal July 15, 2005 and July 22, 2005. #859698 l \I ~ -0\\" \1.:? :=---" -; , -:; ~~- CITY OF RENTON PLANNING / BUILDING / PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM Date: January 19, 2005 To: City Clerk's Office From: Holly Graber Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: Strander Blvd. Extension LUA (file) Number: LUA-04-123, SM, ECF Cross-References: AKA's: Project Manager: Jason E. Jordan Acceptance Date: October 18, 2004 Applicant: City of Renton, Transportation Owner: The Boeing Company Contact: Rob Lochmiller PID Number: 088670-0410 ERC Decision Date: November 9, 2004 ERC Appeal Date: November 29, 2004 Administrative Approval: December 1, 2004 Appeal Period Ends: O~c..~""bll"" 2"\) ~oOli Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Project Description: EXTENSION OF STRANDER BLVD (SW 27TH ST) FROM EAST VALLEY TO WEST VALLEY ROAD. The City of Renton, along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander Boulevard/SW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also include the widening of SW 27th Street from four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley ~oad. The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability and access between Renton and Tukwila. As a result, the project would create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single roadway overpasss of both a Union Pacific Railroad track and two Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad tracks. The project area is approximately 100 acres. Project construction is planned in three phases, with the first phase between Oakesdale Avenue SW and the railroad overpass to begin in 2005 and last approximately six months. The SW 27th Street improvements, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road are planned to begin in 2006 and last approximately one year and the railroad overpass portion of the project is "planned to commence in 2007 with an estimated completion date of 2009. Department of Ecology (DOE) approval 12/3/04. 21-day appeal period ends 12/24/04. Received Letter of Approval from DOE dated December 8 2004. No appeals were filed. Location: SW 27th Street between East and West Valley Highway , \1 OEVaOPME . CITY OF~~'1,~NING STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY DEC 1·0 200~ RECEivED. Northwest Regional Office 0 3190 160th Avenue Sf 0 Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 0 (425) 649-7000 December 8, 2004 Mr. Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator City of Renton Dept of Planning, Building, Public Works 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Dear Mr. Zimmerman: Re: Renton Shoreline Substantial Development Permit # LUA-04-123, SM, ECF CITIES OF RENTON AND TUKWILA -Applicant Ecology Shoreline Substantial Development Permit # 2004-NW-50022-1 Purpose of this letter This letter is to inform you that on December 3,2004 the Department of Ecology received notice that the City of Renton approved your application for a shoreline substantial development permit to construct a new segment of Strander BoulevardiSW 2ih Street from four lanes to five, including landscaping strips and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road for the purpose of improving travel speed, reliability and access between Renton and Tukwila. The five elements of the project are: 1. Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad track 2. New roadway constmction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Ave. SW 3. Improvements to SW 27th Street 4. Modifications to the Interurban Trail 5. Modification to South Longacres Way The law requires you to wait at least twenty-one (21) days from the date Ecology received this decision from the City of Renton before you begin the specific activities authorized by this permit. Therefore, you cannot lawfully begin those activities until December 24, 2004. This waiting period is to allow anyone disagreeing with any aspect of your permit to appeal to the state Shorelines Hearings Board. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. If anyone does appeal your permit, you must wait until the appeal is over before you start work. \ \ II! December 8, 2004 Mr. Gregg Zimmerman Page 2 ". (~ I( ' . ...... To be sure that the Shorelines Hearings Board has not received an appeal, we advise you to call them at (360) 459-6327 before you begIn work. Other federal, state and local permits may be required in addition to this shoreline permit. Please contact me at 425-649-4260 or slan'461@ecy.wa.gov if you' have any questions about this letter. cc: Robert Lochmiller, City of Renton Susan Fiala,City of Renton . I • CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 1 st day of December, 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, Letter to State Agency & Corresponding Documentation documents. This information was sent to: ~~~~~!ii'"' Agency State Department of Ecology Agency. City of Tukwila Agency Office of Attorney General The Boeing Company Owner Rob Lochmiller -City of Renton -Transportation ContacVApplicant Mike Kirkland Party of Record Gust M. Erikson Party of Record (Signature of Sender),-?: ,...sr..C::~';;'/=-....3:j~~-=-=----------4-'..;.J::I,B~~ F. KOKKO STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 19,2006 signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. f\ ~ ,,_ ---.) /J/# Dated: 1 v/r,/Pcf ~1r.-~ I ----~~N-ot~a~ry~P-ub~l~ic~in~a-nd~fo-r~th-e~St~a-te-o-f~W~a~sh~i-ng-t-on------- Notary (print):_--=::::D:....-~_/r...Jo:w~/=---r_~_id_'{2{; ______ _ My appointment expires: Strander Blvd/SW 2ih Street Extension LUA04-123, SM, ECF KatJty Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor CITY ( 7 RENTON Planning/BuildinglPublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Adlllinist,rator December 1, 2004 , SfateDepartment of Ecology' Nort~west Regional Office 31.90 160th Ave;SE Believu8; WA98008-5452 SUBJECT: Shoreline MC!nagement Substantial Developmen't Permit for ' File No;' ~UA;.04-123;SM, ECF ' ' Dear ,Sir or Madam: " ,Encl()sed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The' perm!t was issl,i'ed by the CityofRenton on November 30. 2004. The environmental review (SEPA) was completed on November 29. 2004 (see attaQhed). " c ", ' We are filing th is action With the Departrrient'of:EcoI9gyand~ the' ~~ttorney General per WAC' 173-14-090. " please review this permit. and attachmentsahdcaliSusanFialaat (42!?)430;,7382 if you have any questions or need additional information. ' , , ·2~L#f;···!·! JasOn~JOrdan'v f" .•.•• . .. " Project Manager, Enclosures: Copy of Master Application , Administrative Decision ' Site Plan Notice of Application Legal Description " SEPA ThresholdDetermination "Environmental Publication tc:City of Tukwila Office of Attorney General Applicant ' --ssttlt';rteteH:c~oltE~e~1 ile'eHttte~l.-d!do~c:::-1O::-:5:-:5:-:S=-o-u-'th:-G-=-ra-:d;'-y-=W:=a-y---R=-e-n-to-n-, --W:-a-sh"'""'i:-n"-gt-o-'n-9:-:S-0-55-' '------.~ <it) This paper contains 50% reCycled material, 30% post consumer, AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: LUA-04-123, ECF,SM DATE RECEIVED: October 11, 2004 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: October 18, 2004 D(.:>c-~ I DATE APPROVED: NevoffiBer 30, 2004 TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Conditional Use Permit Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a permit. This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: City of Renton and City of Tukwila PROJECT: Stander Boulevard/SW 27'h Street Extension DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton (lead agent), along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander Boulevard/SW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes the widening of SW 27th Street from four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability and access between Renton and Tukwila. As a result, the project would create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a Single roadway overpasss of both a Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) track and two Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad (BNSF) tracks. Specifically, the five elements of the project are as follows: • Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) track. The UPRR track, from just north of SW 43rd Street (SE 180th Street in Tukwila) to approximately 1-405, would be shifted to the east to parallel the existing two Burlington Northern Sante Fe (BNSF) railroad tracts. A new track would be constructed within a new 100-foot right-of-way adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way and then joined with the existing UPRR tract at both ends of the project area. • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW. A new roadway would be constructed from the intersection of West Vallex Highway (SR 181) and Strander Boulevard to the intersection of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 27 Street. The roaway alignment would be an extension of Strander Boulevard and curve to match up with the existing alignment of SW 27'h Street. The railroad crossing would be accomplished via a single roadway overpass of all three railroad tracks. The roadway overpass would provide a vertical clearance of 17 feet for vehicles and 23.5 feet for the railroads and include four travel lanes together with a sidewalk on one side and a multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path on the other side. • Improvements to SW 27th Street. The existing section of roadway between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road would be widened from the current four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrian/bicycle facilities on each side in most locations, for a total of 90 feet from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk. • Modifications to the Interurban Trail. Because the new roadway segment would cut across the shoreline. doc . , CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: LUA-04-123, ECF,SM DATE RECEIVED: October 11, 2004 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: October 18, 2004 DATE APPROVED: December 1, 2004 TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Permit Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a permit. This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: City of Renton and City of Tukwila PROJECT: Stander Boulevard/SW 2ih Street Extension DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton (lead agent), along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander Boulevard/SW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes the widening of SW 27th Street from four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability and access between Renton and Tukwila. As a result, the project would create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single roadway overpasss of both a Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) track and two Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad (BNSF) tracks. Specifically, the five elements of the project are as follows: • Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) track. The UPRR track, from just north of SW 43rd Street (SE 180th Street in Tukwila) to approximately 1-405, would be shifted to the east to parallel the existing two Burlington Northern Sante Fe (BNSF) railroad tracts. A new track would be constructed within a new 100-foot right-of-way adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way and then joined with the existing UPRR tract:at both e-nds' of-the project area. ~~-_ .. ~.~ . .-."," ... ~~-----.:.-.-';-'. • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW. A new roadway would be constructed from the intersection of West ValletX Highway (SR 181) and Strander Boulevard to the intersection of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 27 Street. The roaway alignment would be an extension of Strander Boulevard and curve to match up with the existing alignment of SW 27'h Street. The railroad crossing would be accomplished via a single roadway overpass of all three railroad tracks. The roadway overpass would provide a vertical clearance of 17 feet for vehicles and 23.5 feet for the railroads and include four travel lanes together with a sidewalk on one side and a multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path on the other side. • Improvements to SW 27th Street. The existing section of roadway between Oak~sdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road would be widened from the current four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrian/bicycle facilities on each side in most locations, for a total of 90 feet from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk. • Modifications to the Interurban Trail. Because the new roadway segment would cut across the shoreline. doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department Stander BoulevardiSW 21h Street Extension Shuteline Substantial Development Permit Page20f2 Interurban Trail, an at-grade crossing would be constructed at West Valley Highway, or the trail would be modified to cross under the roadway overpass structure. • Modifications to South Longacres Way. The existing railroad bridges over South Longacres Way are narrow and have lower vertical clearances than are now required for public roads. The relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad track would require the construction of a new bridge, which would provide the same vertical clearance. No improvements would be made to the BNSF bridge. The project area is approximately 100 acres. Project construction is planned in three phases, with the first phase between Oakesdale Avenue SW and the railroad overpass to begin in 2005 and last approximately six months. The SW 27th Street improvements, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road are planned to begin in 2006 and last approximately one year and the railroad overpass portion of the project is planned to commence in 2007 with an estimated completion date of 2009. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached , SEC-TWNP-R: WITHIN SHORELINES OF: APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: 25-23N-4E & 30-23N-SE Springbrook Creek City of Renton The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: Section Description Page 4-3-090.J Urban/Conservancy Environments page 3-24 4-3-090.L Specific Use Regulations page 3-27 4-3-090.L.14 Roads and Railroad Development page 3-36 Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all construction conditions by the State agencies and all construction conditions provided in the application and modifications submitted to the City. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition hereof. 3. A construction permit shall not be issued until twenty-one (21) days after approval by the City of Renton Development Services Division or until any review proceedings initiated within this thirty (21) day review period have been completed. cc: Attorney General's Office Applicant I Owners Yellow File shoreline. doc City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: City of Renton PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Strander Blvd! SW 27th St Extension Project ADDRESS: 1055 South Grady Way PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98055 Strander Boulevard and SW 27th Street from West Valley Highway to East Valley Highway, 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 0886700410,2523045555,1253815555,3023055555 APPLICANT (if other than owner) EXISTING LAND USE(S): existing roadway, undeveloped land, railroad right-of-way NAME: PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Widen and extend an improved roadway from West Valley Highway to East Valley Highway; COMPANY (if applicable): relocate the Union Pacific Railroad track ADDRESS: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: in Renton: "Employment Area-Valley" CITY: ZIP: in Tukwila: "Urban Center" and 'Commercial Ught Industrial" - PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION TELEPHONE NUMBER (if applicable): N/A CONTACT PERSON EXISTING ZONING: in Renton: "Commercial Office" (CO); "Commercial" (C); NAME: Robert Lochmiller -"Industrial-Heavy" (I H); "Resource Conservation~.(RC); "Industrial-Light" (IL); "Industrial-Medium" (1M) COMPANY (if applicable): City of Renton, Trans. Sys. in Tukwila: "Tukwila Urban Center" and "Commercial Light Industriar ADDRESS: 1055 South Grady Way-5th Floor PROPOSED ZONING (If applicable): NlA SITE AREA (in square feet): approx. 100 acres CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98055 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): N/A 425-430-7303 rlochmiller@ci.renton.wa.us . , PRL~ ~CTINFORMATrl~O~N~(~lc~on~t~in~~~···~~_~I ____________ ~ PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NlA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (If applicable): NlA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (If applicable): N/A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): N/A PROJECT VALUE: $60,000,000 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): square footages are approx. affected areas in Renton [J AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE N/A sq. ft. [J AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO N/A sq. ft. 181 FLOOD HAZARD AREA 102.700 (2.4 ac) sq. ft. 181 GEOLOGIC HAZARD 557.900 (12.8 ac) sq. ft. 181 HABITAT CONSERVATION 2.568 <0.06 ac) sq. ft. 690 (0.02 ac) is wetland, 1,878 (0.04 ac) is Springbrook Creek. .:. SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES § sq. ft. § This sensitive area has not been defined or mapped for the RMC. However, the project has construction within the shoreline jurisdiction of Springl>rook Creek. 181 WETlANDS 690 (0.014 acre); buffers 69.802 (1.60 acre) sq. ft. in Tukwila 181 GEOLOGIC HAZARD {not calc.] sq. ft. 181 WETlANDS 87.394 (2.01 acre): buffers 99,910 (2.30 ae.) sq. ft. .:. WATERCOURSES * sq. ft. -The project may include this area, depending on final deSigns . • :. Areas that Contain Archaeological Remnants -L sq. ft. t This designation is not currently mapped to the project area; however, according to project research, there is high likelihood of archaeological resources in the vicinity. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY .. (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following infonnation included) SITUATED in road right-of-way: in Sections 24 and 25, T 23 North, Range 4E; Section 3D, T 23 North, Range 5E in the CITIES of RENTON and TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Environmental Review 3. 2. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ 1519.24 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Robert lochmiller • declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or _X_ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and .',_".' __ answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct !o.,the~t of my knowJedge and belief. (Signature of OwnerlRepresentalive) (Signature of Owner/Representative) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that.--:~-=-_....,..-....,..-__ -=-...,.,. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislherltheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrumenl Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print), ____________ _ My appointment expires:, _________ _ " '" "" Q. '" ..... > o ~ SEC. 19, T 23N, R 5E, W.M. ~ C. 25, I_2~N, R45E, .M. ,-S LANGSTON RD ------- 5 133RD ST :€ STRAND~R BL VD ST : s :<: w u if ~; Vl . I ~I ~ [tl Perteet City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension ;6TH I ST ; Figure 4-1 Project Area . ----.~. DATE: October 18, 2004 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA04-123, SM, ECF PROJECT NAME: Strander Boulevard extension PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton, along with the· City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also Includes the widening of SW 27th Street from four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrlan/blcycle facilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. The purpose of the project is to Improve travel speed, reliability and access between Renton and Tukwila. As a result, the project would create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single roadway overpasss of both a Union Pacific Railroad track and two Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad tracks. The project area Is approximately 100 acres. Project construction Is planned In three phases, with the first phase between Oakesdale Avenue SW and the railroad overpass to begin In 2005 and last approximately six months. The SW 27th Street Improvements, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road are planned to begin in 2006 and last approximately one year and the railroad overpass portion of the project is planned to commence in 2007 with an estimated completion date of 2009. PROJECT LOCATION: SW 27th Street Between East & West Valley Highway OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 0, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to tie issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment periOd following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: October 11, 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPUCATION: October 18,2004 APPUCANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Robert Lochmlller; Tel: (425) 430-7303 e-mail: rlochmiller@ci.renton.wa.us PermltsiRevlew Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBUC HEARING: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Substantial Management Construction Permits, Right-of-Way Use Permit, State Agency permits as appropriate Geotechnical Engineering RepOrl,Traffic AnalYSis Report, Preliminary Drainage Report, Habitat Analysis and Flood Hazard Date Report PlannlnglBulldinglPublic Works Department, Developnient Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 N/A Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jason Jordan, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on November 1, 2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. Strander Boulevard / SouthwE Legal Description The City of Renton Right-of-Way know~ Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Tow~ easterly of Oakesdale Avenue Southwes 30, Township 23 North, Range 3 East, ~ Highway, all in King County, Washingtol () CONTACT PERSON: Jason E. Jordan, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALUNG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I Employment Area-vatley Commen:ial light Industrial Tukwila Urban Center Employment Area Industrial If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File NoJName: LUA04-123, SM, ECF I Strander Boulevard Extension NAME: ________________________________________________ __ MAILING ADDRESS: ________________________________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: ________ _ CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA04-123, SM, ECF City of Renton -Transportation Systems Section/City of Tukwila Strander BoulevardiSW 271h Street Extension DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton (lead agent), along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes the widening of SW 27th Street from four lanes to five lanes, inclUding landscaping strips and pedestrianlbicycle facilities, between Oqkeslfaie Avenue SW and East" Valley Road. .. . .# . LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: Within the Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street right-of-way starting at West Valley Highway (SR 181) arid ending at East Valley Highway. City of Renton Department of Planning!BuildinglPublic Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM November 29, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are govemed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's OffICe, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Lee ler;Fife Chief Renton Rre Department NOVEMBER 15, 2004 NOVEMBER 9, 2004 DATE I DATE '';"0 "\l Sl "-"\l Sl 1. ~ .0 Sl f) .., .0 f) "\l ~ N .... lSI .... "'f CSl CSl N I CSl 1'1 I ::> ~ STATE OF WASlUNGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Lily Nguyen, being fU"St duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising Representative oflhe King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Joumal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and noL in supplement [onn) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during Ihe below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was publ ished on Monday, 1 1115/04 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $102.88 at the rale of$ J 5.50 per inch for the firsl publication and N/A per inch for each ~bsequent insertion. '" Lily Nguyen Legal Advef!sing Representative, King Counly Journal Subscribed and sworn to me Ihis 15th day of November, 2004. A 0 :\\\\\\\II1IJJtIII/ _~-=_-,--..:::...-....:!,,--~ _____ , ___ -..','___ ~~," ~p..GJ;€ 1///// Tom A. Meagher ~ . ~"""" .... ? /-;. Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Redm~~~~h~J'Q""···'.' "% Ad Number: 847513 P.O. Number: ~ 0 i r :\,...~ .'. -z. S Cost of publishing this notice includes! an affidavit surcharge.::: I-: 3 +~ ........ ~ ~ ~ :: I ~ ~ /' "'V~.:(!J~ j' ::. '. P\}~\.. a/ .... ::: ~ _, ""t:>._ ~ ...... ~ .n'· 'I'.),,; ;::: -:-V-).· ••• 1.1,"'( ..... e.. ..... ~ ~ "" .......... \~J ~ '// . 1 (: 0 f 'l~ ~ " III} 0..; \", '<{ .'.'iltllll\\\\\\\\ NOTICE O}<' ENVIRONMENTAL DETEru.nNATJON EI'.TVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASmNGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Det.ermination of Non·Significance for the following project u1lder the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Exten&ion LUAO~·123. SM, ECF Location: Within the Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street right- of-way starting at West Valley Highway (SR HlI) and ending at East Valley Highway .. The City of Renton (lead agent). along with the City of Tukwila, are request· ing environmental (SEPA) review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction 01 a new segment or StTander BowevardlSW 27th Stree~ between WeBl. Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes Lhe widening of SW 27th Street from (our lllDes to live lanes. including landscaping strips and pedestrianlbicycle raciUtie&. ~tween Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. Appeals, of the environmenlal determination must be filed in writ- ing on or before 5:00 PM on November 29. 20M. Appeals must be med in writing togetber with the required $?6.00 application fee witb: Hearing Enm.iner. City of Renlon. 1055 South Grady Way. Renwn, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section ~·8·110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained From the ReDton City Clerk's Offiu, (425) 430~510. Publisbed in the King County Journal November 15. 2004. "847513 N CSl u> -l <I t-o t- . CITY )FRENTON· Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor. November 1 0, 2004 . Rob Lochmiller . Transportation City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way . Renton,WA98055 '. SUBJECT: Strander BoulevardiSW 2·jth Street Extension . LUA-04-123, SM, ECF .' . Dear Mr. Lochmill~r: . PlanningIBuilding/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P~E.,AdmiDistrator :. . . . . -. . '. . - . ' this letter is written on behalf ofthe Environmental' Review Comm,ittee(ERC) and is to inform you that . they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on November 9, 2004, decided that your project will be issued a Determination of Non-Significance. '. . ... ' . . . .. The City of Renton ERChas determined that it does not hav~ a probatllesignificant adverse impact on· .the environment. An Environmel")tallmpact Statement (EIS),isnotrequked underR(:;W43.21 C.030(4){C). This deCision was made by the,ERC under the authority of Sectioh 4-6-6, REmton MuniCipal Code" after revi~w of a completed environniental-checkli~t ahd,'ot!lerinformation, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public onreqLiesl' '., . . '. , . : ; Appeals 01 ,the environmental,;c:t'eterrtlinati(;~rriu~fb~'fiIedin'writirig on or before '5:00 PM November 29, 2004. Appeals must be filed in wfiting together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, CitY(~f Renton; t055 South Grady Way, Rents>n;WA 98055; .··.Appealsto the Examiner are governed by City of'RenfonMunicipal Code Se9tion4~fH10. Additioni;ll information . regarding the appeal process'. maybe .obtained from. the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)'430~6510: . If the Environmental DetEmninationis appealed,' a pUblic hearing date win be set· and aU parties notified . . If you have any questions or desire clarification bfthe above, please call me at (425) 430~7219 .. For the Ehvironm'ental Review Committee, cjfa---- Jason E. Jordan Senior Planner cc: The Boeing Company / Owner Mike Kirklarid; Gust M. Erikson / Parties of Record ------------I~O-5-5~So-u-th-G-r-a-dy-W--ay--~R-e-nt-o-n,-W:-a-S-hi-ng-t-on--98-0-5-5--------~--~· * This paper oontains 50% 'r~~ material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE , ,Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor November J 0, 2004 Washington State , 'DepartmentofEcology Environmental Review Section PQ Box 47703 Olympia, WA98504-7703 CITY'.F":RENTON PfunningIBuildinglPublic Works Department , Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Admim,strator .' . ,Subject: , Environmenta,l Determinations "TranSiTlittedherewithisa copy of the EnvironiTIentalDeterinination for the following projectreviewed by ,theEnvironmentalReview Committee (ERC) on November9,2004: ' , DETERMINATION OFNON~SIGNIFICANCE "Strande( BoulevardlSW 27'h Stre,et Extension, PROJECT NAME: , PROJECT NUM~ER: LOCATION: LUA-04-123 SMECF, ' ' , Within th~ S~rander BOUleva~d/SVIJ 27'hStreet right~of-way starting at WE3st Valley Highway(SR HH) and,endirig,at East Valley Highway. DESCRIPTION: The City of Henton (Ieadagerit}; alol)g with the City of Tukw'ila, are requesting environmental (SI;:pA) review and Shoreline Substantial , Development peq'Tlitapprovalfor thecohstruction ota new segment of Stilmder Bbulev~rW.SW-27tti Street betwt3en West Valley Highway (SR 181) ,'and" Oake,sdale ,Avenue SW. ' ,The project alsoiricliJdes the wideriing:bfSW'27thStreet from four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and:pedestrian/bicyclefaGilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East ValLey Road. ' , Appeals of th~~nvironmental det(!rmination must be f"edin writing on "or before, 5:00 PM November 29,2004. Appealsniustbefiled in writing together With the'required$75.00application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton; 1 055 South Grady:Way, Henton,WA 98055, Appeals to the- Examiner are governed by, City of Rehton Municipal Code Section 4~8-110;8. Additiorial iriformation" , regarding the appeal process may be ()btain~d from the Renton :CIty Clerk's Office" (425) 430~651 O. . '.' '. c· . _. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430~7219 .. For the EnvironmentaJ Review Committee, qf~ ~ason E. Jordan ,Senior Planner " , cc: KingCountyWastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Dii'wamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, MlJckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation -E-n-c-lo-su-re----lO-s-s-s-o-ut-h-G-r-ad-y-W-a-y---R-e-nt-o-n,-W-a~s-hl-·n-gt-o-n-9-8-0S-S-------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): PROJECT NAME: APPLICANT: LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LUA-04-123, SM, ECF Strander Boulevard/SW 2ih Street Extension City of Renton; Transportation Systems Section/City of Tukwila Within the Strander Boulevard/SW 2ih Street right-of-way starting at West Valley Highway (SR 181) and ending at East Valley Highway. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton (lead agent), along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander Boulevard/SW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes the widening of SW 27th Street from four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. All debris and demolition materials must be removed from the site and properly disposed of in an approved off-site location. If underground tanks or hazardous materials are encountered during site preparation, the applicant must contact the City to discuss appropriate soils testing and disposal measures (e.g., Fire Department tank removal permits and verification soils are not contaminated). 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1 st and March 31 st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire Prevention 1. The project must maintain emergency access at all times. Parks 1. Tree spacing should be 40 feet to 60 feet on-center to promote proper tree growth. 2. Trees need to be relocated away from street light standards to allow light to road areas. 3. Trees may not grow over detention vaults due to soil depth. 4. Center median strips should include trees and groundcover, as approved by the Parks Department. 5. Maintenance funding of landscaping may be required. 6. The Interurban Trail is a regional trail and the trail connection needs to cross under the roadway overpass structure in order to avoid bicycle/vehicular conflicts. 7. The trail along Strander Boulevard/SW 2ih Street needs to connect to the Interurban Trail and the Springbrook Trail. Plan Review -Water 1. The City of Renton Water Utility will evaluate the need to design and construct a watermain extension within Stander Boulevard in coordination with this projl;lct. Plan Review -Sewer 1. The City of Renton Wastewater Utility will coordinate with the City of Renton Transportation to ensure that appropriate City of Renton sewer facilities are provide within the new roadway. Plan Review -Drainage 1. The project must comply with the City of Renton stormwater/flood hazard/wetland ordinances. Stormwater conveyance systems for roadways must have sufficient capacity to convey future land use conditions from tributary properties. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA04-123, SM, ECF City of Renton -Transportation Systems Section/City of Tukwila Strander Boulevard/SW 2ih Street Extension DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton (lead agent), along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander Boulevard/SW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes the widening of SW 27th Street from four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: Within the Strander Boulevard/SW 27th Street right-of-way starting at West Valley Highway (SR 181) and ending at East Valley Highway. City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will 'not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM November 29, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Renton Fire Department NOVEMBER 15, 2004 NOVEMBER 9, 2004 DATE I J) I '1\ O~ DATE .·CITY • RENTON K.etJ'UC:eJ"-W l~eel,er, Mayor Planning/BuilQinglPublic WorksDepartmerit Gr~g ZiinmermanP.Ei., Administrator . December 1, 2004 Rob Lochilliller City·of Renton -Transportation 1055 SGradyWay Renton, WA 98055 SUi3JECT: Strander BoulevardlSW27'tl Stre~t Extension ..•. " LUA04~ 123,SM, ECF . .' ·DearMr. Lochmiller: This letter is toinfotm you that the appeal.perlod6~$endedforthe Environmentql Review Committee's (ERC) DeterminationofN9h'"Signjfi~ance for the above-referenced project.' . . , ..-. ':' -. -", . '";" .... '. .:~'. ".._ ..... i . . ~" , . .,~.,' :.'.:: .. ' . '. No appeals were filed on the. ERC determination. This decision is final andapplicatioo~for thea.pprop·riat'eJyreqlJired'permits fnayproceed. The Shoreline 'Permit is being senttotheDepartm~ntQfEGology an9issubject to a 21;'day appeal period. If. you have any questions; please feel free to: contacfrn8 at (425) 430-7382 ... . . '. . . ~ .' For the Environmental Review Committee, Susan A. Fiala'· . Senior Planner cc: The Boeing Company / Owner .... .. ' MikeKirkland, Gust M. Erikson / Parties of Record ------1-0-,-5-5 -So-u-th-G-r-a-dy-W:-a-y---R-e--nt-o"-n,-W--a--sh-i-ng-t-on-98-0-5-5------~ ® This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING} AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Lily Nguyen, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact fonn annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement fonn) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on Monday, 11115/04 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $102.88 at the rate of $15.50 per inch for the first publication and NI A per inch for each subse£luent insertion. . \\\\11 Il ! 11/1111 Tom A. Me~gher ... . .",~\\\, 'r-)o,GH;::' 1111/ Notary Public for the State of Wash mgt on, Resldmg m Redmond, W~shmg~on:: .. ~;Y /~ Ad Number: 847513 P.O. Number: } "..":'>:::,00 ""r"re~"" % ->-..... ~ '{.., ::,,:' i)' :' _~. '\ 1"-\\ ... z S -' ." \" '0-:::!'-;o~"J ./ : = ._, • II ,-0 (" . • L _ _ . ./ ,'" .r-_ :;. \. p\.\~\';;} 52 2 ~ \ q,f;)/ ~ 2: ~. u·>.··.. MA't ~/ ~ $: // ';.q ........... ~~ :':' '/// l"c Of ~ ,,"Y-III \\\ /1/11'"11111\\\\ Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Extension LUA04-123, SM, ECF Location: Within the Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street right- of-way starting at West Valley Highway (SR 181) and ending at East Valley Highway .. The City of Renton (lead agent), along with the City of Tukwila, are request- ing environmental (SEPAl review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes the widening of SW 27th Street from four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrianlbicycle facilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. Appeals' of the environmental determination must be filed in writ- ing on or before 5:00 PM on November 29, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Published in the King County Journal November 15,2004. #847513 .. , a t, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Extenalon PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-123, SM, ECF LOCATION: Within the Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street rlght..af·way starling at West Valley Highway (SR 181) and endIng at East Valley Highway. DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton (lead agent), along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for th~ construction of a neW segment of Strander Boulevsrd!SW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also Includes the widening of SW 27th Street from four lanes to five lanes, Including landscaping strips and pedeatrlan/blcycle tacllltles, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be flied In writing .on or beforo 5:00 PM on November 29, 2004. Appeals must be flied In writing together with the requIred $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. AddlUonallnformation regarding the appeal process may be obtaIned from the Renton City Clerk'. Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING DATE WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please h,clud~ the projeCt NUMBER when calling for proper file Identification. ~1 CERTIFICATION I, paJ-t'" i ~f:.. eaJ41 (\ , hereby certify that.3 copies of the above document were posted by me ins conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on _..l.I..L1 ~-'...1I....:S~-=-O!o..L4+, ____ --t----:----7lh7;---+-~. Signed: ekJ; 1ifi- ATTEST: Subscribed an#w:n before me, a Notary Public, in and for, e State o~ Washington residing in :tt!.~~~l:)t 1rJt1-, on the / f, day of C Z-e>o . CHARLES F. KOKKO NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 19, 2006 1'~~",'t~~~P."'Ni''''''',,",,''Il'''''' ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN E~VIRONMENTAL ACTION· PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: , Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Extension LUA04-123, SM, ECF Within the Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street right-of-way starting at West Valley Highway (SR 181) and ending at East Valley Highway. DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton (lead agent), along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for th~ construction of a new segment of Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes the widening of SW 27th Street from four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrlanlblcycle facilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be flied in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 29, 2004. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING DATE WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. Commerct.lUghtln6ultrlal ~ 1\IkwDII urtt.n canter ErnpIOyrnentAtu Induatrbd RwidenliallowDen'llty ~{~; RHIdentIaI SIng_ Famly \. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION ,. -' .' Agencies See Attached "'~""",,\, (Signature of Sender): / ~ .: ~ ............ :ti '" ~ AA _ .... /l. _ _ .-........... ~\LYtv "'III , ,: "'O""t-AISS1o"" ~ ", i :.' (j No}': '1-~ ... q. ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) : c:n: -"1-? ~~ rn ~ ) SS ~ ~: ~/ ~...... :I-5i: " ~ ., ~ . vS'" rn • "TJ .. COUNTY OF KING ) ~, ~ \~ I.. Ie 0/ i lO'<?n .' ~ "I ~ "'~-07 ..... .: I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker 1111;V48 .. ·, .. ···~o:._ ... --- signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary Abt:J&~~~ses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Illl..t11 0 l./ ---"------"-'----'--of Washington Notary (Print): ____ ~~f.::_:P..R,.,.,..lL,.".'f""'Nr:_.KAT.:",ft1l7':iflf'~,Hi'i:.E'::FF~ __ ------------ My appointment expires: I,!y At'rUII'II IVIi:Ni mliiES 6-29-07 Strander Boulevard/SW 2ih Street Extension LUA04-123, SM, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing . ( Dept. of Ecology * Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * SeaWe District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Plann~r Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. clo Department of Ecology * 3190 160th Ave SE Attn. SEPA Reviewer Bellevue, WA 98008 39015 -172"d Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program 4717 W Marginal Way SW * Seattle, WA 98106-1514 Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015 172"d Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation * Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72"d Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMTs, and the notice of application. * '. Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork . . ---~ template -affidavit of service by mailing '" EI CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 10th day of November, 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: The Boeing Company Rob Lochmiller -City of Renton, Transportation Mike Kirkland Gust M. Erikson (Signature of Sender»~ ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) SS ) Owner Applicant/Contact Party of Record Party of Record ,.. ............ ""'", _~ ..... ~(N K..qA~"11 .:--~ ....... '''70 II f ~\. .. ;t.\ss/oNi··.~"" : ... o~ +-o .• ~~ ,. .() ~OT4t9 ~""1"\~ :: ~ m~ ~ ,. : e.'''IIql" en: ~ ~(/). I:> ." ~ .....\ ". veLIe :' ; I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker ",,"Yi····~-<9_ 7 ./"o~ f signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and vOlunta/~I~):-fw·t~e\~oo .. ~-and purposes mentioned in the instrument. II\\,\\~~~ ...... ~, .... Dated :_...;..JII....L/_L-..;;;........."lL...!/...;;,.o--l.tf,,-- Notary (Print): ______ -"'~,n=,I;\""'Pi"_l\'_"(~:..;:, !(..,c~""~_n",.,I'>!__"i!::E~Ff~----------- My appointment expires: i~f{'i /:P?OiNTMENf EXPIKES e-29-07 Strander Boulevard/SW 2ih Street Extension LUA04-123, SM, ECF STAFF REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERe MEETING DA TE Project Name: Applicant: File Number: Project Manager: Project Description: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area gsf: Site Area: RECOMMENDA TlON: Project Location Map November 9,2004 Strander Boulevard/SW 27'h Street Extension City of Renton; Transportations Systems Section/City of Tukwila LUA-04-123, ECF Jason Jordan The City of Renton (lead agent), along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander Boulevard/SW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes the widening of SW 27th Street from four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. (See additional project description on the following page.) Within the Strander Boulevard/SW 27'h Street right-of-way starting at West ~alley Highway (SR 181) and ending at East Valley Highway. NI A Proposed New Bldg. Area: NI A 100 acres Total Building Area gsf: N/A Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). ercrpt.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department STRANDER BOULEVARDISW 27TH S). ~T EXTENSION Envif 'ental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-123, ECF, SMP REPORT OF NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Page 2 of2 A. DESCRIPTION (continued from page 1) The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability and access between Renton and Tukwila. As a result, the project would create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single roadway overpasss of both a Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) track and two Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad (BNSF) tracks. Specifically, the five elements of the project are as follows: • Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) track. The UPRR track, from just north of SW 43fd Street (SE 180th Street in Tukwila) to approximately 1-405, would be shifted to the east to parallel the existing two Burlington Northern Sante Fe (BNSF) railroad tracts. A new track would be constructed within a new 100-foot right-of-way adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way and then joined with the existing UPRR tract at both ends of the project area. • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW. A new roadway would be constructed from the intersection of West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Strander Boulevard to the intersection of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 27'h Street. The roaway alignment would be an extension of Strander Boulevard and curve to match up with the existing alignment of SW 27'h Street. The railroad crossing would be accomplished via a single roadway overpass of all three railroad tracks. The roadway overpass would provide a vertical clearance of 17 feet for vehicles and 23.5 feet for the railroads and include four travel lanes together with a sidewalk on one side and a multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path on the other side. • Improvements to SW 27'h Street. The existing section of roadway between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road would be widened from the current four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrian/bicycle facilities on each side in most locations, for a total of 90 feet from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk. • Modifications to the Interurban Trail. Because the new roadway segment would cut across the Interurban Trail, an at-grade crossing would be constructed at West Valley Highway, or the trail would be modified to cross under the roadway overpass structure. • Modifications to South Longacres Way. The existing railroad bridges over South Longacres Way are narrow and have lower vertical clearances than are now required for public roads. The relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad track would require the construction of a new bridge, which would provide the same vertical clearance. No improvements would be made to the BNSF bridge. The project area is approximately 100 acres. Project construction is planned in three phases, with the first phase between Oakesdale Avenue SW and the railroad overpass to begin in 2005 and last approximately six months. The SW 27th Street improvements, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road are planned to begin in 2006 and last approximately one year and the railroad overpass portion of the project is planned to commence in 2007 with an estimated completion date of 2009. RECOMMENDA TION ercrpt.doc Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINA TION OF XX NON-SIGNIFICANCE XX Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. DETERMINA TION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGA TED. Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. City of Renton PIBIPW Department STRANDER BOULEVARDISW 27TH Si ,ET EXTENSION En vii 'ental Review Committee Staff Report . LUA-04-123, ECF, SMP REPORT OF NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Page 3 of 3 C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth Impacts: The project area is relatively flat, with the steepest slope being less than 10%. The applicant submitted a draft Geotechnical report dated May of 2004 prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. The report indicates that in general, the subsurface soils encountered along the proposed alignment consist of a varying thickness of variable fill, including estuarine/overbank deposits and alluvial deposits. The fill material is underlain by about 20 to 30 feet of soft and loose, interbedded estuarine/overbank deposits, fine-grained alluvium. A somewhat continuous peat deposit was encountered near the base of the proposed under/overpass excavation within the estuarine/overbank deposits. This deposit becomes more significant east of Oakesdale Avenue SW. The estuarine/overbank and fine-grained alluvial deposit is underlain west of the BNSF right-of-way by about a 45-foot think layer of medium dense to dense, fine to medium-grained alluvial deposit, which in turn is underlain by a 40-foot thick layer of soft to medium stiff, estuarine/overbank deposit. Proceeding east of the BNSF right-of-way, the upper estuarine/overbank and fine-grained alluvial deposit is underlain by about an 85-foot thick layer of medium dense to dense, fine to medium-grained alluvial deposit. Other findings included a coarse-grained alluvial deposit at about 105 feet below ground surface and a glacially overridden deposit at about 170 feet below the ground surface. The report also notes the presence of groundwater readings during the later summer monitoring period to have been encountered at 11 to 20 feet below existing ground surface. However, during the wetter winter months, the report notes that groundwater was encountered at 5 to 11 feet below ground surface. Groundwater levels are likely to rise during the wet season when precipitation and river stage levels increase. In addition, the data suggests that there is a strong correlation between tidal fluctuations in the Green River and groundwater levels in some of the subject test pits. The geotechnicaireport concludes that all construction-related direct impacts associated with the new roadway could be mitigated by appropriate design and construction procedures listed in the geotechnical analysis. As those design and construction procedures have been incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed roadway, staff does not recommend any additional mitigation measures. The excavated soil, which can be utilized for fill would be stockpiled on site or at a nearby location. Once the improvements have been completed, the excavated soil would be utilized for backfill. If additional fill is necessary, construction grade soil would be imported to the project site from an approved off-site source. The applicant has indicated that any additional fill material would consist of clean, fine to medium sand for bedding and backfill around the transportation improvements. The applicant has also indicated that the contractor would be responsible for watering down the construction area in order to minimize dust impacts. As a result of the roadway upgrade, all trees, shrubs and grasses in the right-of-way within the project area would be removed. However, the applicant has indicated that the right-of-way will be planted with new landscaping along its border with the completion of the roadway improvement project. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 2. Water Stormwater Impacts: With the SEPA application package, the applicant submitted a Hydraulics/Drainage Report prepared by Perteet Engineering, Inc, dated July 6, 2004. According to the report, Springbrook Creek crosses the road at a point midway between Oakesdale Avenue and Lind Avenue. The majority of the onsite areas discharge to this creek via several storm pipes and ditches. As a result, the project area is interspersed with several drainage ponds, open channels, ditches and storm pipe facilities. The project is located within the Black River Basin Study area and the Valley Subbasin, which is part of the East Side Green River Watershed. This area is identified as the . Duwamish/Green Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA #9). According to the drainage analysis, four upland areas will discharge onto the project site from adjacent properties. As a result, the stormwater system has been deSigned to route the additional stormwater through the proposed stormwater facilities, which have been designed to accommodate the additional flows. The applicant has proposed a detention and water quality facility, which would be located west of the BNSF railroad on the south side of the proposed roadway extensions. This facility would collect runoff from the portion of the project between the West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue. The stormwater facility would be constructed with the first phase of the roadway ercrpt.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department STRANDER BOULEVARDISW 27TH Si ET EXTENSION Envit 'ental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-123, ECF, SMP REPORT OF NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Page 4 014 project, unless an alternative design is required. The outlet of this facility would drain east for approximately 150 feet, through a storm sewer pipe under the BNSF railroad embankment, to property owned by the City of Renton. From this point, the stormwater would drain south for approximately 1,000 feet before discharging into a wetland banking facility that would be constructed by the City of Renton. The report notes that storm drainage from the portions of SW 2ih Street east of Oakesdale Avenue discharge east to Springbrook Creek, while the portions west of Lind Avenue discharge west to Springbrook Creek. Each system discharges through a 24-inch storm pipe on their respective side of a concrete box culvert over the creek. Both outfalls discharge to the creek on the north side of 2ih Street at elevations below both the 25 and 100 year floodplains. From these outfalls, Springbrook Creek flows north to the Black River Pump Station, more than 2,000 feet downstream, where it is pumped to the Green River. The detention facilities have been designed to mitigate increased flows from runoff and the corresponding potential for stream erosion. The main element of detention design is the development of runoff hydrographs and sizing the storage volume. The detention sizing methodology uses a continuous simulation modeling of multiple storm events occurring in sequence. The detention facilities would be designed to match the developed discharge durations of pre- developed durations for the range of pre-developed discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50- year peak flow. While the final road configuration has not been fully designed, the detention facility calculations are preliminary in nature. A detention pond is proposed to provide the required detention volume for this basin. The pond is planned to be located on the south side of Strander Boulevard, west of Oakesdale Avenue. The pond is proposed to be constructed at or below existing grade. Outflow from the pond will be pumped to a system running east under the BNSF railroad tracks, then south to a proposed wetland banking site. In addition to the pond, the project may require the use of underground stormwater vaults located within the existing right-of-way under the roadway. The vaults would pass the stormwater through a sand filter(s) before discharging to Springbrook Creek via existing outfalls. As a result of the vault construction, minor dewatering would occur during project construction and no waste materials would be discharged. Based upon the storm drainage analysis, staff does not anticipate the proposed roadway upgrade to change any existing runoff patterns in this area of the City. The project has been designed to include water quality treatment and flow control (detention) for the new impervious area, which would adequately mitigate any increase in stormwater runoff generated from this proposal. Furthermore, City adopted sedimentation and erosion control measures would be employed during project construction. These measures would mitigate any potential stormwater impacts that may occur as a result of the construction associated with this project (i.e. moving, storage and use of soil materials) and as a result, staff does not recommend any additional mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A Flood Plain Impacts: The applicant submitted a Floodplains Technical report, prepared by Perteet Engineering, Inc. dated May 2004 with the SEPA application. The report concludes that portions of the roadway would be located in the flood plain. Specifically, the report notes that high water surface elevation in Springbrook Creek is a major cause of flooding in its tributary systems. This causes water to back-up in the tributaries and reduces their storage capacities and contributes to the ponding of excess water. Future increases in the creek's surface water elevation will increase the frequency of flooding events. The high surface elevations are due to a combination of restrictions at several roadway crossings plus inadequate stream channel capacity. As a result of the outstanding flood plain impacts in this area of the City, the Strander Boulevard/2ih Street extension project has been designed to accommodate these flood plain issues. Specifically, the project would place construction fill below the 1 OO-year flood plain elevation in the vicinity of Springbrook Creek. This fill would total approximately 107 cubic yards for current conditions and 375 cubic yards for future conditions. Therefore, the flood plain analysis recommends identifying upstream locations suitable for the creation of approximately 375 cubic yards of compensatory storage volume. As this recommendation has been incorporated into the project design, staff does not recommend any additional mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A Wetland Impacts: The applicant submitted a wetland report and analysis prepared by David Evans and Associates, inc. dated May 2004. The report notes that wetlands were delineated between the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and the Interurban Trail and in all areas between the Union Pacific Railroad and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. ercrpt.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department STRANDER BOULEVARDISW 27TH Si. .ET EXTENSION En vir 'ental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-123, ECF, SMP REPORT OF NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Page So'S In addition, wetlands were delineated along the north and south boundary of SW 2ih Street, between Lind Avenue and Oakesdale Avenue. The wetlands range from Category 1 (Renton) I Type I (Tukwila) to CategoryfType III, which require 100 to 25 foot buffers respectively. As a result of the project, approximately 2.02 acres of wetland impacts and 3.9 acres of buffer impacts would occur. The majority of impacts would result from the construction of the roadway overpass, which is planned to connect Strander Boulevard to SW 2ih Street. As a result, the report concludes that approximately 2.1 acres of wetland impacts, along with 2.3 acres of wetland buffer impacts would occur within the City of Tukwila's jurisdiction. The remaining wetland impacts would occur within the City of Renton as a result of the proposed roadway widening between Oakesdale Avenue and East Valley Road and do to the new roadway construction between. Oakesdale Avenue and the new overpass. Specifically, the report notes that approximately 0.014 (690 square feet) of wetland impacts and 1.80 acres of buffer impacts would occur within the City of Renton. The report concludes that the project will require wetland enhancement/replacement and wetland buffer creation in the amount of up to 3.8 acres of new wetland and/or buffer or a variance from the City's Critical Areas Ordinance as a result of this project. The project narrative notes that the first phase of construction is the segment comprised of SW 2ih Street from Oakesdale Avenue NE to the proposed railroad overpass. The report notes that in this segment no wetlands and/or their associated buffers would be impacted as a result of this portion of the project. Therefore, the applicant is requesting to defer the wetland creation/enhancement or variance application until the second phase of the project. This provides needed time to determine if the creation of a wetland bank is feasible and/or if a variance from the City of Renton is necessary. As the report provides the appropriate wetland creationirestoration ratios, while also noting that a variance may be necessary, staff does not recommend any additional mitigation measures at this time. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 3. Habitat Impacts: The applicant submitted a Habitat/Biological Assessment prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated August 2004 with the SEPA application. The report notes that 12 listed species are identified on the United States Fish and Wildlife Survey for this region of country. Of those 12 species, nine species (Marbled Murrelet, Northern Spotted Owl, Gray Wolf, Grizzly Bear, Canada Lynx, Marsh Sandwort, Golden Paintbrush, Pacific Fisher, and Yellow-billed cuckoo) are not located within or near the project site. However, Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout and Bald Eagles were further evaluated within the habitat assessment. Puget Sound Chinook: Within the Green/Duwamish River basin Chinook salmon is considered a composite stock with contributions from both hatchery and natural production. The naturally reproducing component of this stock contains a mixture of both wild and hatchery Chinook. Chinook salmon smolts start entering the estuary by March 24 and are present through late August, with a peak in mid May. An influx of hatchery fish occurs in late April and early May. As a result, Chinook salmon have been documented in Springbrook Creek and observed attempting to spawn near the SW 2ih Street crossing over Springbrook Creek during the fall of 1997. No other activity has been documented since that time. The habitat report concludes that most, if not all, Chinook salmon entering Springbrook Creek are fish migrating to the Green River Hatchery that strayed into the Springbrook Creek basin. The report also notes that the habitat in Springbrook Creek is not well suited for Chinook salmon and that few or no Chinook salmon rear in this system. CoastaVPuget Sound Bull Trout: The report notes that Bull Trout were first documented in the Green/Duwamish River basin during the mid 1800's in the lower reached and upstream of the basin. However, the occurrence of a reproducing population of bull trout in the Green/Duwamish River basin has not been scientifically documented and the current status of the bull trout in this basin is uncertain (WDFW, 1998). Recent surveys conducted upstream of the Howard Hanson Dam have not captured any bull trout. Assuming a bull trout population was historically established in the Green/Ouwamish River basin, it appears to have been extirpated as a result of dam and water diversion construction projects during the early 1900's. No evidence of a reproducing population of bull trout exists, but bull trout are occasionally captured in the Green/Ouwamish basin. Captures tend to be of individual bull trout and have occurred in the estuary and far upstream. According to the habitat assessment, the most recent bull trout captured in the basin was on May 24, 1994, during a beach-seining event near River Mile 5.0. Although it is unlikely that bull trout reproduce in this basin, ercrpt.doc City of Renton PI81PW Department STRANDER BOULEVARDISW 27TH Si ET EXTENSION Envir 1ental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-123, ECF, SMP REPORT OF NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Page 6of6 opportunistic anadromous char occasionally utilize the river during periods of juvenile salmonid outmigration when prey is abundant. The WDFW have not documented bull trout in Springbrook Creek during their salmon spawning surveys, nor have any bull trout been captured during electrofishing or trapping efforts near the project site. As a result, the report concludes that habitat conditions in Springbrook Creek are considered unfavorable for bull trot primarily due to elevated stream temperature, high percentage of fines in available gravels and overall low elevation of its headwaters. Bald Eagles: The report notes that Bald Eagles are listed as a threatened species in Washington State under the Endangered Species Act. The WSFWS have reported that wintering bald eagles may occur in the project vicinity. The WDFW data obtained for this project did not include any known bald eagle nesting territories, wintering roosts or other documented bald eagle use in the vicinity of the project site. However, bald eagles are known to occasionally fly over the project area and perch or larger trees, where they could potentially feed on carrion, salmon ids , waterfowl and eastern cottontail rabbits. Additionally, bald eagles have been known to prey on great blue herons, of which a heron rockery is located north of the project site. The habitat report concludes that with the incorporation of Best Management Practices, which have been listed in the analysis and because the existing conditions are such that no net loss of endangered species habitat will result from this proposal, no additional project mitigation measures (not already incorporated into the report) are necessary. Further, the new roadway and its associated utilities and project construction mitigation has been appropriately designed (including the stormwater and drainage system) so that the surrounding habitat will not be impacted by the proposed development. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 4. Noise Impacts: Short-term construction noise impacts are expected from this proposal. These noises would largely be generated from heavy equipment (excavating machinery, large construction trucks, etc.). Staff does not expect the short-term construction noise to impact the neighboring properties, as a large portion of the roadway is already being utilized as a four-lane, easVwest minor arterial. In addition, the majority of the subject site is predominately located within an industrial/commercial area of the City. Nevertheless, the project would be subject to the City adopted Washington State noise standards, which limit the amount of noise that can be generated from one site and received on a neighboring site. In order to exceed the maximum permitted noise levels, the applicant would be required to seek a variance from the City's Board of Public Works. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 5. Transportation Impacts: A Traffic Analysis Report dated May of 2004, prepared by Perteet Engineering, Inc. was submitted with the proposal. The traffic analysis concludes that the above-mentioned roadway widening enhancements along with the overpass connection to Strander Boulevard are necessary, as traffic flow in this section of the City has or will have longer delays and could be modified to be more efficient. Specifically, the report notes states, "not having additional east-west access within the Southcenter commercial core would have an impact on freight mobility and the accessibility of passenger vehicles and trucks to support the continuing growth in the community as well as the area between West Valley Highway and SR 167." As a result, Perteet Engineering, Inc. recommends that the roadway widening and new connection to Stander Boulevard be completed as planned. The Traffic Impact Analysis concludes that not completing the Strander Boulevard/SW 2ih Street connection would impact the surrounding area more so than completing the roadway. However, the analysis does indicate that there would be some maintenance and operational impacts to the BNSF railroad, which could be adequately mitigated by the construction timing and design of the project. As a result, the applicant has altered the construction timing and project design to incorporate the recommended transportation mitigation necessary for the completion of the roadway. Therefore, staff is not recommending any additional mitigation measures. Minor impacts to local traffic patterns may occur as a result of the project construction. One or more of the lanes within the project site would be closed during project construction. Regardless of the lane closures, the traffic control plan stipulates that traffic would be allowed to flow in both directions at all times. The applicant has indicated that several "Road Work" signs would be placed at strategic locations in order to inform the traveling public of the ongoing ercrpt.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department STRANDER BOULEVARDISW 27TH S1. .ET EXTENSION Envit 'ental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-123, ECF, SMP REPORT OF NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Page 70( 7 construction. The contractor assigned to the project would be required to provide businesses along the project construction route a minimum of one egress/ingress drive at all times. As a result of the project, asphalt roadway patching and/or complete removal and replacement of portions of the existing roadways would be required. These impacts would be mitigated by the applicant's construction mitigation plan. The plan indicates that work hours would be limited to the hours between 7 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, unless an alternative work schedule is determined necessary. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 6. Historical and Cultural Resources Impacts: There are no known historical or cultural resources within the project site area. However, cultural resource sites have previously been encountered within the City of Renton. In this case, the project site is not located near any known historical or cultural resources. Nevertheless, the applicant has indicated that in the event any potential cultural resources are found during project construction, the contractor will be instructed to stop work and contact the appropriate local and state officials and follow established protocol for culturally significant resource finds. As this is incorporated into the project construction standards, staff does not recommend any additional mitigation. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A D. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. -L Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM November 29, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. AdviSOry Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. All debris and demolition materials must be removed from the site and properly disposed of in an approved off-site location. If underground tanks or hazardous materials are encountered during site preparation, the applicant must contact the City to discuss appropriate soils testing and disposal measures (e.g., Fire Department tank removal permits and verification soils are not contaminated). 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's a roval of this work is re uired rior to final ins ection and a roval of the ermit. ercrpt.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department STRANDER BOULEVAROISW 27TH S1. £T EXTENSION En vir ental Review Committee Staff Report REPORT OF NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Fire Prevention 1. The project must maintain emergency access at all times. Parks 1. Tree spacing should be 40 feet to 60 feet on-center to promote proper tree growth. 2. Trees need to be relocated away from street light standards to allow light to road areas. 3. Trees may not grow over detention vaults due to soil depth. LUA-04-123, ECF, SMP PageBofB 4. Center median strips should include trees and groundcover, as approved by the Parks Department. 5. Maintenance funding of landscaping may be required. 6. The Interurban Trail is a regional trail and the trail connection needs to cross under the roadway overpass structure in order to avoid bicycle/vehicular conflicts. 7. The trail along Strander BoulevardlSW 27'h Street needs to connect to the Interurban Trail and the Springbrook Trail. Plan Review -Water 1. The City of Renton Water Utility will evaluate the need to design and construct a watermain extension within Stander Boulevard in coordination with this project. Plan Review -Sewer 1. The City of Renton Wastewater Utility will coordinate with the City of Renton Transportation to ensure that appropriate City of Renton sewer facilities are provide within the new roadway. Plan Review -Drainage 1. The project must comply with the City of Renton stormwater/flood hazard/wetland ordinances. Stormwater conveyance systems for roadways must have sufficient capacity to convey future land use conditions from tributary properties. ercrpt.doc Zoning Map Figure 4-2 ~ Perteet Map created on 04/15/2004 N A ° I +-+ Proposed UPRR Track -Proposed Extension - -City Boundary Tukwila Zoning Legend Renton Zoning III RC Resource Conservation R-1 Residential _ LDR Low Density Residential R-8 Residentiai _ RCM Regional Commercial Mixed Use _ CA Commercial Arlerjal _ TUC Tukwila Urban Center _ CO Commercial Office _ ClLI Commercial Light Industrial IL Industrial _ Light 500 1,000 I Feet 2,000 I _ 1M Industrial -Medium _ IH Induslrial-Heavy ~ .. Perteet Engineering. Inc. ~ Civil Trauportltioa ... d SIII"Y'CYiz1a City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Surface Water Quantity and Quality Technical Discipline Report FIGURE 4-5 EXISTING DRAINAGE BASINS S 1116111 51 ~ ~ City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension AHEAD OF TrlE O;;WE Perteet Employment Area-Valley Commercial Light Industrial Tukwila Urban Center Employment Area Industrial City Limits Residential Low Density • Residential Single Family Figure 9-1 Neighborhood Detail Map ~ ~ ~ ~ p::: a; ~ ~ lI'I ~ ~ G2 .. 24 T23N R4E E V2 CD 1H '" 5 '"'7 1# ("/-~',_~..2 __ ~ ----'-------.-.. - SW 27th St SW 27 CD RC ,.. ...... __ ........... _-••...... , ..•..•........... -•........... __ ........... __ ........ _ .. RC 1L 1M ~ (/) 11 SW i04th St .-_ .....•..•.• _._ .....••. _ .. _-_. . .. -.-.~." .... -----.-...... __ ....... _--.•••.... _- !i Q) :::-<t! Q) ,......., 1L Cd '1::J C/) Q) ~ Cd 0 RC 1L 1M 12 .. 36 T23N R4E E V2 y tw!n 400 1:4800 ----Renton dtV UmltII ZONING H2 PIBIPW Tl!CIINlCAL SBllVICBS WOof/OJ 25 T23N R4E E 1/2 4325 RESIDENTIAL ~ Resource Conservation 8 Residential 1 dulac § Residential 5 dulac ~ Residential 8 dulac ~ Residential Manufactured Homes I R-I0 ] Residential 10 dulac I R-141 Residential 14 dulac I RH-I I Residential Multi-Family Jolilt MIXED USE CENTER o Center Neighborhood- ~ Center Suburban- ~C-Nll Urban Center -North ~ Urban Center -North 2 ~ Center Downtown- ~ Center Office Residential COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL W Industrial -Heavy o Industrial -Medium o Industrial -Light (P) Publicly owned ___ Renton City UmitB ___ Adjacent City Um.its _ Book Pages Boundary IRH-NI Residential Multi-Family Neighborhood Center IRM-C I Residential Multi-Family Suburban Center 8 Commercial Arterial- ~ Commercial Office- ~ Convenience Commercial KROLL PAGE PAGE# INDEX I RH-T I Residential Multi-Family Traditional I RM-U I Residential Multi-Family Urban Center4' • May include Overlay Districts. See Appendi:l: maps. For additional regulations in Overlay Districts. please see RMC 4-3. SECTfTO'IIWRANGE _ ..... -•...... _-.. -..... -.-.-.-.... ~--... - CD --_ ........... __ ............. _ ..... -..... . '----------l~ RC Minkler Blvd '-------. U .. 36 T23N R4E W 112 e~ ZONING ----Renton dity Uml~ +;R + PIBIPW 'l'BCIINlCAL SEllVlClS If WOW03 H2 25 T23N R4E W 1/2 4325 a:lNING MAP BO~ o Resource Conservation ~ Residential 1 dulac ~ Residential 5 dulac ~ Residential 8 dulac ~ Residential Manufactured Homes " R-IO I Residential 10 dulac I R-14 1 Residential 14 dulac I RM-) l Residential Multi-Family Infill lRH-NI Residential Multi-Family Neighborhood Center IRH-C I Residential Multi-Family Suburban Center MIXED USE CENTER o Center Neighborhood* @ Center Suburban* ~ Urban Center -North ~ Urban Center -North o Center Downtown* §] Center Office Residential COMMERCIAL o Commercial Arterial* @ Commercial Office* ~ Convenience Commercial INDUSTRIAL GJ Industrial -Heavy 0 Industrial -Medium. IT] Industrial -Light (P) Publicly owned ___ Renton City Limits ___ Adjacent City Limits _ Book Pages Boundary KROll PAGE IRH-rl Residential Multi-Family Traditional I RM-U I Residential Multi-Family Urban Center* • May include Overlay Districts. See Appendi:l: maps. For additional regulations in Overlay Districts. please see RYe 4-3. PAGE# INDEX SECTfTQWt.URANGE .",' --.... DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM October 29, 2004 Jason Jordan Arneta Henninger X7298 SW 27TH ST/STRANDER BLVD APPLICATION LUA04-123 SW 27TH ST BETWEEN EAST & WEST VALLEY HWY I have completed my review on the SW 27th St Extension application located in Section 25, Township 23N, Range 4 E and Section 30, Township 23N Range 5 E and have the following comments. Existing • Water--This project is not located in the Aquifer Protection Zone. • Sanitary--There are existing Sanitary Sewer facilities in Oakesdale Ave SW and north of the new Strander Blvd as the King County interceptor. • Storm--There are existing storm drainage facilities in SW 27th St from East Valley Rd to Oakesdale Ave SW. REQUIREMENTS: WATER: • The City of Renton Water Utility will evaluate the need to design and construct a watermain extension within Strander Blvd in coordination with this project. SANITARY SEWER: • The Wastewater Utility will coordinate with the City of Renton Transportation to ensure that appropriate City of Renton sewer facilities are provided within this new roadway alignment. Strander Blvd Extension ApplicatioT" SW 27th St STORM DRAINAGE: • The project must comply with the City of Renton storm waterlflood hazard/wetland ordinances. Storm water conveyance systems for road way must have sufficient capacity to convey future land use conditions from tributary properties. GENERAL: • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • All civil engineering plans shall be tied into a minimum of two of the City of Renton current Horizontal and Vertical Control network. • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. cc: Kayren K. I:\Projects\sTRANDERBL VDGF.doc\cor City of Reriton Department of Planning / Building / Public Wllrks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~tOYl ~€N'\ ~ ~ COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 1, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-123, SM, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 18,2004 APPLICANT: City of Renton -Transportation PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Jordan . PROJECT TITLE: Strander Blvd. Extension PLAN REVIEW: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 100 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A ·'I..Dj, 'vU1 LOCATION: SW 27'h Street Between East & West Valley Hwy WORK ORDER NO: 77326 ~Gh! 'V!., SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton, along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) revi~~~nd Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes the widening of SW 27th Street from four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping.strips:and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East.Valley.::::..'::c·',;;c::t.o,,, Road. The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability and access between Renton and Tukwila. As a result, the project would create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single roadway overpasss of both a Union Pacific Railroad track and two Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad tracks. The project area is approximately 100 acres. Project construction is planned in three phases, with the first pnase between Oakesdale Avenue SW and the railroad overpass to begin in 2005 and last approximately six months. The SW 27th Street improvements, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road are planned to begin in 2006 and last approximately one year and the railroad overpass portion of the project is planned to commence in 2007 with an estimated completion date of 2009. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public SeNices Energy/ HistoridCu/tural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or ,..as where .ddition,'In'"""',,,, is needed to properly "",ess lUis fXOPOS'l. I N w &DO 4/ " ~ Date " .Jill CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: October 28, 2004 JasonMtl0r n V Rebe ca ind Don Erickson Strander Boulevard Extension; SW 27th St between East & West Valley Hwy; LUA-04-123, SM., ECF Summary: The cities of Renton and Tukwila are requesting approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR-181) and East Valley Highway (SR-167). The proposal also includes the widening of Strander from four lanes to five lanes in a "single roadway" overpass of both the BNSF RR and UPRR tracks. The three-phase project includes Oakesdale Ave Se to the railroad overpass in 2005, SW 27th Street improvements between Oakesdale and East Valley Road in 2006/2007; and, the railroad overpass itself, beginning in 2007 and completed by 2009. Relevant transportation policies are attached and the Comprehensive Plan Compliance Matrix below shows the relative compliance of this proposed project with these relevant policies. Policy T-ll. Policy T-12. Policy T-14. Policy T-17. Policy T -24. Policy T -26. Findings: The subject project appears consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the western half of Strander Boulevard between SR-181 and Oakesdale Avenue SW had been identified in Table 1.4, Renton Arterial Plan and the Transportation Element includes the eastern half of SW 27th Street as part of Figure 3-1 of the Renton HOV Plan. Attachment cc: Don Erickson Document2lcor Relevant Transportation Element Policies Street Network Policy T-ll. Maintain a level of service that: maximizes mobility by emphasizing transit and HOY improvements; is coordinated with level of service standards of adjacent jurisdictions; and meets State requirements under GMA and concurrency. Policy T-12. Maximize traffic flow on and accessibility to arterial roads while protecting local/neighborhood roads from increased traffic volumes. Policy T-14. Proactively work with the State and neighboring jurisdictions to provide capacity on regional transportation systems and to reduce regional traffic on local streets. Transit Policy T-17. The City should work with other jurisdictions in the greater metropolitan area toward providing frequent, coordinated and comprehensive bus service and transit facilities in all residential and employment areas. Policy T -24. Assure development of transit service connecting Renton to a regional rail network. High Occupancy Vehicle Policy T -26. The completion of a comprehensive system of HOY improvements and programs on state highways and regional arterials, which give high-occupancy vehicles a travel time advantage over single-occupancy vehicles should be supported. Document2\cor City of Rell(on Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Ec..cniyY\IC l)ev. COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 1, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-123, SM, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 18,2004 APPLICANT: City of Renton -Transportation PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Jorda 1 !ae~".,.."~,, ,,~.~ f ~,I>-" ". PROJECT TITLE: Strander Blvd. Extension PLAN REVIEW: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 100 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A OCT 7 92nnl. LOCATION: SW 27'h Street Between East & West Valley Hwy WORK ORDER NO: 77326 ECONo.~;!IC L.,': ""." .' . ---:\>,.,. j AND.irfii:' O~UhHOor)'. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton, along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmen.a. \' I IATi\.-GlC...,; w.'a1ad Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new se ment of Strander BoulevardiSW 27th StreeT -g I 1 between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes the widening of SW 27th Street from four lanes to five lanes, incJuding.landscaping:strips .. and pedestrianlbicycle facilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SW·and East .. Valley.:::o:":;;::'l!t;<i·".:: Road. The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability and access between Renton and Tukwila. As a result, the project would create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single roadway overpasss of both a Union Pacific Railroad track and two Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad tracks. The project area is approximately 100 acres. Project construction is planned in three phases, with the first phase between Oakesdale Avenue SW and the railroad overpass to begin in 2005 and last approximately six months. The SW 27th Street improvements, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road are planned to begin in 2006 and last approximately one year and the railroad overpass portion of the project is planned to commence in 2007 with an estimated completion date of 2009. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS , C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: M're.. COMMENTS DUE: NOm;:R(1E~-efUi!, KIDQ14 WI ~ rr\1 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-123, SM, ECF >dJ I 11 L!:l -= <= -DATE CIRCULATED: 0 .TQ~t:tH 11:S, LU04 I APPLICANT: City of Renton -Transportation PROJECT MANAGER: J} ~[;rt \ rdaJil. t'T '\l a 'lnnll t ... 3~niW Uvl U U '-uu-..- PROJECT TITLE: Strander Blvd. Extension PLAN REVIEW: Arneta H er SITE AREA: 100 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A rlTV m: RFNTON LOCATION: SW 27'h Street Between East & West Valley Hwy WORK ORDER NO: 7732~ FiRE DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton, along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes the widening of SW 27th Street from . _____ .... :-;;;;;Jour:danes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrian/bicycle facilities;.b~tween::Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability and access between Renton and Tukwila. As a result, the project would create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single roadway overpasss of both a Union Pacific Railroad track and two Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad tracks. The project area is approximately 100 acres. Project construction is planned in three phases, with the first phase between Oakesdale Avenue SW and the railroad overpass to begin in 2005 and last approximately six months. The SW 27th Street improvements, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road are planned to begin in 2006 and last approximately one year and the railroad overpass portion of the project is planned to commence in 2007 with an estimated completion date of 2009. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELA TEp COMMENTS .' Jttz t r /J1d/ Pr. S- ?'~ $~I'f dri./ \? ' .. Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housinq Aesthetics LiqhtlGlare Recreation Utilities /" Transportation V Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14,000 Feet Date City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 1, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-123, SM, ECF APPLICANT: Cit of Renton -Trans ortation PROJECT MANAG PROJECT TITLE: Strander Blvd. Extension PLAN REVIEW: A SITE AREA: 100 acres BUILDING AREA LOCATION: SW 2ih Street Between East & West Valle SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton, along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes the widening of SW 27th Street from four lanes to five lanes, includingJandscaping.strips and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SWand EastValley_'c,:;:,'_-c __ - Road. The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability and access between Renton and Tukwila. As a result, the project would create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single roadway overpasss of both a Union Pacific Railroad track and two Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad tracks. The project area is approximately 100 acres. Project construction is planned in three phases, with the first phase between Oakesdale Avenue SW and the railroad overpass to begin in 2005 and last approximately six months. The SW 27th Street improvements, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road are planned to begin in 2006 and last approximately one year and the railroad overpass portion of the project is planned to commence in 2007 with an estimated completion date of 2009. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Il1Ipacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or .""" "oro ,. naUn"" . ;, n"d.,1Io properly ""es, "'" p"""",". \ ~\_ 0t Date City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 1, 2004 DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 18,2004 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton -Trans ortation PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Jordan PROJECT TITLE: Strander Blvd. Extension SITE AREA: 100 acres LOCATION: SW 2ih Street Between East & West Valle WORK ORDER NO: 77326 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton, along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander BoICtWrCDS'W~rmllGMeet between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes the widenirijjT41f1lMSiStfal!#ileet from .,Jour..:lanesJo five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrianlbicycle facilities,bet1l\leen:Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability and access between Renton and Tukwila. As a result, the project would create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single roadway overpasss of both a Union Pacific Railroad track and two Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad tracks. The project area is approximately 100 acres. Project construction is planned in three phases, with the first phase between Oakesdale Avenue SW and the railroad overpass to begin in 2005 and last approximately six months. The SW 27th Street improvements, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road are planned to begin in 2006 and last approximately one year and the railroad overpass portion of. the project is planned to commence in 2007 with an estimated completion date of 2009. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy! Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C_ CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date I i @ iJ{oll'ilgj (COtl.!lll'ilitV Wastewater Treatment Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3855 October 25, 2004 Jason Jordan, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 RE: Strander Boulevard Extension (File No. LUA04-123, SM, ECF) The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance, dated October 18, 2004, for the Strander Boulevard Extension project. King County is requesting that the City of Renton submit sewer extension plans and modifications for the project to Eric Davison in the Design, Construction and Asset Management Program, Civil! Architectural Section for local public agency review. Eric can be contacted at (206) 684-1707. Drawings should be submitted for review during design development so that King County staff can assess the project's impacts. Please send the drawings to: Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil! Architectural Section King County Wastewater Treatment Division 201 South Jackson Street, KSC-NR-0508 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have questions, I can be reached at (206) 684-1227. Sincerely, Barbara Questad Environmental Planner cc: Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil/Architectural Section @.~l202M CLEAN WATER-A SOUND INVESTMENT City of Re, •. .Jn Department of Planning / Building / Public lJ •. ,,5 ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~_ COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 1, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-123, SM, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 18, 2004 APPLICANT: City of Renton -Transportation PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Jordan PROJECT TITLE: Strander Blvd. Extension PLAN REVIEW: Arneta HenninQer SITE AREA: 100 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: SW 2ih Street Between East & West Valley Hwy WORK ORDER NO: 77326 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton, along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) review and Sh~reline Substantial D.evelop~en~ ~~rmit aRPLOyalJoJ theS.Q!Jstru_cJi.on of a r:I~w_segm~nt.o[Strande~=~~levard/$.\tX~?}!.h~Str~~h l59tween-West-ValleY-rhghway (SR _t81)-and-Qakesdale~Avelll:Le-SWL1he_PtoJ~ct also Includes the wIBemng-of-SW-27th-StreeUf'O'i'W' faur-lanes-to-five-laneS,including-landscaping-strips/and·pedestrian/bicycle-facilities~ Oetween-Oake.sdale::iXvenue::SW~and:Easr:.Valley Road. The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability and access between Renton and Tukwila. As a result, the project would create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single roadway" oyerpasss.o05o!5 .atJ}li:Qr;ceacifiG::Bailroad:traclCand:two_Bu rliQgt.on:NortherncSantaEe-Hail road:trac.ks. The project area is ---.,. approximately 100 acres. Project construction is planned in three phases, with the firsLph·ase-oetween-Oakesdale:Avenue:SW:and. the.railroad.overpass.toljeginJil2005 and last approximately six months. The SW'::2Ith:Street:improvements,ootiNeen·0akesd.<3,le Av~SW.ana~ESas['lfa]lefRoaa:-are-:pIa:nMd:to~b'e'gin:in:2006'and last approximately one year and the railroaa:OVerpass·portion1lf the project is planned to:corrilil9i'iC"9-in:2007 with an estimated completion date of 2009. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Element of the Environment Housin Aesthetics Li htlGfare Recreation Utilities Trans ortation Public Services C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS , ./"')-,,,./CA / A /J ~«-~ cvu /lO--c/J11~'-"'1V rv rt/V)f-0- Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have iden ·fied areas of probable impact or areas where additional inform ·on is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date [ 1 City of Re"nton Department of Planning / Building / Public' Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: CtJl'lSh-uG-t\()f"\ COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 1, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-123, SM, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 18,2004 APPLICANT: City of Renton -Transportation PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Jordan (',~,. PROJECT TITLE: Strander Blvd. Extension PLAN REVIEW: Arneta Henninger 11 IE cVflr;~~ """ SITE AREA: 1 00 acres n .... 141 BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A vcr i ... ""_ .' LOCATION: SW 2ih Street Between East & West Valley Hwy WORK ORDER NO: 77326 131111,.. . "'V/~V,GIl1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton, along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEP'~~i~w and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander BoulevardiSW 27th"Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes the widening of SW 27th Street from " ... :"',:::;.,zJour.:!anes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrian/bicycleJacilities;.betweemOakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability and access between Renton and Tukwila. As a result, the project would create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single roadway overpasss of both a Union Pacific Railroad track and two Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad tracks. The project area is approximately 100 acres. Project construction is planned in three phases, with the first phase between Oakesdale Avenue SW and the railroad overpass to begin in 2005 and last approximately six months. The SW 27th Street improvements, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road are planned to begin in 2006 and last approximately one year and the railroad overpass portion of the project is planned to commence in 2007 with an estimated completion date of 2009. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources PreseNation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS MII/e We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where ditional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. { ~ Si Date • NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: October 18. 2004 lAND USE NUMBER: LUA04-123, SM, ECF PROJECT NAME: Strander Boulevard Extension PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton, along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental {SEPAl review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of 8 new sagment of Strander BoulevardJSW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oekesdale Avenue SW. The project alia Includes the widening of SW 27th 'Street from four lanes to five lanes, Including I landscaping strips and pedestrlan/blcycle facilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and Ealt Valley Road. The purpose of the project I. to Improve travel speed, reliability and access between Renton and Tukwila. As a relult, the project would create a crosB-valley link between Weat Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single roadway overpaaa8 of both a Union Pacific Railroad track and two Burlington Northern Sente Fa Railroad tracks. The project aree 'a approximately 100 acrea. Project construction Is planned In three phases, • with the first phase between Oakesdale Avenue SW and the railroad overpass to begin In 2005 and last approximately six months. The SW 27th Street Improvements, between Oakeadale Avenue SW and East Valley Road Bre planned to begIn In 2006 and last approximately one year and the railroad overpass portion of the project Is planned to commence In 2007 with an estimated completion date of 2009. PROJECT LOCATION: SW 2ih Street Between East & West Valley Highway OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore. as permUted under the RCW 43.21 C.l1 0, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are Integrated Into a single comment period, There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: October 11 , 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: October 18, 2004 APPUCANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Robert Lochmlller; Tel: (425) 430-7303 e-mail: rlochmiller@ci.renton.wa.us Permlts/Revlew Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Substantial Management Other Permits which may be required: Construction Permits, Right-of-Way Use Permit, State Agency perm'lts as approprtate Requested Studies: Geotechnical Engineering Report, Traffic Analysis Report, Preliminary Drainage Report, Habitat Analysis and Flood Hazard Date Report Location where application may be reviewed: Plannlng/BulldlnglPubllc Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: N/A Comments on the above application must be submltted in writing to Jason Jordan, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on November 1, 2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. • CONTACT PERSON: Jason E, Jordan, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton. WA 98055. File NoJName: LUA04-123, SM, ECF / Strander Boulevard Extension NAME: ____________________________________________ ___ MAILING ADDRESS: ______________________________________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: _______________ _ ,... ...... ,",,'\\\ _ ...... "''''., "J ..... ,,_ \ la. _ _ _ _-,'l.\I-' "t~ "~, -~' ..... -. """a' CERTIFICATION .: ~ .,:,-~\SSloiV··" ~_'" .. ':\'" (f"-~', : //1 ",Oi.A . +-i .. '.!i\ ~ :: "~).-~~ ." ~ ~ "' ~.~ m: , ~ Y', ,oJ, ('IJ: ~ ~ j. ... . v8l1e': ; ,) ~~"~""'- I, 'P.,.1-,,',dL '£e~",1"\ , hereby certify that, \' c'ti~~~~~>·~o~.f above document were posted by me in '1 conspIcuoUS places bll,~~~ ...... --.--""'""""n-_"", the described property on --.!..!I t::>~---1.j~~e--------~""----:::;;;r- =-/'710 JuZ.., ~ Sig~e ," ATTEST~ ~b-~ibe~orn before me, a Notary Publ ~ In Washington residin~ ,on the ..:::0 ay of_-L-l.--L-=-_-=---''--__ MARILYN KAMCHEFF MY APfOli1VBIT EH66-2!U17 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: October 18, 2004 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA04-123, SM, ECF PROJECT NAME: Strander Boulevard Extension PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton, along with the City of Tukwila, are requesting environmental (SEPA) review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of a new segment of Strander Boulevard/SW 27th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The project also includes the widening of SW 27th Street from four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability and access between Renton and Tukwila. As a result, the project would create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single roadway overpasss of both a Union Pacific Railroad track and two Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad tracks. The project area is approximately 100 acres. Project construction is planned in three phases, with the first phase between Oakesdale Avenue SW and the railroad overpass to begin in 2005 and last approximately six months. The SW 27th Street improvements, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road are planned to begin In 2006 and last approximately one year and the railroad overpass portion of the project is planned to commence in 2007 with an estimated completion date of 2009. PROJECT LOCATION: SW 27'h Street Between East & West Valley Highway OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to 'result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.11 0, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. Therevitill be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. . PERMiT APPLICATION DATE: October 11, 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: October 18, 2004 APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Robert Lochmlller; Tel: (425) 430-7303 e-mail: rlochmiller@cLrenton.wa.us Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Substantial Management Construction Permits, Right-of-Way Use Permit, State Agency permits as appropriate Geotechnical Engineering Report, Traffic Analysis Report, Preliminary Drainage Report, Habitat Analysis and Flood Hazard Date Report Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 N/A Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jason Jordan, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on November 1, 2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jason E. Jordan, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I Employment Area-Valley Commercial Light Industrial Tukwila Urban Center Employment Area Industrial City Limits Residential Low Density Residential Single Family If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File No./Name: LUA04-123, SM, ECF / Strander Boulevard Extension NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: ______________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: ________ _ CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: October 18, 2004 To: From: Robert Lochmi~;J""ansportation Jason E. Jor~evelopment SeNices Subject: Strander Boulevard Extension LUA04-123, SM, ECF The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on November 9, 2004. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at 430-7219 if you have any questions. . Kathy 'Keolker~Wheeler, Mayo~ October 18, 2004 Attn: JOhn'Lefotu and Ramin Pazooki Washington State. Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310 . Seattle,WA 98133~9710 RE: .Strander.Boulevard Extension LUA04~23,SM,ECF . . Dear Sirs: CITY.F.·RENTON .. PIanning/BuildinwPublicWorksDepartmt;mt Gregg ZimmermanP.E.,Administrator Please find the TIA dqcument enclosed along with' a':copy' oftheprop6sedsite'plan for . the subject land use application: : '. . .' . . ·If you have additional Comments: or concerns, you.mayeither send them via mail or .. email themtomeatjjordc:th@ci.renton.wa:.us. .. .... . . .' . , . ~', :" . -.: . . ,.- The Ehvironmental. Review .Gommirieeh:te~ti~gi$~~heduledfor: November 9, 2'0()4; I . would appreCiate your comments pdbrt6:)h'e:me~tlrig, pr~ferably{by November 1 : 2()04, if possible to incorporate any comments intottle:staff report.: .... ',', . Sincerely, .~ . .. " .... ~.~/ .' ' .. "//' 'C?".' .•.... ':' . . ' ' .. ~as6ri E.Jordan~AICP Senior Planner cc: Project File , '-, -," . Mike Dotson; City of Renton -Plan Review Enclosures ------1::-:::O~55'="=So-u---:th:'7'G=-r-a--=-dy---:W,=-ay----::R::-e~nt-,-o-n,--::w,=-=-a--:-sh:-:i:-ng-t-'-on--=-9::'-:80::-:::5~5------~ ®. This paper contains 50% ~ed material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE I , ,- SEP A Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton September 2004 -2- LAND-USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION· FORM NT PLANNING DEVra~~~ RENTON oel , , 2004 RECE\VED ~ Perteet Inc. 2-1 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: City of Renton PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Strander Blvdl SW 2ih St. Extension Project ADDRESS: 1055 South Grady Way PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY:-Renton, WA ZIP: 98055 Strander Boulevard and SW 27th Street from West Valley Highway to East Valley Highway, 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 0886700410,2523045555,1253815555,3023055555 APPLICANT (if other than owner) EXISTING LAND USE(S): existing roadway, undeveloped land, railroad right-of-way NAME: PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Widen and extend an improved COMPANY (if applicable): roadway from West Valley Highway to East Valley Highway; relocate the Union Pacific Railroad track ADDRESS: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: in Renton: "Employment Area-Valley" CITY: ZIP: in Tukwila: "Urban Center" and "Commercial Light Industrial" PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION TELEPHONE NUMBER (if applicable): N/A CONTACT PERSON EXISTING ZONING: in Renton: ·Commercial Office" (CO); "Commercial" (C); NAME: Robert Lochmiller "Industrial-Heavy" (IH); "Resource Conservation" (RC); "Industrial-Light" (IL); "Industrial-Medium" (1M) COMPANY (if applicable): City of Renton, Trans. Sys. in Tukwila: "Tukwila Urban Center" and "Commercial Light Industrial" ADDRESS: 1055 South Grady Way-5th Floor PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): N/A SITE AREA (in square feet): approx. 100 acres CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98055 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): N/A 425-430-7303 rlochmiller@ci.renton.wa.us c~ PR, .lECT INFORMATION (contir •.. Ad) r-----~----~~.~----------------------_, PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): N/A PROJECT VALUE: $60,000,000 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): square footages are approx. affected areas in Renton Cl AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE N/A sq. fl. Cl AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO N/A sq. fl. lEI FLOOD HAZARD AREA 102.700 (2.4 ac) sq. fl. lEI GEOLOGIC HAZARD 557,900 (12.8 ac) sq. fl. lEI HABITAT CONSERVATION 2.568 (0.06 ac) sq. fl. 690 (0.02 ac) is wetland, 1,878 (0.04 ac) is Springbrook Creek. .:. SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES § sq. fl. § This sensitive area has not been defined or mapped for the RMC. However, the project has construction within the shoreline jurisdiction of Springbrook Creek. lEI WETLANDS 690 <0.014 acre): buffers 69,802 (1.60 acre) sq. ft. in Tukwila lEI GEOLOGIC HAZARD [not calc.! sq. fl. lEI WETLANDS 87.394 (2.01 acre); buffers 99,910 (2.30 ac.) sq. ft. .:. WATERCOURSES * sq. fl. *The project may include this area, depending on final designs . • :. Areas that Contain Archaeological Remnants ----L-sq. ft. t This designation is not currently mapped to the project area; however, according to project research, there is high likelihood of archaeological resources in the vicinity. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATED in road right-of-way in Sections 24 and 25, T 23 North, Range4E; Section 3D, T 23 North, Range 5E in the CITIES of RENTON and TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Environmental Review 3. 2. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ 1519.24 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Robert Lochmiller , declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or _X_ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Signature of Owner/Representative) (Signature of Owner/Representative) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ---;:::--:--:-__ --;---;--:--__ -:-;--::- signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print), _______________________ _ My appointment expires: _________________ __ Strander Boulevard / Southwest 27th Street Legal Description The City of Renton Right-of-Way known as Southwest 27th Street in the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., lying easterly of Oakesdale Avenue Southwest and in the Northwest Quarter of section 30, Township 23 North, Range 3 East, W.M., lying westerly of the East Valley Highway, all in King County, Washington. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEPA Environmental Review'Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton September 2004 - 6 - LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS ~ Perteet Inc. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 11 2004 RECEIVED 6-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300-FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PROJECT NAME: Strander Boulevard/SE 2ih St. Extension Project APPLICATION NO:.....JO~*=--+JI(Z3~ _________ _ The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME PARCEL AFUCIO c/o PROPERTY TAX DEPTNI20 CITY OF RENTON DA VALLE STRADA FLAHERSLLC C/O SOUND BUILDING SUPPLY HA WK FAMILY EAST VALLEY LTD KOCH HANS GEORGE % ALLPAK CONTAINER MOTOR FREIGHT LLC C/O WAHL & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL TAX SEARCH LLC ~ Perteet Inc. ADDRESS PO BOX 4900 SCOTISDALE, AZ 85261 . lOSS S GRADY WY RENTON, W A, 98055 912510THAVS SEATILE, WA 98108 PO BOX 329 RENTON, W A 98057 2435 SE 288TH BLACK DIAMOND, WA98010 1100 SW 27TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 PO BOX 4679 SEATILE, WA 98104 PO BOX 81290 CHICAGO,IL 60681 ASSESSOR'S 2193100010 1253810090 2523049001 2523049004 3023059103 1253800015 3023059091 3023059096 3023059098 3023059099 2523049058 1253800010 1253800110 6-2 I I NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL I PIETROMONACO ILLC POBOX 700 1253800120 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 I RENTON #2 LLC 17373 SW CANYON DR 2523049064 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 I TOSCOCORP PO BOX 1539 3023059086 C/O CONQCOPHILLIPS PASO ROBLES CA 93447 BC PARTNERS LLC 175 PIEDMONT 0005800037 I ASHLAND, OR 97520 BNSFRWYCO PO BOX 961089 0005800007 I FORT WORTH, TX 76161 2523049022 CENTRALPUGETSOUND 1100 SECOND AVE, SUITE 500 2523049087 -Not-dell'~l-<.. I REGIONAL TRANPORTATION SEATTLE, WA 98101 0005800020 ~ ~ u:;(215lo-t CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BL 2523049006 ATTN: ALAN DOERSHEL TUKWILA, WA 98188 2423049034 I INNKEEPERS RI NW L.P 306 ROYAL POINCIANA WY 0005800006 PALM BEACH, FL 33480 I NELSEN, WALTERM 16435 W VALLEY HWY 2523049027 TUKWILA, WA 98188 I NORTHWESTERN TRUST 1201 THIRDAV#2010 2523049007 FBO DESIMONE #52 SEATTLE, WA 98101 I PUGET SOUND ENERGY IELEC PO BOX 90868 0005800008 PROPERTY TAX DEPT BELLEVUE W A, 98009 0005800036 2523049023 I 2523049050 2423049086 RAINIER BELLS INC 31919 1ST AV S #206 2523049083 I FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 SIERS JANENE M 9330 BALBOA AVE 2523049043 I C/O FOODMAKER INC SAN DIEGO, CA, 92123 SOUTHCENTER GAS STATION LLC 2224 KAMBER RD 0005800038 BELLEVUE, WA 98007 I UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 1416 DODGE ST #325 0005800009 ATTN: BILLINGS, JIM OMAHA, NE 68179 2523049024 I WENDYS INTERNATIONAL INC PO BOX 256 0005800041 DUBLIN OH, 43017 I ~ 6-3 I Perteet Inc. I . I NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL I BOEING COMPANY 100 N Riversdale MlC 5003-4027 0886700280 Chicago. IL 60606 0886700270 0886700290 I 0886700390 0886700030 0886700040 I 0886700050 0886700060 0886700070 0886700080 I 0886700400 0886700310 0886700010 I 0886700020 0886700350 0886700300 0880700090 I 2423049088 0886700100 0886700380 I 0886700320 0886700170 0886700180 I 0886700160 2423049088 ANMARCO 912510THAVS 2523049049 I SEATILE, WA 98108 FILBERT, BOB 17000 WEST VALLEY HW 2523049044 I SEATILE, WA 98188 MACGOWAN, RICHARD 4303 CORBIT RD W 2523049086 I UNIVERSITY PL,wA 95466 TAB TWO LLC 741934THAVNW 2523049045 SEATILE, WA 98117 2523049084 I 2523049085 ULRICH INVESTMENT CO LLC 17100 W VALLEY HWY 2523049055 I TUKWILA WA 98188 UNISOM SITE MANAGEMENT LLC 6809 D BOWMANS CROSSING 0005800027 FREDERICK MD 21703 I CLOSE,ROBERTJTRUSTEE 8262 E HWY 106 0005800034 UNION, WA 98592 I CSMCORP 500 WASHINGTON AV #3000 0005800005 C/O STEFFEN TERRY MlNNELPOLlS, MN 55415 I ~ 6-4 Perteet Inc. I I . '. I NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL I FAMIL Y FUN CENTERS TUKWILA 7300 FUN CENTER WY 2423049063 TUKWILA, WA 98188 I GULL INDUSTRIES INC 3404 FOURTH A V S 0005800011 SEATTLE WA 98134 I GULL OIL CO 240 PO BOX 24687 0005800032 SEATTLE, WA 98124 I H2 HOTELLLC 7200 FUN CENTER WY 2423049013 TUKWILA WA, 98188 I HANSEN GROUP LLC 14405 25TH AV SW 0005800026 BURIEN, WA 98166 0005800035 INDUSTRIAL CRATING & PACKIN PO BOX 88299 2423049090 I TUKWILA, WA 98188 KAUPAT, PETER H PO BOX 88108 0005800025 I SEATTLE, WA 98188 0005800014 KOAR-SEATAC PARTNERS LP 370 AMAPOLA A V #2 \0 0005800024 C/O HASEMAN AMERICA INC TORRANCE CA, 90501 0005800031 I MANUFACTURERS MINERAL CO 1215 MONSTER RD 2423049075 RENTON, WA 98055 2423049106 I MCLEOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 213 LAKE S 0005800013 I KIRKLAND, WA 98033 2423049137 MEYERS, VERNON L 13911 SE 45TH PL 0005800023 BELLEVUE, WA 98006 I NGUYEN STEVE HUNG LIVING TR 15668 W VALLEY HWY 0005800028 TUKWILA, WA 98188 I PUGET WESTERN INC 19515 N CREEK PKWY #310 0005800012 WASHINGTON CORPORATION A BOTHELL, WA 98011 I CITY OF SEATTLE PO BOX 34018 0005800017 SPUIREAL PROP -WTR SEATTLE, WA 98124 I TUKWILA HOTEL LLC 600 E RIVER PARK LN STE 205 2423049014 BOISE ID 83706 I WHITNEY BROS 4606 131 ST ST NW 0005800029 GIG HARBOR, WA 98332 I ~~ 6-5 Perteet Inc. I I r,' • .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NAME PARCEL NELSEN, JAMES& FROHMUTH, LOREN ADDRESS 16113 W VALLEY HWY TUKWILA WA98188 Applicant Certification ASSESSOR'S 0005800033 I, Robert Lochmiller, hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property owners and their addresses were obtained from: Title Company Records King County Assessors Records Signed ikt.z;C ~ (Appcant) Date NOTARY A nESTED: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington, residing at on the __ day of , 20 __ . Signed ________________________________ __ (Notary Public) ****For City of Renton Use**** "" ......... ,"\\", CERTIFICATION OF MAILING _: .. ~~~~~~.JG:'~ .. t' ,: .. ~""\SS/Q·~~O '" I, ~ T ~ , hereby certify that notices of!he:.IifO~Cf' ~ ... 1n/~ (Ci mployee) S aL ~. "1-9 i: -n ~ application were mailed to each listed property owner are W· \~~;::" ~ ~~ ~A·. Ie:: ~ ~ '.~ . .. ... Signed Da~~'~f9.o7 .. ~; , 't "'" ........ ' ~o : NOTARY •••• , :-tSHING ,.. ........ '\\\0\.\.\.\. ...... " ... A nEST: Subscribed an~orn ~fore me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing at12~-~ on the zq -p-day of v d I u U ,20.0L.:. Sign&t:-7-/ll ~ =-kC/~ ~ UADM'"'' ., .... ~ .... rP --W ~ 6-6 Perteet Inc. v. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEP A Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton September 2004 - 1 - PRE·APPLICATION MEETING SUMMARY A pre-application meeting was held on August 19,2004 at Renton City Hall. A pre-application meeting summary was provided to Perteet at this meeting, which is attached. ~ Perteet Inc. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 1 200~ RECEIVED 1-1 I" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ IE II \:] ~ II" I , .' I .: '. Ii AUG - 5 2004 I U/ ~--' MEMORANDUM DATE: CITY OF REI/WI FIflE DU'''\m;.i~:H TO: Construction Services, Fire Project Planner Plan Review, EDNSP, .. FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Division Director . ~ / .... SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: ;)14-5t 5:~ t5A/1v...~ . I LOCATION: Sf» 27J.-Sf bt:/w<:RA S7r~ elvd i C~JI va'UvJ ie4. PREAPP NO. mOt-OC/fp A ~ting with the appli~nt has been scheduled for 1·-00 , Thursday, . '.It-. in 'one of the 611 floor conference rooms (new City HaIQ. this meeting is scheduled at 10:00AM, the MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO 11 :00 AM to allow time to prepare for the 11:00 AM meeting. . . . Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the appliCant. You will not need to do a thorough -permit lever review at this time. Nole only major Issues that must be resolved priorto fonnalland use and/or building permit . application submittal. . Plan Reviewer assigned is --LA...l..Yu.:J\XiooIIo~~u.oe.......:~~ ___ _ H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev &: PJan-ing\TempJate\Preapp2 Revised 9/00 • I I" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM August 17,2004 Jason Jordan Ameta Henninger X7298 Il ~ SW 27TH ST/STRANDER BLVD PREAPPLICATION PRE 04-096 STRANDER BLVD NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN TIllS REPORT: The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre- application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision maken (e.g. Hearing Examiner, Boards of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by the City or made by the appliCant. ' • I have completed my review on the SW 27th St Extension preapplication located in Section 25, Township 23N, Range 45E and have the following comments. WATER: • The City of Renton Water Utility will design and construct a watermain and fire hydrants in coordination with this project. SANITARY SEWER: • The City of Renton Waste Water Utility will evaluate the need to design and construct a sanitary sewer main and associated sewer stubs in coordination with this project. STORM DRAINAGE: • The City of Renton Storm Water Utility will design and construct a storm drainage system in coordination with this project. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON Planning/Buil~ing/Public Works MEMORANDUM August 19, 2004 Pre-Application File No. 04-096 Jason E. Jordan, Senior Planner, x7219 ~ SW 27th StreetiStrander Blvd Extension General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above-referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of revjew .. The applicant is cautioned that information containe~ in thissumf!lary may be subject to modification andlor concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and otlier design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code~ The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $55, plus tax, from the Finance Division oli the first floor of City Hall. Project Proposal: The subject proposai is' to connect SW 27th Street to Strander Boulevard in Tukwila, Washington. This would be accomplished by adding a new roadway segment from the Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway intersection in Tukwila to Lind Avenue SW in Renton. The proposed roadway improvements would consist of five traffic lanes, landscaped planter strips and pedestrianlbicyclist facilities located on both sides of the roadway. • • r • Appllcabie Comprehensive Plan Objectives arid Policies: The subject site is located within the Employment Area Valley (EA V) land use designation area. The following objectives and policies are applicable to the project. Objective T -A: Create a comprehensive street system that provides reasonable vehicular circulation throughout the City. Policy T-12: Maximize traffic flow on and accessibility to arterial roads while protecting 10caVneighborhood roads from increased traffic volumes. Policy T -14: Proactively work with the State and neighboring jurisdictions to provide capacity on regional transportation systems and to reduce regional traffic on local streets. New alternative source supplies of potable water should be developed through wells or other sources. ZonlnglDensity Requirements: Not Applicable. Development Standards: Not Applicable. Sensitive Areas Wetlands: According to the project drawing and City's records, the site contains a series of wetlands, along with a crossing over Springbrook Creek. With the pre-application package, the applicant submitted several NEPA related environmental studies, including a draft stream and wetland report, which outlined the different wetlands along the proposed project route. Please note, any Category J 'v wetland less than 2,200 square feet or any Category 3 wetland less than 5,000 square feet Is .x exempt from the wetland regulations pursuant to RMC 4-3-050B7a. \ Pre04-096 Strander Blvd (wetland and stream issues).doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Any proposed wetland fill of a regulated wetland would trigger.the requirement of creating or restoring existing wetland at the code-required ratio (please see RMC4-3-050M11) or requesting a Critical / Areas Variance. City code also mandates that wetland creation take place In the same drainage ~ basin as the proposed fill. Any alternation of this standard would also require a Critical Areas Variance from the City's Hearing ExalTliner. In additip!1, qepe!1ding of, the wetland type a 25, 50 or 100-foot buffer would be required. However, buffer averaging is allowed in some cases per RMC 4-3- 050M4f. All work, including the wetlandsq4are footage calculations would need to be shown on the project drawings. In no case is a regulated wetland buffer allowed to be less than 25 feet. If a variance Is required, a final wetlandlstream report prepared by a qualified biologist would {-- be mandatory with the application. Please note that the final dellneatlonandlor proposed mitigation may be sent off for secondary review by the City's ~etland consultant. Streams: If any work is proposed to be conducted within 25 feet of a regulated stream (Springbrook Creek) then a Variance from the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting regulations is required. Please note, that the City Is currently revising Its regulated stream standards and larger setbacks are expected. The new standards are expected to be Iii place by the beginning 0'-2005. A Land Clearing and Tree Cutting variance also requires Hearing Examiner approval. At this time, staff Is likely to support a variance request fOf the current HOV lane proposal; however, the final decision would come from the C!ty'~ Hearing Examiner. Shorelines: Springbrook Creek is designated as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and is also considered a Conservancy Environment along SW 27th Street. Therefore, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be'required with the land use application .. Please note, that the City makes a recommendation; however, the State of Washington issues the final approval. In addition, this permits requires ~ ?~~day ~ppeal period. ' . , .... . , . . , . ~ . Permit Requirements: The project would require Environmental (SEPA) Review, shoreline substantial development permit and possibly a Critical Areas Variance or Land Clearing and Tree CuHing Variance. It is understood that the City of Renton will be acting as "lead agenr for the SEPA environmentai review portion of the project. Depending on permits required, the application process could be completed withir) 6 to 12 weeks. As mentioned above, all permits could be processed simultaneously; however the shoreline permit requires an extended (28-day) appeal period while the remaining permits only require a 14-day appeal. . . , The SEPA review fee is $1,000.00 (plus $500.00 for the shoreline permit and $250.00 if a variance is required) plus $0.37 per mailing label required for notification to surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the site. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal requirements is provided in the attached handouts. Design Team: The Deveiopment Services Division strongly encourages the Transportation lead to form a design team in order to effectively, plan, organize and prepare for the permits and construction associated with this project. cc: Jennifer Henning Pre04-096 Strander Blvd (weiland and stream issues).doc I" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE DATE: August 10, 2004 TO: Jason Jordan FROM: Rebeia~&{ STAFF CONTACf: Don Erickson SUBJECT: SW 27111 & Strander Extension, PRE 04-096 The applicant is proposing to develop a five-lane street extension and either an overpass or underpass across the BNSFlUnion Pacific Railroad right-of-ways. The site for these transportation improvements is located in the Employment Area -Valley land use designation as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposed roadway alignment traverses a number of land use zones including Commercial Office, htdustrial Heavy, Resource Conservation, and htdustrial Light. This project has been in the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP #10) for a number of years. Relevant Transportation Element policies are attached and the following comparative matrix shows where the subject proposal complies with these policies, where is there is questionable compliance, and where there is no or little compliance. Area-Land Use Policies I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SW 271h & Strander Extensiv._. PRE 04-096 08/10/2004 FINDINGS: 2 The Strander Boulevard Extension appears to comply with a majority of the listed relevant land use and transportation element policies. It incorporates pedestrian and bicycle paths improves capacity without placing traffic on local streets ~nd should support local land uses. What is unknown is how well the proposed design will fit in with the surrounding development and whether it can be considered to be a high quality development. Presumably the preferred alternative will compliment the two railroads and go through a site plan review process to help ensure plentiful landscaping so as to visually and acoustically buffer it from adjacent land uses. Attachment cc: Don Erickson . DocumentS\cor I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SW 27th & Strander Extensiou, PRE 04-096 3 08110/2004 . Relevant Comprehensive Plan Employment Area -Valley Land Use Policies: Policy LU-212.3. Development standards should promote an increased intensity and quality of development. Objective LU-EE.c: Ensure quality development in Emp/oyment Area -Valley. . ; -. Policy L U-212.24. Site plan review should be required for all new projects in the Renton Valley and Black River areas pursuant to thresholds established in the City's development regulations. Policy LU-292. Freeways should be visually and acoustically buffered from adjacent uses. Relevant Transportation Element Policies: Policy T-2. Transportation improvements should support land use plans. Policy T-12. Maximize traffic flow on and accessibility to arterial roads while protecting 10caVneighborhood roads from increased traffic volumes. Policy T-14. Proactively work with the State and neighboring jurisdictions to provide capacity on regional transportation systems and to reduce regional traffic on local streets. Policy T -33. Pedestrian and bicycle movement across principal arterial intersections should be enhanced. Poiicy T -54. Design transportation facilities in a manner that compliments railroads. Policy T-57. Support railroad crossing improvements that minimize maintenance and protect the street surface. DocumentS'.cor I I I I I I~ I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I MEMORANDUM DATE: I 1 Ii CIT)'OF E C EFiErvro,", IVED AUG 0 + 200+ BlJlLDING DIIIISION TO: Construction,Services, Fire Prevention, Plan Review, EDNSP, Project Planner .. FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Division Director ~ / ' New Preliminary Application: ::274-5t ~~ t5)s{11A wv... .' . I SUBJECT: LOCATION: Sw 27'-Sf-~ S-YflD4/: 6/-' if b.jf v~ PREAPP NO. f(d;()1-Cf/fp A ~ting with the appli~nt has been scheduled for 1 :00 , Thursday, /q-.r-, in 'one of the 611 floor conference rooms (new City Ha~thls meeting is scheduled at 10:00 AM, the MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO 11 :00 AM to allow time to prepare for the 11:00 AM meeting. Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the appliCant. You will not need to do a thorough ·permit lever review at this time. Note only major Issues that must be resolved prior to fonnalland use ancVor building permit . application submittal. . Plan Reviewer assigned is --LA...LYu.:~_~'-\.lCi_?,---___ _ Please submit your written comments to ~\JisJ~=en~' ~ ____ (Planner) at least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev & Plan-ing\Templale\Preapp2 Revised 9/00 ' I I I I SEP A Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project I I City of Rentoq I September 2004 I I I - 3 - I I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I I I I I DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON I ~ .. OCT 11 2004 3-1 RECEIVED I Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of Renton, Development Services Division Environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Strander Boulevard Extension and SW 27th Street Corridor Improvements 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Robert Lochmiller, Project Manager City of Renton, Planning/Building/Public Works Department Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 (425) 430-7303 4. Date checklist prepared: September 22, 2004 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Richard Rutz and Dan Hansen Perteet, Inc. 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Everett, W A 9820 I (425) 252-7700 The City of Tukwila has agreed that the City of Renton will be the lead agency for the SEPA review 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The project's timing is dependent on several factors, including funding. However, the projected sequence of events is to construct the project in three phases or stages (see figs. I - 3 ). The first phase/stage would construct a segment starting from the base of the approach to the roadway overpass and continuing east to Oakesdale Ave. SW in a period of about six months in 2005; construction of phase/stage 2, the SW 27th St. segment from Oakesdale Ave. SW to East Valley Road, would occur in a period of about a year, starting in 2006; and construction of the Strander Blvd. roadway overpass and railroad realignment (phase/stage 3) would occur during a period of about two years, beginning in 2007. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The City of Tukwila has investigated transit-oriented development in the Urban Center area near the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station, which would be facilitated by this project. It also has Capital Improvement Program (CIP) plans for the Interurban Trail, Phase IV, in the project vicinity. In the future the City of Renton may consider some land use changes in the area that is accessed by this project. See also question A(9). Future transportation network improvements that were assumed in the City Traffic Model for 2015 in the project study area included a direct access ramp to SR 167, Rainier Ave.lEast Valley Rd. realignment, and an 1- 405/ Grady Way collector/distributor project (Talbot Road to Lind Ave.) Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h S1. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In coordination with the road project the City of Renton will install a water supply line and a sanitary sewer line (the size of each of these may be up to 12 inches in diameter) within easements and crossing the road right-of- way. Stormwater facilities for the Phase/Stage I road segment may be developed in coordination with facilities for the property south of the project. See also questions A(9) and B(3)(d). 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Discipline studies for this project (May -September 2004). There are 17 reports that provide further discussion and details about all elements of this project. Hydraulics Report for this project (July 2004) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental classification summary, and Categorical Exemption Biological Assessment for Endangered Species Act compliance for this project (2004); salmon information and reports for WRIA 8 (Cedar/Sammamish Basin) Documentation for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Public lands and roadways Section 4(f) analysis; Wetlands mitigation plan (2004) East Side Green River Watershed Project Final Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Vol. I. (Sept. 1997) City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and EIS (2003) and critical areas information City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and EIS and critical areas information Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan (1995) Cedar River Basin Current and Future Conditions Report {I 993) Black River Basin Water Quality Management Plan (May 1993) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. The Boeing Company intends to make access improvements to property adjacent to this project. The planning for these improvements may affect the specific timing or details of construction of some of the new road and storm water facilities in Phase/Stage I. See also question A(7). Sound Transit will be making improvements to its Tukwila Station, which influences the details of track realignment at the north end, as well as the improvements to S. Longacres Way. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Federal Highway Administration -National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Classification Summary (ECS) and Categorical Exemption U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act (CWA) §404 permit State of Washington Dept. of Ecology CWA §401 Water Quality Certification State of Washington Dept. of Ecology NPDES (CW A §402) general construction permit State of Washington Dept. of Ecology Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Certification State of Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval City of Renton Shoreline Substantial Development Permit City of Renton Right of Way Use Permit City of Renton building and construction permits City of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (would be necessary if some stormwater were discharged to the Green River) City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas review. (The project is in mapped "Seismic Hazard" and "Wetland" sensitive areas. If some stormwater were discharged to the Green River, it would also be in the "Watercourse" sensitive area. "Areas that Contain Archaeological Remnants" has not been designated for the project area, Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 2ih St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I though according to the Cultural Resources Assessment discipline report there is high likelihood of archaeological resources in the vicinity.) II. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability, and access in the north Renton/south Tukwila area. The project would create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Ave. SW with a single roadway overpass of both a Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) track and two Burlin~ton Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) tracks. From Oakesdale Ave. SW to East Valley Road, SW 27 Street would be widened and would include pedestrian facilities and landscaping. The projectarea would be approximately 100 acres. The five elements of the project would be as follows: • Relocation of the UPRR Track. The UPRR track, from just north ofSW 43rd Street (SE I 80th Street north) to approximately 1-405, would be shifted to the east to parallel the existing two BNSF railroad tracks. A new track would be constructed within a new 100-foot right-of-way adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way and then joined with the existing UPRR track at both ends of the Project Area. • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Ave. SW. A new roadway would be constructed from the intersection of West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Strander Blvd. to the intersection of Oakesdale Ave. SW and SW 27th Street. The roadway alignment would be an extension ofStrander Blvd. and curve to match up with the existing alignment ofSW 27th Street. The railroad crossing would be accomplished via a single roadway overpass of all three railroad tracks. The roadway overpass would provide a vertical clearance of 17 feet for vehicles and 23.5 feet for the railroads, and include four travel lanes together with a sidewalk on one side and a multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path on the other side. • Improvements to SW 27th Street. The existing section of roadway between Oakesdale Ave. SW and East Valley Road would be widened from the current four lanes to five lanes, including landscaping strips and pedestrianlbicycle facilities on each side in most locations, for a total of90 feet wide from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk. • Modifications to the Interurban Trail. Because the new roadway segment would cut across the Interurban Trail, an at-grade crossing would be constructed at West Valley Highway, or the trail would be modified to cross under the roadway overpass structure. • Modifications to S. Longacres Way. The existing railroad bridges over S. Longacres Way are narrow and have lower vertical clearances than are now required for public roads. The relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad track would require the construction ofa new bridge which would provide the same vertical clearance. No improvements would be made to the BNSF bridge, In addition to the selected action for building a roadway overpass of the tracks, two alternatives which would construct a roadway underpass were also considered, and their effects evaluated in the discipline studies. 12. Location ofthe proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, ifany, and section, township, and range ifknown. If a proposal would occur over a range ofarea, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The Project is located within the jurisdictions of both the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila in Sections 24 and 25, T 23 North, Range 4E; and Section 30, T 23 North, Range 5E (see Location Map, Figure 1). The primary Project Study Area is T-shaped, with the "T" lying on its side. It includes the area between the west side of the Interurban Trail and the east side of the BNSF tracks. Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h St. Corridor Improvements. SEPA checklist. September 22. 2004 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one)@rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The site is located in the former alluvial plain of the Green River. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Diking embankments, and the banks of Springbrook Creek; otherwise, one to two percent or less c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime fannland. In general, the subsurface soils encountered along the proposed alignment consist ofa varying thickness of variable fill, estuarine/overbank deposits, and alluvial deposits. The fill material is underlain by about 20 to 30 feet of soft and loose, interbedded estuarine/overbank deposits, fine-grained alluvium. (There is a somewhat continuous peat deposit that is encountered deep within the estuarine/overbank deposits.) d. Are there surface indications or history'of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. The proposed project crosses recent fill and soft and loose deposits that are susceptible to liquefaction and its associated effects, and the entire project area is within a high liquefaction susceptibility zone. The effects of the potentially liquefiable soil beneath the proposed action would likely include reduction of vertical capacity and a reduction in lateral support/increased lateral soil pressures on the proposed foundations and ground settlement. Current design-level earthquakes could occur during the life of the project, causing liquefaction. The effects of liquefaction may include decrease of bearing capacity for existing shallow foundations, ground surface settlement, reduction in lateral and vertical capacity of new deep foundations, cut slope and fill instability, and lateral deflection of existing utilities. Liquefaction alone could cause large ground settlement. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source offill. f. Construction of approximately 5,500 feet of new UPRR track at an elevation similar to that of the existing BNSF tracks would require the placement of approximately 125,000 cubic yards of earth and gravel for the new railroad bed; approximately the same amount of track and railroad bed would be removed from the existing UPRR location. The railroad bed material would be disposed of at an approved location or reused as a construction fill material. See also question B(7). The fill volume for the roadway and associated improvements (sidewalk, retaining walls, etc.) would be approximately 6,000 cubic yards. . Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Without mitigation, erosion of exposed cut or fill slopes during construction could cause increased sediment transport onto other areas of the project, into stonnwater drains, and into Springbrook Creek and wetlands at the outfall locations. The project would result in 7.03 acres of total new impervious surfaces in addition to what currently exists (6.25 acres), for a total of 13.28 acres. Without using mitigation measures, this additional impervious surface would produce an incremental increase in runoff rates and volumes, which could result in additional erosion and sediment deposition in the stream channels. See question 8(3)(c). Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 2ih St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The project would result in 7.03 acres of total new impervious surfaces in addition to what currently exists ( 6.25 acres), for a total of 13.28 acres. See question B(3)( c). h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. AIR Nearly all of the potential seismic impacts could be mitigated by proper design and standard construction procedures. Liquefaction and, in particular, liquefaction-induced settlement may require nonstandard construction procedures to partially mitigate; however, these procedures, although nonstandard at present, are not uncommon given current seismic design criteria and earthquake engineering technology. Because of the depth of loose, soft, and potentially liquefiable soil and anticipated bridge loads, deep, driven pile foundations would be required to support the proposed roadway overpass. These deep foundations would bear in underlying, nonliquefiable, competent soil. Bridge design is proposed to provide open spans to minimize the use of approach support fills. See fig. 4. For the construction phase of the project, the mitigation measures include a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for construction, with facilities designed and constructed to capture pollutants and sediment-laden runoff prior to discharging to surface waters. The mitigation measures for stonnwater runoff and stonnwater quality treatment are discussed for question B(3)(d). a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities ifknown. b. c. Construction impacts would be short-term and would include the generation of: dust from excavation, grading and other general construction activities; odors det~ctible to some people away from the proposed project site, particularly during paving operations using tar and asphalt; and air pollutants emitted by engines of heavy trucks and equipment such as generators and compressors. The proposed project is included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program 2003-2005, which was modeled in 2002. Regional air quality confonnity analyses indicate that it meets all federal and state air quality conformity requirements, including those for both carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone (03), The design concept and scope of the Strander Blvd. project have not substantially changed since its inclusion in these transportation plans and the proposed action would not, therefore, worsen the current situation from that modeled in the planned action. Thus, the proposed action would conform with the purpose of the current State Implementation Plan and to all requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and the Washington State Clean Air Act. Calculated worst-case maximum CO concentrations at all locations examined would comply with applicable ambient air quality standards. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Traffic data for the air quality analysis included traffic related to planned actions and growth in the area. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Contractor compliance with regulations requiring the best available control measures to control the emissions of odor-bearing air contaminants, and requiring reasonable precautions to avoid dust emissions. Emissions during construction from engines of heavy trucks and equipment, and resulting air contributions of pollutants, would be far outweighed by emissions from traffic normally in and around those portions of the proposed project area near busy roads. Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Long-term traffic-related emissions from the proposed action are not predicted to cause ambient air quality concentrations that exceed regulatory standards. Calculated worst-case maximum CO concentrations at all locations examined would comply with applicable ambient air quality standards. The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect air quality and also would conform to current air quality rules, and no operational impact mitigation measures are proposed. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: I) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The proposed project area is within the GreenlDuwamish River watershed, WRIA #9. The major water bodies near the proposed project area are the Green River and Springbrook Creek (stream number 09- 0005). The Green River flows south to north, and is located west of the proposed project area along the west side of the West Valley Highway. The Green River's name changes to the Duwamish River at river mile II, where it converges with the Black River. The Duwamish River flows into Elliott Bay in Seattle. Springbrook Creek flows south to north and bisects the project area along 27th Street SW between Oakesdale Ave. SW and Lind Ave. SW. It flows to the Black River Pump Station located near the intersection ofl-405 freeway and the Valley Parkway. The pump station discharges into the GreenlDuwamish River. This pump station has defined pump capacity restrictions, which regulate the flows in Springbrook Creek. Other water bodies in or adjacent to the proposed project area include drainage ponds and drainage ditches, and 29 wetlands that have been delineated in the project area. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. SW 27th Street will be widened on either side and across Springbrook Creek, where an earlier City of Renton project replaced old, undersized arch culverts with a new, greatly enlarged box culvert. This culvert was sized large enough (per the modeling for the East Side Green River Watershed Project) to accommodate the future expansion ofSW 27'h St., and so will not need to be further modified. The only work that might occur below the ordinary high water mark of Springbrook Creek would be the replacement ofthe two existing stormwater outfalls. Fourteen of the twenty-nine wetlands or their buffer areas may be affected by the proposed project. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source offill material. Thirteen wetlands may have buffer impacts, and five (four of which are also in the thirteen) may have wetland impacts, for a total of fourteen affected wetlands. Approximately 2.02 acres of wetland impact would result from roadway improvements. In addition, 3.90 acres of buffer impacts would result. Wetland impacts from fill placement would result in a decrease of wetland functions and values performed. Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 2ih St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? Ifso, note location on the site plan. Yes, portions of the project area lie within the floodplain. Springbrook Creek, which the project crosses, is a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodway. While roadway will be widened at the crossing of Springbrook Creek, no fill will be placed in the FEMA floodway, and no additional constriction or impedance offlow in the floodway will result from this project. The existing culvert will pass the existing and future 100-year flood flows. However, some construction and associated fill will be placed below the I OO-year flood elevation in the near vicinity of Springbrook Creek. The SW 27th Street crossing of Springbrook Creek was included as one of the output points for the 1997 hydrologic (Hydrologic Simulation Program- FORTRAN [HSPF]) and hydraulic (Full EQuations [FEQ]) modeling for the East Side Green River Watershed Project. (Since 1997 the City of Renton has alleviated several flow constraints and conducted additional analysis as part ofa Springbrook Creek Remapping Study. Preliminary modeling results have been prepared, but at present have not completed FEMA review. Accordingly, the findings of the 1997 modeling are at present considered best available information, per Alan Quinn, City of Renton, personal communication, Sept. 10,2004. Should the remapping study results be approved for use, the 100-year flood elevation and fill volumes described below would need to be recalculated.) Per the FEQ simulation of the 100-year event, the elevation of the 100-year flood under future conditions (conveyance) is 19.2 feet above mean sea level, using the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NA VD88). Using this lOO-year floodplain elevation in the cross-sectional analysis of the proposed action, the fill within the 100-year floodplain would total approximately 2,430 cubic yards for future conditions. If unmitigated, floodwater storage capacity would be reduced accordingly. This would result in some additional backing-up of water in the upstream tributaries and ponding of excess water, and contribute to a slightly higher flood elevation and frequency in these upstream areas. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? Ifso, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. The impacts of the project on water quality would essentially be due to roadway use, from the build-up of pollutants from traffic between storms and the subsequent runoff of pollutants during storm events. See question 8(3)(c)(2). b. Ground Water: I) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Along SW 27th St., the excavation of storm water vaults would require the removal of some groundwater seepage during the construct,ion phase. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (jor example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None from this project. 5trander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h S1. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. The project would result in 7.03 acres of total new impervious surfaces in addition to what currently exists (6.25 acres), for a total of 13.28 acres. Impervious surfaces are a combination of "pollution- generating impervious surfaces" (PGIS)(those subject to vehicular traffic, i.e., roads and driveways) and "non-pollution-generating impervious surfaces" (sidewalks and other non-drivable impervious surfaces). Impervious Surfaces for Existing and Proposed Conditions. Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Total non-PGIS Total Total Imperious Total non-PGIS Total PGIS Total Imperious (Acres) PGIS· Surface (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Surface (Acres) (Acres) 0.82 5.43 6.25 2.53 + 0.82 = 3.35 4.5 + 5.43 = 9.93 7.03+6.25 = 13.28 There would be 4.5 acres of new PGIS in addition to what currently exists (5.43 acres), for a total of 9.93 acres. (Non-PGIS surfaces would total 3.35 acres, of which 2.53 acres would be new non-PGIS and 0.82 acre would be currently existing non-PGIS.) Without using mitigation measures, the new impervious surface would cause an incremental increase in runoff rates and volumes. During construction, without mitigation measures the frequency and duration of sediment-laden runoff into wetlands could increase. See also questions B(I)(g), B(3)(c)(2), and B(3)(d). Runoff from 8.6 acres of PGIS would discharge to Springbrook Creek, either through the detention and water quality treatment vaults under SW 27th Street and to the creek via existing outfalls (piping to be replaced) on either side of the creek, or through detention and water quality treatment ponds on the property south of Phase 1St age I, discharging then to the wetland system and ultimately making its way to the creek. Runoff from approx. 1.3 acres of PGIS would be directed to a detention and water quality treatment pond in the vicinity of the railroad tracks, and conveyed from there either to an existing and recently reconstructed outfall for W. Valley Highway stormwater and thence via an existing outfall to the Green River, or to a City of Renton wetland area for which the City has identified a need for supplemental water. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the South King County Groundwater Management Area and within an area that is considered highly susceptible to groundwater contamination. The City of Renton has designated the area immediately surrounding the proposed action as a surficial aquifer with "medium susceptibility" to contamination. The primary source of water contaminants from transportation systems is runoff from impervious surfaces. Heavy metals are the most commonly cited constituent that is associated with highway runoff, particularly cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc. The project would result in runoff from approx. 0.6 acre of new PGIS (with 1.4 acres existing, for a total of2.0 acres ofPGIS) that would discharge to the Green River, and from approx. 3.9 acres of new PGIS (with 4.0 acres existing, for a total of7.9 acres of PGIS) that would discharge to Springbrook Creek. Pollution-Generating Impervious Surfaces (PGIS) for Existing and Proposed Conditions. Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Total PGIS (Acres) Acres Treated Total PGIS (Acres) Acres Treated 5.4 0.3 9.9 9.2 + 0.3 = 9.5 Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The impacts of the project on water quality would essentially be due to roadway use, from the build-up of pollutants from traffic between storms and the subsequent runoff of pollutants during storm events. The quality of storm water runoff is determined by a complex process that is dependent on a large number of variables (which are discussed in more detail in the surface water discipline report for the project). Water quality impacts from road operations are already occurring in the project study area. The increased traffic volume resulting from the completion of the project would be expected to incrementally increase water quality impacts in the area from increased pollutant loadings, and from sediment deposition (see question B(1 )(g». These impacts would affect Springbrook Creek, the Green River, and the adjacent wetlands. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The mitigation measures for stormwater runoff and stormwater quality treatment would be developed in accordance with the standards ofthe Storm water Management Manual/or Western Washington (2001)(SMM) for detention design and storm water quality treatment, and King County's Surface Water Design Manual (1998) for storm conveyance design. Permanent facilities and management measures would be employed for the completed and operating roadway project, and temporary mitigation measures would be used for the construction phase ofthe proposed action. Facilities for the Phase/Stage I road segment may be developed in coordination with facilities for the property south of the project. See also questions A(7) and (9). Detention facilities would be provided to mitigate increased flows from runoff and the corresponding potential for stream erosion by matching the developed discharge durations peak discharge rates to pre- developed durations and return periods as per the SMM. Under existing conditions, only 0.3 acre ofPGIS (ofa total of 5.4 acres) has water quality treatment facilities. The project will increase the total acreage ofPGIS by 4.5 acres (to a total of9.9 acres), and increase the treated POlS by 9.2 acres (for a total of9.5 acres). Storm water quality facilities would be designed to capture and treat runoff. These facilities would all be designed for "enhanced treatment" (which provides a high rate of removal of dissolved metals) as well as to meet other treatment objectives using best management practices (BMPs)(wetpools, biofiltration, and filtration) to remove sediment, petroleum products, and nutrients from the storm water. The treatment facility BMPs would use one or more of the following types of systems: wetponds, wetvaults, constructed wetlands, filter strips, biofiltration swales, sand filters, and media filters. Where vaults would be used they would be designed as a treatment train of two vaults (a wet vault and then a sand filter vault) functioning in series, as listed in Table 3.2 of Volume V of the SMM's standards. These measures are described in more detail in the project's Hydraulic Report (30% plans). As a result of project construction, a decrease in pollutant loads to the Green River and Springbrook Creek should be realized in comparison with current conditions due to the addition of the project's water quality treatment facilities. For the construction phase of the project, the mitigation measures would include the implementation of the project's stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for construction, with facilities designed and constructed to capture pollutants and sediment-laden runoff prior to discharging to surface waters. The structural BMPs and construction management techniques would depend on the construction site conditions, and would include: Temporary mulching or plastic coverings of exposed areas and stockpile locations, with temporary and permanent seeding of areas not to be covered by impervious surfaces; Placement of temporary silt fences, straw wattles, silt traps, and/or sediment trapping ponds/vaults; Discharge of runoff through grassed/plant buffer areas; and Implementation of a SWPPP throughout the duration of construction. Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 2th St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A conceptual wetlands mitigation plan for the 2.02 acres of unavoidable wetland impacts is included with this SEPA checklist and pennit application submittal; a final mitigation plan would be approved as part of penn it approval. Increased stonnwater runoff could also affect the water quality of wetlands; however, stonnwater treatment and detention facilities will minimize these impacts or improve on existing untreated conditions. A location(s) will be identified in the Springbrook Creek drainage upstream of the SW 27th St. crossing for the development of approximately 2,430 cubic yards of compensatory flood storage below 19.2 feet. 4. PLANTS a. b. c. d. Check or circle types ~etation found on the site: -.2L deciduous tree: alder maple, aspen,~ black cottonwood, red-osier and Pacific dogwood, big- leaf maple -.2L evergreen tree:@,rcedan pine,~ Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western redcedar -.2L shrubs beaked h~t, Noo~se, salmonberry, red elderberry, Pacific and Sitka willow, thimbleberry, red-osier dogwood, Himalayan blackberry -.2L grass __ pasture __ crop or grain -.2L wet soil plants: ~ buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, ® reed canarygrass __ water plants: wa~, eel grass, mil foil, other -.2L other types of vegetation maintained planter strips with ornamental plantings What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The overall project footprint would encompass approximately 19.49 acres, which would consist of both developed and undeveloped lands. Approximately 6.21 acres are currently developed (with impervious surface), while the remaining 13.28 acres are vegetated. Of the approximately 13.28 acres that would be cleared, the predominant habitat (5.21 acres) which would be impacted would be upland terrestrial (agricultural, pasture, and mixed environments). The remaining habitat types that would be impacted would include 4.42 acres of Westside Riparian-Wetlands habitat, 2.32 acres of urban and mixed environments, and 1.33 acres of westside lowlands conifer-hardwood forest. Embedded within these acreage estimates are the 2.02 acres of impacts on jurisdictional wetlands and 3.90 acres of buffer impacts (see question B(3)(a)(3». Approximately 7.03 acres ofthe cleared area would be covered by the additional impervious surface that would be added by the proposed project. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered plant species are known to be on or near the site. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Wetland and buffer impacts would be addressed by wetland enhancement and wetland compensation (wetland creation); see question B(3)(d). The project will include planter strips and landscaping for the length of the project except where site constraints preclude this. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: BirdsS~~gb~8 23 species were observed, including mallard & ruby ducks; downy ~~parrows; wrens;, swallows; chickadees; others Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h St. Corridor Improvements. SEPA checklist. September 22. 2004 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver{Otl1el) eastern cottontail rabbit, Norway rat. Wildlife potentially present include, , northern raccoon, c~ red fox, opossum, deer mouse, house mouse, voles, eastern gray squirrel, mustelids, bats Fish: bass, almo S herring, shellfish, other _____ _ Other animal· bullfrog, garter snakes b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Federally Listed and Candidate Species that May Occur Near the Proposed Project Area. Common Name Scientific Name Population SegmenV Evolutionarily Federal Significant Unit (ESU) Status Bald Eagle Haliaeetus Winter Population Threatened leucocephalus Bull Trout Coastal-Puget Sound Threatened Salvelinus confluentus Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus Puget Sound ESU Threatened tshawytscha Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU Candidate Bald Eagle. Wintering bald eagles may occur in the project vicinity. The data of the Wash. Dept. ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) did not include any bald eagle nesting territories, wintering roost, or other bald eagle use polygons in the vicinity of the study area. However, bald eagles are known to occasionally fly over the study area and perch on larger trees, where they could potentially feed on carrion, salmonids, waterfowl, and eastern cottontail rabbits. Bald eagles have also been known to prey on great blue herons at the Black River Pump Station colony. . Bull Trout. The occurrence ofa reproducing population of bull trout in the GreenlDuwamish River basin has not been documented, and the current status of bull trout in this basin is uncertain. Recent surveys conducted upstream of the Howard Hanson Dam have not captured any bull trout. Assuming a bull trout population was historically established in the GreenlDuwamish River basin, it appears to have been extirpated as a result of dam and water diversion construction projects during the early 1900s. But while no evidence of a reproducing population of bull trout exists, individual bull trout are occasionally captured in the GreenlDuwamish River basin; the most recent bull trout captured in the GreenlDuwamish River was on May 24, 1994. Although it is uncertain ifbull trout reproduce in the GreenlDuwamish River basin, it appears they are opportunistic anadromous char that occasionally utilize the river during periods of juvenile salmonid outmigration when prey is most abundant. The WDFW has not documented bull trout in Springbrook Creek, and habitat conditions in the creek are considered unfavorable for bull trout primarily due to elevated stream temperature, high percentage offines in available gravels, and overall low elevation of its headwaters. Chinook Salmon. The GreenlDuwamish River basin Chinook salmon is considered a composite stock with contributions from both hatchery and natural (wild) production. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe data indicate young-of-the-year (YOY) Chinook salmon smolts start entering the Duwamish estuary by March 24 and are present through late August, with a peak in mid May (Warner and Fritz 1995). An influx of hatchery fish occurs in late April and early May. Chinook salmon in the estuary are composed of yearlings, YOY, and fry. The presence of yearling Chinook in the estuary may be the result of hatchery practices, while the presence of fry may be the result of spring freshets. Furthermore, small yearlings captured in February, March, and April are from fish planting that occur above the Howard Hanson Dam that are typically flushed downstream when the reservoir is drained in November and December. Chinook salmon have been documented in Springbrook Creek and observed (1997) attempting to spawn near the SW 27th St. crossing over Springbrook Creek. No data for juvenile outmigration are available for Springbrook Creek because none have been captured at the BRPS, thus indicating they may not successfully spawn in this system. WDFW spawning ground survey data for Springbrook and Garrison creeks documented 12 salmon, one of which was a Chinook. No other Chinook salmon were observed during these surveys, and no redds of any species were documented. The conclusion is that most ifnot all Chinook salmon entering Springbrook Creek are fish migrating to the Green River Hatchery that strayed Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 11 I. I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I into the Springbrook Creek basin, and that habitat in Springbrook Creek is not well-suited for Chinook salmon and few or no Chinook salmon rear in this system. Coho Salmon. Coho salmon typically spawn in most ifnot all accessible tributaries with suitable habitat in the Green/Duwamish River basin, and spawning also occurs in the mainstem. Based on the extended freshwater rearing of juvenile coho salmon, they could be present throughout the year where suitable habitat exists. Four adult coho salmon were observed in the Springbrook Creek basin. All were located in the lower foothill area of Mill Creek; no redds were found. A coho salmon smolt outmigration study conducted at the BRPS during the spring of 1994 documented smolts leaving Springbrook Creek in April 8 through June. WDFW spawning ground survey data for Springbrook and Garrison creeks documented II coho (of the 12 salmon observed). No redds were documented. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain d. The area is part of the Pacific Flyway. Anadromous fish migrate to upstream spawning sites via the Green River. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, ifany: The project area and vicinity are highly urbanized and modified, and as such have absorbed extensive impacts to wildlife species and their habitats in the past. The proposed project would result in additional impacts on terrestrial resources from direct impacts and as a result offacilitating the development of and access to the area. Habitat Loss, Fragmentation and Alteration; Displacement. Wildlife habitat in the study area is currently fragmented, but proposed project-related activities would reduce and further fragment what currently remains. In general, fragmentation reduces the number of species (species diversity) that occur in the remaining habitat patches, and shifts species use to favor those species which are adapted to habitat edges, dependent upon human activity, or highly mobile. Some wildlife would be displaced during construction when land is cleared of existing vegetation and noise and activity increase in the proposed project area; this displacement could be either temporary or permanent and could result in mortality. Species and habitat affected would depend in part on the types and quantity of habitat impacted, construction timing, and the availability of suitable unoccupied habitat in the vicinity. Direct Mortality; Construction Effects; Disturbance. During construction, some direct mortality to wildlife would occur during construction as a result of the clearing of 13.28 acres of vegetated land. Increases in traffic volumes and speeds in the project area due to the project would result in additional automobile- caused wildlife kills. Human access to wildlife areas, and the level of noise and activity, may increase, thus inhibiting wetland use by some wildlife species. Clearing and grading could result in increased temperature and sedimentation/turbidity effects. There will not be any direct mortality of fisheries resources because the only work that might occur below the ordinary high water mark of Springbrook Creek would be the replacement of the two existing stormwater outfalls. The project's erosion control and pollution prevention planning will protect the waters during this work. Mitigation for project impacts to wetlands would be based on wetland type and the mitigation ratios of the local jurisdiction. See question 8(3)(d). Riparian habitat adjacent to Springbrook Creek along SW 27th Street may be affected: the extent of impact and mitigation would be quantified and finalized during the permitting process. Clearing of vegetated areas where nesting migratory birds could be present should not occur during the nesting season (i.e., vegetated areas should be cleared and grubbed by early April). A nesting raptor survey should be conducted to identify existing nests and potential nesting trees in the project corridor in order to enable corrective actions to be taken prior to construction if raptors nest within the project footprint. Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Another mitigation measure could be to convert to upland wildlife habitat the area of railroad bed that would be abandoned as a result track relocation. Native trees and shrubs, snags, and downed wood could possibly be installed along the old track location. Increased Stormwater Runoff, and Water Quality Effects. The quantity and quality of stonnwater runoff would change as a result of an increase in new impervious surface in the study area. Aquatic habitats such as streams and wetlands that become receiving waters for stormwater runoff could experience a change in their hydrograph, could receive increased pollutants such as hydrocarbons, metals, fine sediment, and others, and could experience increased water temperatures. Increases in sediment loads and turbidity in aquatic systems can be minimized through the use of stormwater treatment and detention facilities and BMPs. These would minimize the impacts to water quality, and the effects of runoff volumes, peak flows, and alterations to hydroperiod. Pollutant impacts can be reduced through the use of enhanced water quality treatment measures and precautionary measures during construction. Temperature impacts can be reduced through the use of best management practices (BMPs) such as underground detention facilities, infiltration of runoff, and replacement ofvegctation. See also question B(3)(d). 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Gasoline, and diesel fuels and/or liquefied petroleum gas, would be used by worker vehicles and construction vehicles and machinery. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? Ifso, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The following project practices would be employed: Carpooling or vanpooling of construction workers to and from the work site would be encouraged; Equipment would be regularly maintained to ensure that it remained in good condition; Idle equipment would be throttled-down or switched-off; Double-handling offill and construction materials would be minimized; and Recycled materials would be used, and materials generated during construction would be recycled. By reducing congestion at intersections in the proposed project area, the proposed project would have the benefit of improving the efficiency of petroleum consumption by vehicles. 7 . ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Six sites within the proposed project area have had or may have had releases of hazardous chemicals to soil and groundwater. Qne of these sites is the Conoco Phillips Tank Fann, which has had two reported fuel releases and is undergoing site cleanup of free-product in groundwater. Contaminated groundwater extends into SW 27th Street, where excavation work is planned. In addition, there are numerous other sites identified in the extended project area that may also have contributed to soil and groundwater contamination. These potential or real releases could be encountered during construction. In addition, the railroad ties and beds may be contaminated with railroad tie preservatives such as cresote or other contaminants from possible spills or releases along the railroad. Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Conoco Phillips Tank Farm, 2423 Lind Ave. SW, is under an Ecology Consent Order, No. DE 87- N301. StemoffMetals Corporation, 1600 SW 43rd St, is undergoing a MTCA Cleanup Action with Ecology. Daniel Boone Paint Co., 15701 Nelson Place S., and Olympic Pipeline HQ/PSE Renton Substation, 2319 Lind Ave. SW, are undergoing Voluntary Cleanup Actions under MTCA with Ecology. In addition, the Renton Sand and Gravel and Renton Junction Landfill sites are undergoing an Ecology Site Hazard Identification Lastly, there are three former Leaking Underground Storage Tank sites in the proposed project area. The hazardous waste discipline report describes how the project could affect each of this environmental commitments. I) Describe special emergency services that might be required: Implementation of spill response measures. Treatment of workers if exposed to hazardous chemicals beyond regulated limits. Handling of previously unidentified and potentially hazardous substances (such as in the discovery of a previously unknown underground tank). 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: There are a number of potential sources of contamination near the proposed project. One site in particular, Conoco Phillips tank farm (located on the comer ofSW 27th Street and Lind Ave. SW), may need additional cleanup prior to construction depending on the results on additional testing. It is recommended that soils and groundwater be characterized for contaminants prior to commencement of project construction: the early sampling and characterization would allow time for consideration of redesign elements or planning for construction staging if the results indicate that such alterations would be desirable in order to avoid problems with worker health and safety and with disposal of potentially hazardous waste. A site-specific health and safety plan would be developed for construction workers to address each type of chemical that is expected to be encountered in soil, groundwater, and the railroad ties. If it should be determined that soil or groundwater waste would be classified as a hazardous waste, then a Waste Characterization Plan would be developed that would identify procedures to effectively manage waste generated during construction so that delays could be kept to a minimum and adherence with all regulations could be assured. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic, construction equipment, material hauling, and grading could affect traffic flow in the proposed project area. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Clearing, grading, paving, erection and similar site preparation and construction activities would generate noise during the construction phase, normally during regular business hours but potentially at other times. Vehicular traffic would generate noise long-term as a result of the project. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, ifany: There are no residential uses within the project vicinity that are likely to be affected by construction- related noise (The nearest residential uses to the proposed action construction corridor are approximately 1,400 feet east of the eastern terminus, on the opposite side ofSR 167. Construction sound levels at that distance are greatly reduced.). However, some commercial locations at the western and eastern termini of the proposed action corridor could be affected by the nearest construction Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27th St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I activities. Noise emanating from temporary construction sites is exempted except during nighttime hours (i.e., between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). Ifnighttime construction is deemed necessary, a nighttime noise variance might be required. The proposed project is included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program 2003-2005, which was modeled in 2002. Traffic data for the noise analysis included traffic related to planned actions and growth in the area. The design concept and scope ofthe Strander Blvd. project have not substantially changed since its inclusion in these transportation plans and the proposed action would not, therefore, worsen the current situation from that modeled in the planned action. The projected increases in long-term noise for the commercial locations at the western and eastern termini of the proposed action corridor would not be substantial. Potential traffic noise impacts to users of the Interurban Trail could occur at locations on the trail in the vicinity ofStrander Blvd. and West Valley Highway. However, access and visibility requirements for the commercial businesses fronting West Valley Highway would preclude the construction ofa noise barrier, so that such a barrier would not be feasible. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? In Renton, commercial and light industrial land uses are located along the proposed project corridor, in particular on the north side of SW 27th St. and near its intersection with East Valley Road. A large portion of the land south ofSW 27th St. and the proposed Strander Blvd. extension are undeveloped and depicted as Resource Conservation on the Renton zoning map. There are no residential or recreational land uses near the proposed project area within Renton City limits. In TukwiIla, land uses surrounding the intersection of West Valley Highway and Strander Blvd. and north up to 1-405, consist of commercial uses catered to the traveling public, including restaurants, gas stations, and convenience stores. South of that intersection the land uses, while still containing commercial uses, are more light-industrial commercial uses such as manufacturing. There are no residential land uses near the proposed project area within the Tukwila city limits. A short portion of the Interurban Trail, a recreational use, is located near the western terminus of the proposed project and would likely be affected by it. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Prior to the late 1950s and '60s the Green River valley was farmed where the effects of seasonal flooding and channel shifting were limited enough to allow this. c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Three railroad lines, roadways and bridges. Commercial and light industrial buildings are adjacent to the project in many locations. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? 5,500 feet ofUPRR railroad track would be relocated. A gas station at the west terminus of the project corridor would be relocated. A new UPRR bridge structure would be built at the existing railroad crossing at S. Longacres Way. Some existing pavement areas would be reconstructed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? City of Renton. Five different zoning designations are within the proposed project area. From the western city limit eastward to the intersection of Oakesdale Ave. SW and SW 27th St., the property is zoned Commercial Office (CO). Proceeding eastward along the north side ofSW 27th St. to Lind Ave. SW, the property is zoned Industrial-Heavy (lH). Along the same segment on the south side ofSW 27th St., the property (owned by the City of Renton) is zoned Resource Conservation (RC). On the north side ofSW 5trander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h St. Corridor Improvements. SEPA checklist. September 22. 2004 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2th St. from Lind Ave. SW to East Valley Road, the property is zoned Industrial-Light (lL). Along the same segment on the south side of SW 27th St., the property is designated as Industrial-Medium (1M). City of Tukwila. The roadway portion of the proposed project would consist of an east-west link from the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway to the eastern city limit boundary. The proposed roadway extension and north portions of the UPRR railroad track realignment are located in the Tukwila Urban Center as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The southern portion of the proposed north- south railroad track relocation extends south to a point approximately 1,700 feet from Strander Blvd. and is designated Commercial Light Industrial. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? City of Renton. The proposed project area is located within the "Employment Area-Valley" land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. City of Tukwila. The Comprehensive Plan applies the Tukwila Urban Center and Commercial Light Industrial land use designations. The Tukwila Urban Center is an area characterized by high-density regional uses that include commercial uses, offices, light industry, warehousing, and retail uses. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? City of Renton: Springbrook Creek is a FEMA floodway. It flows south to north and bisects the project area along 27th Street SW between Oakesdale Ave. SW and Lind Ave. SW. It flows to the Black River Pump Station located near the intersection of 1-405 freeway and the Valley Parkway. The pump station discharges into the GreenlDuwamish River. This pump station has defined pump capacity restrictions, which regulate the flows in Springbrook Creek. The ordinary high water mark is 15.0 feet above mean sea level. Urban environment designation is applied to the west bank of Springbrook Creek north ofSW 27th St. Conservancy is applied to the east bank north of SW 27th St., to both sides of the creek south of SW 27th St., and to the associated wetlands located on the south side of SW 27th St. from Springbrook Creek west to Oakesdale Ave. SW. City of Tukwila: If the project were to direct outflow from some detention ponds to the Green River, it would involve the construction ofa line and connection to an existing outfall. Some of the line construction, and the connection with the existing system and outfall, would occur within 200 feet of the Green River. The Urban environment designation is applied to Green River. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? Ifso, specify. City of Renton: Flood Hazard Area. The City of Renton has designated the FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplain and flood way as its flood hazard area. The project crosses the floodway at Springbrook Creek, and has construction and fill activities in some of the adjacent floodplain. See also question B(3)(a)(5). Geologic Hazard. Seismic Hazard Area. The City of Renton has designated the area immediately surrounding the proposed project as a 'high hazard" area. Habitat Conservation. Critical Habitat. This includes shoreline areas designated as Conservancy or Natural. In the project area, Conservancy is applied to the east bank of Springbrook Creek on both sides ofSW 27th St., to the west bank on the south side ofSW 27th St., and to the associated wetlands on the south side ofSW 2th St. from Springbrook Creek west to Oakesdale Ave. SW. Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 16 I I I I I I I I I I Wetlands. Twenty-nine wetlands have been delineated in the project area. Of the eighteen that may be affected by the proposed project, nine are in Renton. Shoreline Streams and Lakes. This sensitive area has not been defined or mapped for the Renton Municipal Code. However, the project has construction within the shoreline jurisdiction of Springbrook Creek. City of Tukwila: Geologic Hazard. Seismic Hazard Area. The City of Tukwila has designated the area immediately surrounding the proposed project as a hazard area. Wetlands. Twenty-nine wetlands have been delineated in the project area. Of the eighteen that may be affected by the proposed project, nine are in Tukwila. Areas that Contain Archaeological Remnants. This is not currently designated for the project area, but according to research for the project (see question B( 13) and the Cultural Resources Assessment discipline report), there is high likelihood of archaeological resources in the vicinity. Watercourses. If the project were to direct outflow from some detention ponds to the Green River, it would involve this sensitive area. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? No one resides within the project area, and the project itself would not provide any new long-term employment. By facilitating access into and across the area, the project would be expected to indirectly facilitate an earlier and more intense commercial use and development of the area. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? I None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: I Does not apply. I I I I I I I I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: City of Renton Planning. The proposed project is listed in the Renton Arterial Plan in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, from SR 181 (West Valley Highway) easterly to Oakesdale Avenue SW, though the listed project does not include the section from Oakesdale Ave. SW to East Valley Road. It does, however, include the area where any new right-of-way would be required. New construction in the portion that is not included in the listing, along SW 27th St., would be within the existing right-of-way. City of Tukwila Planning. The proposed project is included in the City's capital improvements program. Consistent with the objectives for the Tukwila Urban Center the new arterial would promote transportation and transit services that would help to increase and improve access to and from the Urban Center for all transportation modes and allow a range of travel route choices. Construction Phase. The magnitude of impacts to various land uses would vary with the timing, intensity, and duration of the disturbance. Temporary impacts would vary from location to location and result in traffic detours and an increase in noise, dust, and traffic congestion during construction. During construction, travel times would increase for business patrons in the proposed project area. Businesses would most likely see access limitations due to construction activity within the ROW. Project measures to address these elements are discussed in the appropriate sections of this checklist. Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h S1. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist. September 22, 2004 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The cities are committed to ensuring continued access through the proposed project area during construction, where feasible, and to ensure that disruption to businesses during construction is minimal; for example, to avoid street closures during construction, and to maintain one lane of traffic in each direction at all times, if possible. Every effort will be made to minimize impacts on merchant's driveways and sidewalks during construction, especially during business hours. Information would be provided to the public of transit and pedestrian re-routings, schedules of operation, road closures, and alternative modes of transportation as appropriate. Traffic signals and design would be used to help maximize traffic operation efficiency and improve traffic flow during construction activity. Long-term Land Use Impacts. These are related to change of land use, facilitation and intensification of development. Some existing land would be converted to transportation land use because additional right-of-way would be acquired for the proposed action. This is consistent with transportation planning in the City of Renton. The new access that would be provided by the proposed project may stimulate faster development of vacant land. While future development is largely dependent on market absorption rates, greater development would likely eventually happen even with the existing arterial network, although the new development would likely be accelerated by the proposed action. The increased area and intensity of development in the area is consistent with land use and comprehensive planning for both cities. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. The roadway overpass of the railroad tracks at Strander Blvd. would be approx. 70 feet tall at its greatest height. The railroad overpass of S. Longacres Way would be approx. 34 feet tall at its greatest height. Structural exteriors would be concrete, asphalt, and painted steel and aluminum. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Within the proposed project area between West Valley Highway and East Valley Road, the main visual features include the existing development of ware housel distribution facilities; the infrastructure features of railroad tracks, power lines, and streets; and the natural features of the natural tree canopy, planted tree stands, and low-lying emergent vegetation between the railroad tracks. The area between West Valley Highway and the proposed Strander Boulevard connection to SW 2th St. is currently undeveloped, with the major visual features being the power lines; two railroad tracks running north-south on elevated embankments parallel to the power lines; and the high-rise hotel on the east side of Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I West Valley Highway. The vegetation in this area is a combination of columnar poplar trees, thickets of blackberries, and immature trees and grasses. This area has been developed in the past, and while the buildings have been removed, the asphalt roadway surfaces remain, creating an open network. The area eastward from Oakesdale Ave. SW is a mixture of industrial and distribution facilities or undeveloped land. The visual environment in this area is either natural vegetation or large unmodulated buildings and a tank farm characteristic of ware housel distribution operations where the man-made landscaping along the roadway consists of street trees and planting strips. A significant visual feature in this area is the north-south open space c~eated by Springbrook Creek. The landscaping along SW 27th Street ends at East Valley Road, where the environment is of mixed uses and mixed qualities. The construction of the roadway overpass over the railroad tracks would result in a low curved object that would have a series of arcs above and below the roadway surface. See fig. 4. It would be approximately 1,600 feet long and 50 feet at its highest point. The roadway overpass would therefore be taller than the existing warehouse/distribution buildings in the area, and would be approximately as tall as a four-story office building (12.5 foot floor-to-floor spacing). This roadway overpass structure and the elevated section of 1-405 to the north would be the only roadway facilities with high visibility on the valley floor. For the most part, even though the roadway overpass structure would be large and elevated, distant views from the hillside residential areas on either side of the valley would be largely unaffected by construction of this roadway. The views from these areas are distant, and the proposed action would be a small feature in the viewshed. Between West Valley Highway and the UPRR and BNSF railroad tracks, the approach ramp on the west side of the tracks may touch down to meet the grade of West Valley Highway very near its existing intersection with Strander Boulevard. Depending on the final grade and design the two existing buildings (Jack in the Box and Taco Bell) might have to be removed to provide space for the ramp: if so, these two buildings could be rebuilt with new businesses, although with different building locations. These businesses and others in the vicinity would have immediate views of the approach ramp. In the immediate area between the railroad tracks and Oakesdale Avenue SW, there are no viewers of this facility because the area is undeveloped. The nearest viewer group is that of the hotel users in the high rise hotel along West Valley Highway. These guests would have a view of the roadway overpass, although these guest rooms look easterly and the new roadway overpass would be to the southwest. (A closer view feature for these guest rooms are the power lines between the hotel and the existing UPRR track.) Future development north and south of the proposed project area would be closer to the roadway than are existing occupied buildings. Future buildings would have immediate views of the approach ramps and the roadway overpass structure spanning the railroad tracks. From distant views these buildings would obscure the view ofthe roadway overpass and the presence of this structure would be mitigated as these buildings are eventually developed to the north and south. The stand of columnar poplar trees that runs east-west in the study area in the segment from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Ave. SW would be removed. Views from distant vantages would be most impacted by this removal. Running eastward to Oakesdale Ave. SW the new roadway would connect to the existing four-lane SW 27th Street. Because the middle lane would also provide an opportunity for a planted median, the expanse of new roadway surface would be limited to two lanes on either side, with the exception of the intersections. Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h S1. Corridor Improvements. SEPA checklist. September 22. 2004 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic it:npacts, if any: The proposed roadway overpass is currently proposed as a series of open spans which will improve the aesthetic appearance of the bridge as well as minimize the use of approach support fills. See fig. 4. Providing color and texture of the surfaces of retaining walls could reduce headlight glare and provide a less industrial look and feel to the sidewalls. At the west end, if the two parcels (Jack in the Box and Taco Bell) north and south of the existing Strander Boulevard right-of-way became undevelopable because of the need to provide area for the ramp, these parcels could provide an area to create a landscaped entrance to the approach ramp. Views to the roadway could be mitigated by street trees, which would obscure the view of the structures and retaining walls and provide a "green ribbon" along the right-of-way. From Oakesdale Ave. SW eastward there are existing regularly planted street trees, some of which can be preserved, and additional new street trees would be installed between the curb and the sidewalk, thus providing a consistent, tree- lined street image. Trees would be planted a minimum of25 feet apart, and would be selected for tolerance of somewhat wetter than normal soil conditions. A conceptual illustration of the landscaping and planting is shown in fig.5. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare emanating from temporary construction sites would occur seasonally at the end of the normal construction period (i.e., between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.). If nighttime construction is deemed necessary, a variance might be required. Because vehicles would ascend the approach ramps to the roadway overpass then curve down as the slope lessens toward the crest of the roadway overpass, headlight beams may direct light to the residential areas on the valley hillsides. The distance from this source to the receiving residential sites is more than 5,400 feet to the west and 6,600 feet to the east. While this light source would be largely obscured by predominately deciduous trees within the residential areas, these trees will shed leaves during the longest periods of seasonal darkness, which corresponds to the greatest time of headlight use. Streetlights would be provided to illuminate the roadway in accordance with standards established by the cities. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? I No. I I I I I c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Does not apply. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: There are existing regularly planted street trees, some of which can be preserved, and additional new street trees would be installed between the curb and the sidewalk. This planting technique would obscure much of the light created by automobile headlights after dark and reduce the light spill from the roadway. In the winter, even bare branches would obscure any light spill from the roadway (approximately 30 percent opaque). Streetlights can be shielded to avoid light spill from the roadway. Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12. RECREATION a. b. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? To the east and west of the proposed project area within an approx. 1 mile, the existing recreational areas and facilities consist of a few parks and the Christensen Greenbelt Park Trail. The Interurban Trail runs north-south, perpendicular to Strander Blvd.; a portion of the Interurban Trail lies within the project area in the City of Tukwila. The trail was built and is operated and maintained in a floating 15-foot easement within the 100-foot Puget Sound Energy transmission line right-of-way. The only existing recreational facility in the City of Renton within the proposed project area is Springbrook Trail, which is planned to run north-south following Springbrook Creek along the west side. Currently, multiple existing segments of the trail run from the south limit ofSW 43rd St. to the north Iimit,just north of Monster Road SW. Within the proposed project area, a small existing segment of the Springbrook Trail starts at SW 27th St. and runs north. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? Ifso, describe. The Interurban Trail runs north-south, perpendicular to Strander Blvd. It does not currently cross Strander Blvd. The new segment ofStrander Blvd. would directly cross the existing Interurban Trail. During the construction phase, the pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the trail would have to be re-routed temporarily. A segment of the Interurban Trail would be permanently removed and the traffic along the trail would have to be permanently re-routed. A small segment of Springbrook Trail just north of SW 27th St. would have to be removed due to the increased width of the roadway. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Because the new roadway segment would cut across the Interurban Trail, an at-grade crossing would be constructed at West Valley Highway (where bicycle/pedestrian traffic would be directed to the sidewalk on the north side of Strander Blvd., where it would cross the roadway at the intersection, and then be directed to the shared-use path on the south side ofStrander Blvd.), or the trail would be modified to cross under the roadway overpass structure. No mitigation measures would have to be taken as a result of the impacts on Springbrook Trail. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No known archaeological resources eligible for listing in the NRHP are in the proposed project area. White Lake Site, an occupation site associated with the large historic Duwamish Indian village ofSqoa'lqo, at the former confluence of the Black, White, and Duwamish rivers (0.7 mile NW of the project area), has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Tualdad Altu (formerly, Earlington Woods) occupation site is 0.9 mile to the NE of the project area on the Earlington Golf Course on a natural levee of the former Black River. It consists of at least two occupations with charcoal, bone and stone tools, FMR, mussel shell, and multiple fire hearths dating between 1360 BP and 1764 BP and has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. Allentown site, two miles to the NE of the project area, was a seasonally reoccupied fish camp. It dates between ca. 550 B.P. and A.D. 1900 and is probably eligible for listing in the NRHP. Strander Blvd. Extension and SW2th 51. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22,2004 21 I I I I I 'I I I 1 I I I I I b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. The project area would have been available to hunter-fisher-gatherers by approximately 2,300 years ago, based on the progradation rate of the Green IDuwamish River delta. Research into the historic and pre- European period, local environment, and archaeological archives and literature indicates that the areas between the Green River and Springbrook Creek have a high probability for buried hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, historic Indian, and historic period archaeological resources that may be eligible for listing in the NRHP. Among the finds in the near vicinity are shell middens, charcoal, fire-modified rock, and lithics. King County Department of Plann ing and Community Development (1979) conducted a county wide survey to identify historic places, but did not record any historic buildings or structures in the proposed project area but did record the Longacres Historic District, which is adjacent to the north and east portions of the project area. All of its structures have been replaced, remodeled, or removed, and therefore, Longacres Park is probably not eligible for listing in the NRHP. No traditional cultural places studies have been conducted in the project area vicinity, based on Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation records. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: A professional archaeologist should monitor ground-disturbing activities in native alluvial deposits because of the high probability for archaeological resources that may be eligible for listing in the NHRP. An Archaeological Construction Monitoring Plan should be developed early in the planning process so the plan can be reviewed and implemented prior to any subsurface work or excavation. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, ifany. The project vicinity area includes the West Valley Highway (SR 181) to the west, SW Grady Way to the north, SR-167 to the east, and SW 43rd Street to the south. The transportation system serving the project vicinity and study area include 1-405, SR 167, West Valley Highway (SR 181), Strander Blvd., SW Grady Way, SW 43rd St., East Valley Road, SW 27th St., Oakesdale Ave. SW, and Lind Ave. SW. b. Is site currently served by public transit? Ifnot, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. Several bus lines provide service through the area. At the northern end of the project area is the parking area for the new Tukwila Station for the Sounder interurban commuter transportation train and for several public bus lines. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? I The project of itself would not provide any new parking spaces. I I 1 I d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? The project would create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Ave. SW with a single roadway overpass of both a Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) track and two Burlin~ton Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) tracks. From Oakesdale Ave. SW to East Valley Road, SW 27' St. would be widened with pedestrian facilities and landscaping added. The project area would be approximately 100 acres. The five elements of the project, and the new and improved road segments, are further described in question A(ll). Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27th St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Yes, the UPRR and BNSF railroads have tracks in the western part of the project area. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway operates approximately 60 freight trains per day through the proposed project area, and Union Pacific Railroad operates approximately 15 to 20 UPRR freight trains through the corridor daily. At the northern end of the project area is the parking area for the new Tukwila Station for the Sounder interurban commuter transportation train and for several Metro King County bus lines. Sounder and Amtrak operate 18 to 20 trains per day through the proposed project area. Sound Transit has a temporary commuter rail platform immediately north of the possible railway overpass structure improvements; Amtrak passenger trains also use the platform. The current schedule for construction of the permanent platforms at the future Tukwila Station is uncertain but is anticipated within the next several years. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? Ifknown, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The project itself would not generate any additional long-term vehicular trips. However, by facilitating better access into and through the area the project would indirectly result in a greater number of trips that would pass through the area. Insofar as the project would indirectly facilitate the further commercial development of the area, it would also indirectly result in a greater number of vehicular trips whose destination would be within the project area or its immediate vicinity. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The proposed project is listed in the Renton Arterial Plan and in the Tukwila CIP program. The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability, and access in the north Renton/south Tukwila area. Without the development of the proposed project, alternative routes would need to be identified and evaluated to increase east-west traffic capacity, and several intersections that are near or at capacity would require additional capacity improvements. The additional roadway capacity created by the construction of the proposed project would attract new vehicular trips to the project area, either as an easier commute route or as a new trip generated by development drawn to the area because of easier access. Because of the additional traffic generated, seven of the study intersections are nearing or at capacity under future conditions operations and may need to be revised to accommodate revised traffic patterns as drivers divert their trips to seek the path of least resistance. The proposed project would allow for the diversion of existing traffic from the SW Grady Way or SW 43rd St. corridor that would free up capacity at intersections along those routes and significantly reduce overall average delay at key intersections. In general, the long-term traffic impact should be beneficial, with less veh icle congestion and delay because of the existence of an arterial roadway that moves vehicular traffic east and west across the valley from West Valley Highway to East Valley Road. The new arterial would help to support the regional growth forecasts, and help in the creation ofa balanced multi modal transportation system. Construction activity would cause some vehicle delays, particularly at the intersections located throughout the proposed project area, because of lane reductions that would be established in order to provide work zones. Travel times would increase for business patrons in the proposed project area. Some commercial accesses along West Valley Highway may be temporarily rerouted, particularly in the vicinity ofStrander Blvd. Temporary impacts would vary from location to location and result in traffic detours. Freight traffic would be diverted from SW 43rd St. and SW Grady Way (two congested links that currently carry significant freight volumes) onto the proposed extension of Strander Blvd. between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Ave. SW. The proposed project would result in a 25 percent decrease in freight volumes along SW Grady Way and an 18 percent decrease in freight volumes along SW 43rd St. east of West Valley Highway. This would reduce the proportion of heavy vehicles relative to the total flow of vehicles along SW Grady Way from 12.6 percent to 8.1 percent. The total number of daily passenger Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 2ih St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I vehicles along this link is projected to decrease by 27 percent, which is significantly more than the decrease in truck volumes, and thus the increase in truck percentage relative to total traffic. West Valley Highway would experience moderate growth in freight volumes as trucks travel to and from the proposed Strander Blvd. extension. The anticipated redistribution of traffic with the proposed extension ofStrander Blvd. would significantly reduce the presence of freight traffic along both SW Grady Way and SW 43rd Street. This would improve traffic flow along both of these corridors by removing slower-moving trucks from the roadway. The proposed project is also anticipated to increase the freight volumes along West Valley Highway. The Strander Blvd. extension is projected to carry over 1,400 bus transit passengers daily and save each of those passengers up to 2 minutes in reduced travel time. In addition, the proposed action is also projected to directly lead to an increase of between 400 and 600 new transit trips daily when land is fully redeveloped in the Renton area adjacent to the Strander Blvd. extension. Impacts on Rail Operations. There would be no impacts to rail operations during construction because the rerouted tracks would be constructed without interruption to the existing tracks. Service would be rerouted to the new tracks upon completion. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. This project would not result in an increased need for public services. During construction, fire, medic units, and police could experience some minimal delays in response times. This could occur on the existing segment ofSW 27th St. due to temporary lane closures and daily construction activities. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Emergency services would be provided with regular updates on the progress of the construction activities and adequate notice of any proposed road closures or lengthy traffic delays. Emergency vehicles would be encouraged to use alternative routes to avoid potential delays when possible. Personnel controlling the movement of vehicles along roads where construction works are being carried out would give priority to emergency vehicles over other vehicles. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site~ctric~ural ~, refuse service(@eph~ ~tary se~septic system, other. The relocation of the UPRR track would result in the track crossing over the Cedar River water pipeline, thus causing property ownership and easement issues and special construction requirements for the track over the pipeline. There is an overhead power line west of Oakesdale Ave. SW within the proposed roadway improvement limits for approximately 550 feet. Several existing utilities within the area of the proposed new roadway segment or along SW 27th St. include buried telephone, gas lines, sanitary sewer pipe, storm drain pipe and structures, buried power lines, and water lines. Most run north-south, perpendicular to the proposed roadway alignment, and several run through the existing intersections. Construction would affect the existing storm drain lines and structures, most of the remaining utilities would be affected as a result of the location of new storm drain lines and detention/water quality facilities, and there could be possible interruptions in the service of some utilities. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h St. Corridor Improvements. SEPA checklist. September 22. 2004 24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Some existing utilities would be relocated. Existing utilities (railroad signal and communication lines, fiber optic and telephone lines) that currently run parallel with the railroad tracks in the right-of-way and cross the proposed roadway alignment area would have to be relocated. The relocation of the UPRR track would require the settling of property ownership and easement issues with Seattle Public Utilities and the construction of the crossing of the pipeline would be based on Seattle Public Utilities' requirements. For some other existing utilities, new lengths would be constructed, or could be relocated. New storm drain lines and detention/treatment facilities wiII be constructed. In coordination with the road project the City of Renton will instaIl a water supply line and a sanitary sewer line (the size of each of these may be up to 12 inches in diameter) within easements and crossing the road right-of-way. The remaining utilities in this area are underground utilities and most likely could remain in their current locations. c. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Date: 5trander Blvd. Extension and 5W 27'h 5t. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ P_e..;,.;rtc.:.e..;,.;t:c.:.t-=E~n.:.iigi:..,;in..;,.;ec.:.e.:..:ric.:.n ... g.;...;[:.:.n;.....c. ~ en·il. T!1In!!pOTIlI,',,".nd Survcyin, City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 1 Proposed Roadway Limits Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h S1. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27th St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I S jl~l H GL'vO sw Inti Sf CONSTRUCTION ~I PERIOD ,_ ~\-"""'_' -"'.Q'r--+--L.._6 MONTHS ~ "'_ .. __ ._, ....... :~d ~~. g ~l ~ z co( ......... !JLV'J "\ ~ ::.:' w ~ n. ~ c:: c:.: -t ~ c.:. 0 0 I l I 2007 BUILD YEAR CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 2 YEARS I T I \ !. ~ 'tV 34TH ST t I tf/ 2006 BU ILD YEAR CON STR UCTION PERIOD 1YEAR c hi [1 n: z -t ~ SW 41TH ST 0 ~ ~ T I I ! , I J 1·-, tl . I I, iT City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension 43RD ST 1801H Sf) 'i.9 Figure 3 l ( l '.,., Construction Phases Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 2ih St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 29 I L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 30 I I I I I , I i I I I I I I I I I I I _.J: ~ lLJ I-:z Z ~ D-o -cf) Z UJ z I-0 X u.J \-U,j U Z D UJ 1'<1 ~ (j) -::> ~ (\{ :1: ~ \--« > S ~ ° 0 u.J D (\{ ---l « 0 \j) O'J :) ~ 0 -.J (() <{ ~ U D-u.J ?: D z ~ l- CS) City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension i, ~~ Q« ~ILUJ IWILJD T""\f)-i==~1f} :a:a~ I:~:::l ~r:~ z\f)Z c..Jr:O 01-~~ Figure 5 Typical Roadway Section Strander Blvd. Extension and SW 27'h St. Corridor Improvements, SEPA checklist, September 22, 2004 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEP A Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project .~ Perteet Inc. City of Renton September 2004 -4- PROJECT NARRATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 11 2004 RECEIVED 4-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 Project Narrative Project Name The proposed project is called Strander Boulevard Extension and SW 27th Street Corridor Improvements. The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability, and access in the north Renton/south Tukwila area. The project will create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Ave. SW with a single roadway overpass will be constructed over both a relocated Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) track and two Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) tracks. From Oakesdale Ave. SW to East Valley Road, SW 27th Street will be widened with pedestrian facilities and landscaping added. Figure 4-1 shows the project area. Project Size and Location This project will encompass approximately 100 acres between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Ave. SW that links Tukwila, Washington to Renton, Washington. This project study area is located in Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 5 East; Sections 24 and 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East; Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East (see Location Map, Figure 1). Renton is located at the south end of Lake Washington on the edge of metropolitan and rural King County. Figure 4-1 shows the location of the project. The study area is sideways T -shape. It includes the area between the west side of the Interurban Trail and the east side of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad track. The study area is wider in the vicinity of Strander Boulevard because it is possible that the trail would be moved. The southern boundary is south of a railroad spur heading northwest from the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline (the spur that crosses the Green River, not the short spur that serves adjacent businesses), which is about 1,700 feet south of Strander Boulevard. The spur would be the approximate takeoff point for a new UPRR mainline track that would replace the existing track. The new track would parallel the existing BNSF tracks. On the north end, the study area extends just past 1-405 where the UPRR track begins to parallel the BNSF tracks. Land Use Permits Required The following permits or approvals will be necessary for this project: ~ 4-2 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Permit Authority Name of Permit Federal (FHW A) National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) Environmental Classification Summary (ECS) and Categorical Exemption Federal (ACOE) Clean Water Act (CWA) §404 permit State (WDOE) CWA §40 1 Water Quality Certification State (WDOE) NPDES (CW A §402) general construction. permit State (WDOE) Hydraulic Project Approval City of Renton Shoreline Substantial Development Permit City of Renton Right of Way Use Permit City of Renton Building and construction permits City of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit City of Tukwila Sensitive areas and construction documents reVlews Request for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit from the City of Rentori • - The project area and the roadway will cross directly over Springbrook Creek. Because the existing box culvert was sized large enough when it was installed to fully accommodate the road expansion, the only work that might occur below the ordinary high water mark of Springbrook Creek would be the replacement of the two existing stormwater outfalls. However, construction of roadway will occur within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction, as well as over the creek. Accordingly, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be needed for the project, and shoreline permit review is requested as part of this submittal. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for Springbrook Creek (approximately 15.0 feet elevation above mean sea level) has been added to the site plans in Section 10 of this application as well as the Flood Hazard Plan in Section 17. Request for Variance (Deferral of Approval for Wetlands Mitigation Plan) from the City of Renton The development of a final Wetlands Mitigation Plan will take more time than will be provided in this environmental review process, in part due to the need for some further design work and decisions. As is indicated in the Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan (attached), a commitment is being made to meet the full wetlands mitigation requirement ~ ~ Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I per the municipal code. A variance is requested to defer the final approval of the wetland mitigati,on measures. A final Wetlands Mitigation Plan will be submitted prior to construction Phase II (the first phase that incurs the wetland impacts). The City of Tukwila will review and approve the mitigation plan as it is developed, as per other project documents. Zoning Designation and Current Use of Site Four different City of Renton zoning des,ignations are within the proposed project area. Figure 4-2 shows the city zoning map for the project area. From the western city limit eastward to the intersection of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 27th Street, the property is zoned Commercial Office (CO). Proceeding eastward along the north side of SW 27th Street to Lind Avenue SW, the property is zoned Industrial-Heavy (lH). Along the same segment on the south side of SW 27th Street, the property (owned by the City of Renton) is zoned Resource Conservation (RC). On the north side of SW 27th Street from Lind Avenue SW to East Valley Road, the property is zoned Industrial-Light (IL). Along the same segment on the south side of SW 27th Street, the property is designated as Industrial-Medium (1M). In Renton, commercial and light industrial land uses are located along the proposed project corridor, in particular on the north side of SW 27th St. and near its intersection with East Valley Road. A large portion of the land south ofSW 27th st. and the proposed Strander Blvd. extension are undeveloped and depicted as Resource Conservation on the Renton zoning map. There are no residential or recreational land uses near the proposed project area within Renton City limits. The zoning classifications in the' City of Tukwila are the same as the comprehensive plan designations (e.g., Tukwila Urban Center and Commercial Light Industrial). The Tukwila Urban Center is the specific area characterized by high-density regional uses that include commercial uses, offices, light industry, warehousing, and retail uses. The CommerciaV Light Industrial is an area characterized by a mix of commercial, office, or light industrial uses. Commercial areas consist of offices, lodging, entertainment, and retail activities. Light industrial areas are characterized by distributive and light manufacturing uses with supportive commercial and office uses. In Tukwila, land uses surrounding the intersection of West Valley Highway and Strander Blvd. and north up to 1-405, consist of commercial uses catered to the traveling public, including restaurants, gas stations, and convenience stores. South of that intersection the land uses, while still containing commercial uses, are more light-industrial commercial uses such as manufacturing. There are no residential land uses near the proposed project area within the Tukwila city limits. A short portion of the Interurban Trail, a recreational use, is located near the western terminus ofthe proposed project and would likely be affected by it. ~ 4-4 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Special Site Features Waterbodies The proposed project area is within the Duwamish River/Green River watershed, WRIA #9. The major water bodies near the proposed project area are the Green River and Springbrook Creek (stream number 09-0005). The Green River flows south to north, and is located west of the proposed project are~ along the west side of the West Valley Highway. The Green River's name changes to the Duwamish River at river mile 11, where it converges with the Black River. The Duwamish River flows into Elliott Bay in Seattle. Springbrook Creek flows south to north and bisects the project area along 27th Street SW between Oakesdale Ave. SW and Lind Ave. SW. It flows to the Black River Pump Station located near the intersection of 1-405 freeway and the Valley Parkway. The pump station discharges into the GreenlDuwamish River. This pump station has defined pump capacity restrictions, which regulate the flows in Springbrook Creek. SW 27th Street will be widened on either side and across Springbrook Creek, where an earlier City of Renton project replaced old, undersized arch culverts with a new, greatly enlarged box culvert. This culvert was sized large enough (per the modeling for the East Side Green River Watershed Project, 1997) to accommodate the future expansion ofSW 27th St., and so will not need to be further modified. Other water bodies in or adjacent to the proposed project area include drainage ponds and drainage ditches, and 29 wetlands that have been delineated in the project area. Fourteen of the twenty-nine wetlands or their buffer areas may be affected by the proposed project. Of these, 13 wetlands may have buffer impacts and five may have wetland impacts. In summary, 9 wetlands only have buffer impacts, 1 wetland only has wetland impacts, and 4 have both wetland and buffer impacts, for a total of 14 wetlands. Approximately 2.02 acres of wetland impact would result from roadway improvements. In addition, 3.90 acres of buffer impacts would result. Wetland impacts from fill placement would result in a decrease of wetland functions and values performed. Floodplains Portions of the project area lie within the floodplain. Springbrook Creek, which the project crosses, is a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodway. No fill will be placed in the FEMA floodway, and no additional constriction of flow in the floodway will result from this project. The existing box culvert will pass the existing and future 100-year flood flows. However, construction and associated fill will be placed below the 1 aO-year flood elevation in the vicinity of Springbrook Creek. During construction of the proposed action, location(s) should be identified in the Springbrook Creek drainage upstream of the SW 27th Street crossing for the development of approximately 2,430 cubic yards of compensatory storage. The compensatory storage could be achieved by removing dirt from below the 1 aO-year floodplain elevation and transferring the volume to a receiving location above the 100- year floodplain elevation (future conditions) of 19.2 feet. ~ 4-5 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I If unmitigated, floodwater storage capacity would be reduced accordingly. This would result in some additional backing-up of water in the upstream tributaries and ponding of excess water, and contribute to a slightly higher flood elevation and frequency in these upstream areas. 1 Geology The proposed project crosses recent fill and soft and loose deposits that are susceptible to liquefaction and its associated effects, and the entire project area is within a high liquefaction susceptibility zone. The effects of the potentially liquefiable soil beneath the proposed action would likely include reduction of vertical capacity and a reduction in lateral support/increased lateral soil pressures on the proposed foundations and ground settlement. Current design-level earthquakes could occur during the life of the project, causing liquefaction. The effects of liquefaction may include decrease of bearing capacity for existing shallow foundations, ground surface settlement, reduction in lateral and vertical capacity of new deep foundations, cut slope and fill instability, and lateral deflection of existing utilities. Liquefaction alone could cause large ground settlement. Nearly all ofthe potential seismic impacts could be mitigated by proper design and standard construction procedures. Liquefaction and, in particular, liquefaction-induced settlement may require nonstandard construction procedures to partially mitigate; however, these procedures, although nonstandard, are not uncommon given current seismic design criteria and earthquake engineering technology. Soil Type and Drainage Conditions The geological and soil conditions for the site are described in detail in the Geology and Soils Technical Discipline Report, Strander Boulevard Extension Project, (May 2004). The soils encountered during reconnaissance geotechnical boring installations included eight primary units including a fill unit, PeatlPeaty Deposits, Estuarine/Overbank Deposits, Cedar River Alluvh.im, Beach Deposit, DuwamishlGreen River Alluvium, Cedar River Alluvium -Gravel, and the Vashon Advance Outwash .. The human-placed fill material (Hi) comprises the top geological unit, which consists of varying composition was placed in depressions or for railroad embankments. The permeability of the fill material is variable. The largest deposits of fill material are the UPRR and BNSF railroad embankments near the western end of the proposed alignment. A peat layer (Hp) about 1 to 3 feet thick was encountered between about elevation zero and 10 feet in borings B-101 through B-103, B-I05 and B-106, B-I08 through B-ll 0, and B-112, which indicates a somewhat continuous peat deposit 'The f"~. uantities were updated since the publication of the Floodplains Discipline Report, May 2004. 4-6 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I west of Oakesdale Avenue SW. Logs were encountered in boring B-lll between 22 and 27 feet below ground surface. A more continuous peat layer about 4 to 5 feet thick was encountered near the same elevations in all the borings east of Oakesdale Avenue SW (B-201 through B-205). The GreenlDuwamish and Cedar Rivers deposited this fine-grained floodplain and deltaic unit (He). This unit was not overridden by glacial ice. It consists of very soft to medium stiff, slightly fine sandy, clayey silt and silty clay, with scattered organics and discrete peat lenses and layers. This unit has a relatively low permeability. It is found throughout the site, in every boring drilled along the proposed alignment. The Cedar River Alluvium (HaC) is a fine to medium alluvial unit that was deposited from the ancient Cedar River after the last glaciation of the Puget Lowland. The unit consists of loose to very dense, sandy gravel and gravelly sand, and contains scattered organics and numerous lenses and layers of loose silt and fine sand, and is locally clayey. This unit is comprised of rounded to subrounded particles of crystalline rock, typical of glacial deposits in the Cedar River valley. This unit has a range of relative permeability from low to high. Based on borings B-107 and B-I09, this unit has a maximum thickness of about 50 feet. The unit appears to pinch out to the west, as indicated by the soils encountered in borings B-102, B-I03, and B-105. To the east of boring B-IIO MW, the borings did not penetrate deep enough to encounter Cedar River alluvium. ' The beach deposit (Hb) is a coarse soil was deposited on beaches or created by wave action on beach lines in the GreenlDuwamish River Embayment during a lower level of Puget Sound. The unit consists of very dense gravel; clean to slightly silty, sandy gravel or gravelly sand, with a trace of shell fragments. The unit is comprised of rounded to subrounded pieces of crystalline rock but with traces of basalt and red andesite and has a relatively medium to high permeability. The presence of shells fragments was confirmed in two borings, B-1 09 and B- 205. The DuwamishiGreen River Alluvium (HaD) is a fine-to medium-grained alluvial unit was deposited in the channels of the GreenlDuwamish River and was not overridden by glacial ice. The unit consists of medium dense to very dense, clean to silty, fine sand and fine to medium sand, with scattered fine organics. It is comprised of subrounded to subangular pieces of dark gray to black basalt and red to red-brown andesite. It has a range of relative permeability from low to high. This alluvial deposit was found in all of the explorations and significantly thickens to the west ofB-108 MWNWP. The Cedar River Alluvium -Gravel unit (Hag) is very coarse alluvial unit and was deposited from the ancient Cedar River after the last glaciation of the Puget Lowland. The unit consists of dense to very dense, sandy gravel and gravelly ~ 4-7 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I sand and contains scattered organics. The unit is comprised of rounded to subrounded particles of crystalline rock, typical of glacial deposits in the Cedar River Valley, and has a relatively high permeability. Drilling action indicated that there might be cobbles and boulders in this geologic unit. Two strata of this unit were encountered in the deeper borings (B-103, B-105 VWP and B-107) separated by other alluvial layers about 15 feet thick. The Vashon advance glacial outwash (Qva) was deposited during the last glaciation of the Puget Lowland and was overridden by about 3,000 feet of glacial ice. This unit consists of very dense, gray, gravelly sand and was only encountered in the bottom of boring B-I03. The unit is comprised of rounded to subrounded particles of crystalline rock and has a relatively high permeability. The drainage conditions are described in detail in the Surface Water Technical Discipline Report, Strander Boulevard Extension Project, (May 2004). Due to the flat topography at the project site, the risk of landsliding is very low. The Soil Survey of King County map (Snyder et ai., 1973) was reviewed to approximate areas that may be susceptible to erosion when disturbed by construction. Soil units are considered to be erosion hazards if they are considered to be "severe" or "very severe" per the Woodland Groups, Wood Crops and Factors in Management of the Soil Survey. Table 4-1 presents the soil units, their geologic unit equivalents,and the level of erosion hazard. Figure 4-3 presents the Soils Map. Table 4-1: Erosion Hazard Units Soil Type Geologic Unit Erosion Hazard Newberg silt loam on slopes HaDlHeD Slight <2% Puyallup fine sandy loam on HaDIHeD Slight slopes <2% Puget silty clay loam on slopes HeD Slight <1% Snohomish silt loam on slopes HeD Slight <2% Tukwila muck on slopes <1 % HeD Slight Woodinville silt loam on slopes HaDlHeD Slight <2% Fill materials (Hf), also designated as urban land (Ur) in the King County soil survey, should be considered severe to very severe erosion hazards on slopes exceeding 15 percent. For temporarily exposed, unretained cut slopes in native soils, the erosion hazard would likely increase. In addition to the Soil Survey information, the City of Renton sensitive areas map for erosion hazards indicates that the entire proposed project area is within a low erosion hazard area. Figure 4-4 shows the flood hazard classifications. ~ 4-8 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The proposed project area between the West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue has no existing drainage facilities, except for intermittent ditches on both sides of the two railroad tracks. Given the relatively flat terrain in this area (slopes < 1 %) and several low spots (e.g., small, closed depressions), these ditches do not convey stormwater a significant distance; instead stormwater infiltrates into the ground. Up to seven existing storm outfalls and possibly two new outfalls might be affected or utilized by the proposed action (where outfalls are defined as point discharges into surface water bodies). These outfalls are presented in Table 4-2. This is where stormwater runoff currently discharges off of the roadway and into a water body. Other runoff locations from the project includes non-point sheet flow runoff, which is in the. proposed alignment between Oakesdale Avenue SW and the West Valley Highway. Table 4-2: Existing and New Storm Outfalls Outfall Location Green River, south side of Strander Boulevard Green River, -1,000 ft. south of Strander Boulevard Wetland Location (not determined) east of roadway overpass in Renton 8 Water Quality Pond at NE comer of of Oakesdale Ave & SW 27th Street Water Quality Pond SW of Oakesdale Ave and SW 2th Street (location not determinedt Springbrook Creek, West Bank at SW 27th Street Springbrook Creek, East Bank at SW 27th Street Wetland at SW comer of SW 27th St. ~ Perteet Inc. Description Pipe outfall at river bank Pipe outfall at river bank (would only be affected if stormwater were conveyed from the detention pond of the overpass to be discharged to the Green River) New pipe outfall into wetland (would be emplaced only if stormwater were conveyed from the detention pond of the overpass to be discharged to Renton wetlands in order to provide supplemental water per request of the City). Pipe outfall into pond New pipe outfall into new water quality pond, with treated water discharging by pipe outfall into wetland at SW comer of Oakesdale Ave. & SW 2ih Street (would be emplaced only if storm water were not conveyed to treatment and detention located within the right-of-way). Pipe Outfall into Creek Pipe Outfall into Creek Pipe outfall into wetland8 4-9 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I- and Lind Ave Storm Pipe System along E. Valley Rd. Storm pipe system along E. Valley Rd. then discharging into open ditch approx. 1,200 ft. north ofSW 27th Street a This is the probable outfall location. The precise information on this outfall is not available at this time. Information in this table was updated since the publication of the Surface Water discipline Report, May 2004. Proposed Use of Property and Scope of Proposed Development The purpose of the project is to improve travel speed, reliability, and access in the north Renton/south Tukwila area. The project will create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Ave. SW with a single roadway overpass will be constructed over both a relocated Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) track and two Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) tracks. From Oakesdale Ave. SW to East Valley Road, SW 2ih Street will be widened with pedestrian facilities and landscaping added. The project area will be approximately 1 00 acres~ Access The majority of the roadway is designed to be in existing Tukwila and Renton right-of- ways. A small portion of the Sound Transit property will need to be acquired for the new roadway located within Tukwila's city limits, as the project will be providing a signalized intersection for access into the Sound Transit Station. The Boeing Company donated 176,171 square feet (or 4.04 acres) of right-of-way for the project, which will provide two signalized intersections for access to the Boeing Longacres Site. Proposed Off-Site Improvements (i.e., sidewalks, fire hydrants, sewer main, etc ... ) Due to the nature of this project, all improvements are considered off-site. The project will include an extension of a road that will create a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Ave. SW. As part of the road construction efforts, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, landscaping, sewer mains, water mains, fire hydrants, storm water management systems, and street lighting will also be constructed. The City of Renton is designing the water, sewer and fire suppression systems. They will be constructed in the right-of-way (ROW) and easements. The lines will not be larger than 12" in diameter. Perteet will be designing the road, sidewalks, bridge, lighting and storm water features, the site plans provided in Section 10 below show the proposed design of these features and eventually the City of Renton's design of the fire, water, and sewer features will be ~ 4-10 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I included in these site plans. The current site plans provided in Section 10 show the proposed storm water system with the except of the features on the roadway overpass. The storm water design for the overpass will be discussed in the Supplement to the Hydraulics Report, which is currently being prepared for the City of Renton. The following is a general description of the improvements that will be completed as part of this project. Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track The UPRR track will be shifted to the east to parallel the existing two sets of BNSF track. A new railroad track will be constructed within a new 100-foot right-of-way adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way and then joined with the existing UPRR track at both ends of the project area. Approximately 5,500 feet of new track will be constructed at an elevation similar to that of the existing BNSF tracks. Construction will require placement of 125,000 cubic yards of earth and gravel for the new railroad bed. The new UPRR track will be located at the center of the new 100-foot right-of-way. Approximately the same amount of track and railroad bed will be removed from the existing UPRR location as will be constructed at the new UPRR track location. The railroad bed material will be disposed of at an approved location or reused as a construction fill material. New Roadway Construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW A new roadway will be constructed from the intersection of West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Strander Boulevard to the intersection of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 27th Street. The roadway alignment will be an extension of Strander Boulevard and curve to match up with the existing alignment of SW 27th Street. This proposal features a roadway overpass that will be constructed over the two existing BNSF tracks and the new UPRR track. The overpass will provide vertical clearance of 23.5 feet for train clearance. From West Valley Highway t<;> the overpass, the roadway will consist of five lanes (four thru lanes and a two-way left tum lane), landscaped strips, a sidewalk on the north side, and a shared use path on the south side. Bicycle facilities will be provided on the shared use path. The landscaped strips will be provided between the traveled way and the pedestrian facilities, and in some locations where a two-way left tum lane is not needed, a landscaped median will be provided. The overpass will not have the two-way left tum lane and planter strips. From the overpass east to Oakesdale Avenue SW, the same five- lane roadway, landscape strips, and pedestrianlbicycle facilities will be constructed. This section (including the roadway, pedestrian facilities and landscaped strips) will be 90 feet wide from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, staying within the appropriate existing City-owned right-of-way. The new roadway construction will result in three new intersections between West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW. There will be one intersection at the future Sound ~ 4-11 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Transit Tukwila Station access road, and two intersections that will result from access roads to the Boeing Longacres site. New traffic signals will be installed at each of these intersections. Improvements to SW 27th Street The existing section of roadway between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road will be widened to match that of the new roadway segment to the west (five lanes, landscaping strips, and pedestrianlbicycle facilities on each side). The section will be 90 feet wide from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, staying, for the most part, within existing City-owned right-of-way. At some locations where there are space constraints or the need to avoid wetland impacts, the planter strip may be eliminated. Portions of the north side and south side of the proposed improvements may require a 3-to 8-foot block or rock wall at the back of the sidewalk to minimize impacts to the adjacent wetlands. A handrail will be required along the top of these wall sections. Modifications to the Interurban Trail The new roadway segment linking West Valley Highway arid Oakesdale Avenue SW will cut across the Interurban Trail. As a result, it will be necessary to construct a new means of making the trail continuous. The least obtrusive and preferred route is to have an at- grade crossing at either West Valley Highway or at the future Tukwila Station access road intersection. On the north side and the south side of the roadway, trail users will be routed onto the new bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the roadway, directed toward the· intersection, cross the intersection, and then be directed back to the existing trail. Modifications to South Longacres Way South Longacres Way, which is approximately 1,700 feet north of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway, is bridged by the UPRR track and the BNSF tracks. It currently provides access to the temporary Sound Transit commuter rail parking area. The existing railroad bridges over South Longacres Way are narrow and have lower vertical clearances than are now required for public roads. The relocation of the UPRR track will require the construction of a New UPRR Bridge. The new bridge will be constructed to provide the same vertical clearance. The BNSF bridge will not be reconstructed. Total Estimated Construction Cost The total estimated construction cost is $55 million. ~ 4-12 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Excavation and Fill Material The roadway fill material will be gravel borrow. The cut volume for roadway will be approximately 21,000 CY. The fill volume for roadway will be approximately 9,000 CY of gravel borrow. The railroad bed fill material will be comprised of gravel borrow and crushed rock. The fill volume for UPRR track bed will be approximately 125,000 CY. This material would be removed from the existing UPRR track bed, and either used as part of the needed fill or disposed of appropriately. Tree Removal Plan A tree removal plan has not been prepared for this project, as the design is not yet complete and a detailed inventory of the vegetation in the area has not been completed. However, it is anticipated that some trees may need to be removed if they are within the area being developed or if they will be too close to the equipment being used for the project. Figures 10-2A through 1O-2D show the proposed location of the road and related features. A description of the existing vegetation follows, per the Fish and Wildlife Technical Discipline Report, Strander Boulevard Extension Project, (May 2004). The undeveloped property within the project area is composed of several relatively large parcels that contain grass fields, shrubs, and deciduous forest. Wetlands are relatively abundant within the study area and consist of palustrine emergent (PEMC), palustrine shrub-scrub (PSSC), and palustrine forested (PFOC) types. During site visits, wetlands were identified and delineated in the study area and are described in detail in the associated Wetlands Discipline Report prepared for this project. In general, wetlands within the study area fall into two categories: linear palustrine wetlands characterized as ditch features along the railroad and large palustrine wetlands with a forested component located along SW 27th Street. The only wetland along SW 27th Street that does not have a forested component is a'shrub-scrub wetland developed as a mitigation site, which has young woody plants. The uplands consist of both open grass fields and deciduous forest. The open grass fields are typically clear of shrubs, often mowed, and level. Himalayan blackberry is frequently abundant in the fields and along the forested edges. Maintained planter strips with ornamental plantings are present throughout SW 27th Street. Red alder dominates forested areas and mature black cottonwood trees are scattered throughout. The shrub layer is diverse and varies considerably depending on location, but some of the species noted during field visits included beaked hazelnut (Corylus conruta),Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), salmonberry (Rubus spectabillis), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), Pacific willow (Salix IUcida), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), and red-osier dogwood. Himalayan blackberry and reed canary grass were very abundant in several areas. Land Dedicated to the City A 90-foot wide parcel ofland between the BNSF railroad and Oakesdale Avenue SW was dedicated to the city from Boeing as right-of-way for this project. ~ 4-13 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Job Shacks or Work Trailers During construction, contractors will utilize some type of job shack or work trailer(s). However, at this time, the contractor has not been selected, so it has not yet been determined how many or what type of structures will be used. Springbrook Creek Information Springbrook Creek (stream number 09-0005) flows south to north and bisects the project area along 27th Street SW between Oakesdale Avenue SW and Lind Avenue SW. Springbrook Creek generally flows northerly to the Black River Pump Station located near the intersection ofI-405 freeway and the Valley Parkway. The creek and location of this pump station is shown in Figure 4-5. The pump station discharges into the GreenlDuwamish River. This pump station has defined pump capacity restrictions, which regulate the flows in Springbrook Creek. The project area and the roadway will cross directly over the creek. Because the existing box culvert was sized large enough when it was installed to fully accommodate the road expansion, the only work that might occur below the ordinary high water mark (approximately 15.0' elevation) of Springbrook Creek would be the replacement of the two existing stormwater outfalls. A detailed description of Springbrook Creek is provided in the Fish and Wildlife Technical Discipline Report, Strander Boulevard Extension Project, (May 2004). Springbrook Creek is an approximately 12-mile-Iong stream, with an additional 23 miles of tributaries and drainage ditches, that enters the Black River at river mile (RM) 0.65 (Williams et al. 1975). Based on the results of a stream habitat assessment conducted by Harza (1995), the Springbrook Creek subbasin is composed of approximately 83 percent low-gradient glides, 13 percent riffles, < 1 percent pools, and < 1 percent step/run habitat types. DEA conducted stream habitat surveys along Upper Springbrook Creek (09-0020), Garrison Creek (09-0022), and a short section of the mainstem of Springbrook Creek (09-0005) where it runs parallel with SR 167 (DEA 2001). Based on the survey results, it was determined that glide habitat dominates all reaches west ofSR 167, while riffle habitat dominates all reaches in the foothills to the east of SR 167. Pools, when present, tended to be relatively shallow and lacked habitat complexity. Furthermore, quality-spawning habitat is absent west of SR 167 but is available in the foothills where gradient increases. However, any salmonid that makes it through the BRPS must navigate through weed- choked segments of stream, numerous culverts, and depending upon time of year, potentially lethal water quality prior to reaching suitable spawning gravel in the foothills east of SR 167. Large woody debris (LWD) is basically nonexistent in the low-lying areas of Springbrook Creek west of SR 167 anq is present but sparse in the forested foothills to the east ofSR 167. The limited amount ofLWD documented in Upper Springbrook Creek and Garrison Creek were composed of deciduous species and primarily in the small size category (DEA 2001) as defined by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) stream survey protocol standards (USFS 2001). Due to the lack of mature conifer trees along the remnant riparian corridor, the availability of future L WD recruitment from riparian trees is nonexistent within the floodplain and limited in the foothills. ~ 4-14 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Silt and sand are the dominant substrate type of all stream reaches located in the floodplain, while gravel is the dominant substrate type in the foothills (DEA 2001). However, some small pockets of gravel exist but tend to be embedded and intermixed with a very high percentage of fines. The results of Wolman pebble counts (Wolman 1954) conducted in Upper Springbrook Creek and Garrison Creek where gravel was the dominant substrate type indicated that fines « 0.24 inch) ranged from 29 to 39 percent in riffles (DEA 2001). The condition of the riparian corridor ranges from bare banks to remnant fragments of coniferous forest (Kerwin and Nelson 2DOO). Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus) and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) are typically the dominant species along the stream corridor. Other species that are sporadically abundant and/or present include red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), red-osier dogwood (Corn us sericea), Pacific dogwood (Comus nuttallii), cattails (Typha latifolia), and several species ofwilIow (Salix spp.). The condition of the riparian habitat improves in the foothills to the east ofSR 167, where stream reaches flow through forested ravines. Within the forested ravines, red alder and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) become prevalent and are intermixed with black cottonwood, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and western red-cedar (Thuja plicata). There should be no visual obstructions to Springbrook Creek as a result of this project. ~ 4-15 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AHEAD OF THE CURVE STRANDeR BLVD ~ City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Perteet 43RD 51 i80T~ ST) <§' Figure 4-1 Project Area I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Zoning Map I I Figure 4-2 N A ~ Perteet I Map created on 04/15/2004 o I +-+ Proposed UPRR Trock = Proposed Extension - -City Boundary Tukwila Zoning Legend LDR Low Density Residential CJ RCM Regional Commercial Mixed Use D TUC Tukwila Urban Center D Cill Commercial Light Industrial 500 1,000 I Feet 2,000 I Renton Zoning D RC Resource Conservation R-1 Residential R-8 Residential CA Commercial Arterial CO Commercial Office IL Industrial -Light 1M Industrial -Medium D IH Industrial -Heavy I I I I I I I I I 0 « I en (; .t:: :; « .... I 0 0 N ..:. .;, 0 Qj I iii 0 Ol ~ 1:l "! I .... Ol u:: N 0 0 d> <!) I '" '" 9 '";" ~ .... 0 I .;, to: 0 0. '" a:: '" .!: Ci I '0 <J) is en UJ N 0 0 I d> <!) '" '" 9 N 0, I c: "" ~ c;l ~ u:: I I l Wo 1" ~ •. I I' t, I I ,. I I , I: " r i I" I \i :" II "I ',1, :'.1 ,I \) 0 ._1 SOILS EXPLANATION \ \ ) --1 I I Wo PROPOSED Ng NEWBERG SILT LOAM: Well-drained soils formed in alluvium in the stream valleys . Wo WOODINVILLE SILT LOAM: Nearly level and gently undulating, poorly drained soils formed under grass, in alluvium, and on stream bottoms. Ur URBAN LAND: Soil that has been modified by disturbance of natural layers with additions of fill material. Py PUYALLUP FINE SANDY LOAM: Well-drained soils formed in alluvium, under grass, hard woods, and conifers. So SNOHOMISH SILT LOAM: Poorly drained soils formed in alluvium in stream valleys. Pu PUGET SILTY CLAY LOAM: Poorly drained soils formed in alluvium, under grass, in small depressions of the river valleys. Tu TUKWILA MUCK: Very poorly drained organic soils fromed in decomposing vegetation. --~ o H \ 1 / / Wo / 400 HI Scale in Feet LEGEND Approximate Location of Soil Type Boundary NOTES 800 I 1. The soil type boundaries are adapted from The Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington, 1973 by United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (Snyder and others, 1973). 2. Base map adapted from drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROW.dwg, dated 7-9-03. Wo So Ur L __ \_ ConocoPhllllps \". I SW 27TH Street J Pu So Lind A venue SW \ \ So Tu Tu \ East Val/ey Road Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Renton and Tukwila, Washington SOILS MAP May 2004 21-1-09369-002 FIG. 4-3 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants I I I I I I I I I t) « en I ~ .r:: :5 « ... 0 I 0 N r!- oD 0 Qj 10 I 0 Cl ~ -q cry I ,..: .Ql u. N 0 0 '" '" I cry '" <;> S:! ... 0 .;, I 1:: 0 a. <I> et: <I> .!: Ci I '13 en is en W N 0 0 I d, '" C"') Q) 9 N C, I c i" ~ ~ ~ u:: I I l I 1·1 I: 1 Q 0 = \ \ ~ ) -1 /1 I--r Zono.:r 1== \ ,--,-- I I" il ;, ;,;' I , I ii,' II I • i :.'1" ~ II I' i', " ! LEGEND I !-I- Approximate Location of Flood Hazard Boundary - I Zone X / STRANDER o 400 H HI Scale in Feet FLOOD HAZARD EXPLANATION Zone AE ZoneAH Zone X Flood Hazard Areas for 100-Year Flood Event; Base Flood Elevation is About 20 Feet (NAVD88) Flood Hazard Areas for 100-Year Flood Event; Flood Depths Could Range from 1 to 3 Feet Flood Hazard Areas for 500-Plus-Year Flood Event \ iJ- 800 I Zone X Zone AE 1. The flood hazard boundaries are adapted from the Flood Insurance Rate Map for King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas, Map No. 53033C0978F by Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2. This map illustrates flooding potential within the Springbrook Creek drainage area. Flooding potential within the Green River is contained within the dikes that border the river in this vicinity. The 100-year flood within the diked Green River is estimated to be at elevation 28 feet as described in the report text NOTES \ I I "- Zone AE ) ,/ I 3. The entire project alignment falls within a high liquefaction hazard area. This conclusion is based on conceptual design analyses and the map of Liquefaction Susceptibility of the Renton Quadrangle, Washington by the Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources (1994). 4. According to the City of Renton sensitive areas Erosion Hazards Map (Palmer and others 1994), the entire project alignment falls within a low erosion hazard zone. 5. Base map adapted from drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROW.dwg, dated 7-9-03. SW 27TH Street Zone X Lind A venue SW Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Renton and Tukwila, Washington HAZARDS MAP May 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG 4-4 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants • I I ~ '" u: iii I E '" z :; 0 >-'" --' I '" ~ "C ..: S ., '" ::;: "'-I '" ::;: c: 'in '" al '" c: I 1iJ ;B 0 '<t '" u: I ~ N ~ Cl <{ U -+ I '<t .9 ..j. ., ~ ::l I '" u: -c: S .. 3: fl I ~ ::l III M ~ Ql 'C ::l I iii Ql .S; a. 'u ., is I iii iii <{ a. UJ Z a I ~ "C > iE Ql "C c: I ~ N ~ c: '" 'in I Ql Cl .,1 c: ~ !::: ., I ., Ql ... 'E E '" '" I It") >-:. '<t a a N I t c. Ql III I ,:-:;:::.-~--- ......... ..-".;-~ .... ...... --, I , ; '/ { ·~·,···~; .. " .. ).···-············'·······"'ii -........ ~ INTERMITTENT DIRECTIONAL FLOW PATH •• ,. SHEET FLOW ;:::==='.~ DRAINAGE FLOW PATH 1 DRAINAGE BASIN ~j:0;;;~;;0;;~;;~;;0;:~;;01~ CONTRIBUTING Off-SITE DRAINAGE I:'""" :"=-" '_." -:1 WETLANDS (Flogged) ...;. - - - -200' SHOREUNE BUFfER -----OHW (15') SCALE ..... --..... -- 300 150 a 300 FEET 600 BASIN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEP A Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project ~ Perteet Inc. City of Renton September 2004 -5- CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION· DESCRIPTION VELOPMENT PLANNING .if:. CITY OF RPJT('IN OCT 11 200~ RECEiVED 5-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 Construction Mitigation Description This project is divided into three stages of construction. The first stage of construction will include new roadway construction and storm drain facilities and will begin at Station 26+38 at the Boeing access road and end at the intersection ofSW 27th Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW. Stage 1 will also include new stonn drain facilities, without roadway improvements, along SW 27th Street from Oakesdale A venue SW to the Springbrook Creek crossing. These storm drain improvements are intended to support the new roadway construction of stage 1. At this time the Stage 1 improvement design is 30% complete will be constructed in 2005. The second stage of improvements will consists of roadway and storm drain improvements from Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road. This part of the project is still in the 30% design phase and is slated for construction in 2006 .. The third stage of the project will include a new roadway section, storm drain facilities and the overcrossing structure from West Valley Highway to station 26+38. This part of the project is still in conceptual design and is slated for construction in 2007. Due to the early stage of design that this project is in, a contractor has not yet been selected for construction and the precise schedule has not been determined. However, it is anticipated that construction will occur during normal hours of the regular work week. Construction plans, transportation plans, and mitigation plans have not yet been developed. However, the discipline reports have provided some preliminary proposals for construction mitigation as summarized below. Air Quality The following is a list of possible mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce potential impacts to air quality from vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust during construction. This list was developed from control measures and best management practices suggested by the Associated General Contractors of Washington in the A GC Guide to Handling Fugitive Dust From Construction Projects. • Use only equipment and trucks that are maintained in optimal operational condition. • Require all off-road equipment to be retrofitted with emission reduction equipment. • Use biodiesel or other lower-emission fuels for vehicles and equipment. • Use carpooling or other trip reduction strategies for construction workers. • Stage construction to minimize overall transportation system congestion and delays to reduce regional emissions of pollutants during construction. ~ 5-2 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • Implement restrictions on construction truck idling (e.g., limit idling to a maximum of 5 minutes). • Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors such as fresh air intakes to buildings, air conditioners, and sensitive populations. • Locate construction staging zones where diesel emissions won't be noticeable to the public or near sensitive populations such as the elderly and the young. • Develop a dust control plan during project planning to identify sources and activities that would be likely to generate fugitive dust and the means to control such·emissions. • Spray exposed soil with water or other suppressant to reduce emissions ofPMIO and deposition of particulate matter; include dust controls on paved and unpaved roads and in site preparation, grading, and loading areas. • Cover or use moisteners or soil stabilizers to minimize emissions from storage piles; minimize drop heights involved in creating storage piles or haul-vehicle loading. • Cover all trucks transporting materials, wetting materials in trucks, or providing adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck bed), to reduce PMto emissions and deposition during transport. • Pave or use gravel on staging areas and roads that would be exposed for long periods, and reduce speeds on unpaved roads or work areas. • Use quarry spalls (rock entrances), vehicle scrapes, or wheel washers to remove particulate matter that would otherwise be carried off site by vehicles to decrease deposition of particulate matter on area roadways. • Remove particulate matter deposited on paved, public roads, sidewalks, and bicycle and pedestrian paths to reduce mud and dust; sweep and wash streets continuously to reduce emissions. • Cover dirt, gravel, and debris piles as needed to reduce dust and wind blown debris, and avoid dust-generating activities during windy periods. • Route and schedule construction trucks to reduce delays to traffic during peak travel times to reduce air quality impacts caused by a reduction in traffic speeds. Energy During construction of the proposed action, energy would be conserved where practicable and would consist of the following mitigation measures: • Throttling down or switching off idle equipment • Planning operations to minimize double-handling of fill and construction materials and regularly maintaining equipment to ensure that it remains in good condition • Using recycled materials and recycling materials generated during construction ~ 5-3 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • Consulting with gasoline stations in the area to ensure that adequate gasoline supplies are available during the most intensive construction activities • Encouraging carpooling or vanpooling of construction workers to and from the work site The construction activities would be carried out in such a way as to minimize gasoline consumption wherever possible and to minimize disturbance to electricity and natural gas services. By reducing congestion at intersections in the proposed project area, operation of any of the Build alternatives would have the benefit of improving the efficiency of petroleum consumption. Fish and Wildlife Mitigation measures proposed to protect fish, wildlife and vegetation include: • Wetlands affected during construction would be mitigated for based on wetland type and the mitigation & enhancement ratios and guidance of the local jurisdiction. • The primary mitigation measure for terrestrial species is associated with the MBT A, which prohibits the destruction of nesting migratory birds. Therefore, clearing of vegetated areas where nesting migratory birds could be present should not occur during the nesting season. In order to avoid impacts on nesting birds, vegetated areas should be cleared and grubbed by early April. This measure would prevent direct mortality to most nesting bird species; however, numerous raptors nest prior to April. Therefore, a nesting raptor survey should be conducted prior to land-clearing activities to ensure that no nesting raptors are directly impacted during construction. Furthermore, a survey for nesting raptors should be undertaken 1 year prior to construction to identify existing nests and potential nesting trees in the project corridor. This would enable corrective actions to be taken prior to construction if raptors nest within the project footprint. • Another mitigation measure could be to convert the old railroad bed that will be abandoned during the shifting of railroad traffic to upland wildlife habitat. Native trees and shrubs, snags, and downed wood could possibly be installed along the abandoned railroad bed. Floodplains During construction of the proposed action, location(s) should be identified in the Springbrook Creek drainage upstream of the SW 27th Street crossing for the development of approximately 2,430 cubic yards of compensatory storage. The compensatory storage could be achieved by removing dirt from below the 100-year floodplain elevation and transferring the volume to a receiving location above the 100- year floodplain elevation (future conditions) of 19.2 feet. ~ 5-4 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geology and Soils Mitigation for geology and soils for the proposed action would consist of a number of measures to prevent erosion and landsliding and improve stability of soils. Cuts Mitigation should be performed for the proper design of temporary shoring and permanent walls or slopes, defining the location and extent of unstable soils, and using proper construction procedures. To mitigate slope instability in retained cut areas, retaining wall design should maintain stability of the cut soils. In areas where unretained cut slopes are proposed, the subsurface deposits would be evaluated so an appropriate slope angle could be determined to maintain stability. In addition, vegetation and drainage could be used to improve stability. Fills Mitigation for fills must consider the estimated settlements, lateral movements, and stability issues related to the presence of soft/loose/organic, near-surface soils at the site. Because settlements may be on the order of several inches near the highest portions of the proposed fills, the fills would be designed and constructed to consider this settlement and related impacts. Potential mitigation measures for settlement include the following: • Preload the fill areas where site availability and time schedules allow. • For retained fills, use walls that could accommodate large settlements such as MSEwalls. • Sequence construction so that impacted settlement-sensitive structures are installed after most of the fill settlement has occurred. • Relocate existing utilities that are beneath or near proposed fills if the proposed loads and settlements would cause damage to the utilities. • Use lightweight fill materials where settlements must be minimized and alternative measures are not feasible. • Use geosynthetics (such as geogrids or geotextiles) below and within the fill to help stabilize and reinforce the fills. Should lightweight fill be used to construct the overpass fill approaches, the design should account for anticipated flood levels to prevent buoyancy. In addition, proper ~ 5-5 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I design and construction of the wall facing and top cap would be required to protect EPS from exposure to and possible decomposition from gasoline/diesel intrusion. Mitigation measures for lateral movement resulting from fill placement are the same as those presented above for settlement. As settlement is reduced, lateral movement would be reduced correspondingly. Seismic Considerations The proposed action should be designed considering the seismicity of the project area and the project seismic design criteria. Liquefaction-induced settlements and resulting downdrag forces could be mitigated for the overpass by supporting it on deep foundations such as driven piles. Pavements Mitigation for pavements would include proper subgrade preparation and pavement design. All pavement areas should be proof-rolled with a heavy vibratory roller prior to placement of the pavement section. Soft areas would be identified by this process and should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. Alternatively, the. subgrade could be reinforced with geosynthetics prior to placing pavement subbase materials. In fill areas, mitigation measures as previously discussed for fills should be performed. The upper part of the fills should be well compacted to provide good bearing for the pavement. To mitigate frost heave, the pavement section should also be designed to an appropriate thickness for the climate conditions anticipated along the proposed alignment. The pavement section could also be designed to accommodate inadequate subgrade soils. Elevated Roadway Overpass Structure Foundations No geology and soil impacts were determined for the overpass structure that would be supported on deep foundations. Relationship Between Topography and Alignment Design The cut and fill mitigations described above and in the Geology and Soils Discipline Report, address mitigation of the relationship between topography and alignment design. Settlement Potential The cut, fill, and pavement mitigation sections above address mitigation of operational settlement potential for the proposed action. The short-term construction stability of the proposed fills could be improved (if necessary) by using staged construction and/or geotextiles. These methods would improve the short-term stability of the embankments as the underlying cohesive soil consolidates and gains strength over time. ~ 5-6 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Staged construction consists of building the fills in stages, depending on the amount of load the subsurface soil could accommodate at its existing strength. As the strength increases over time as a result of consolidation, additional fill could be placed on the strengthened subgrade while maintaining a similar factor-of-safety against failure. Monitoring of the settlement and pore pressure buildup and dissipation would be performed using instrumentation to determine the appropriate staging. Geotextiles could be used to reinforce potential failure zones within the fill. For example, several layers of geotextile could be placed at the base of the proposed fill. A higher staged fill could be constructed on the reinforced base than a fill without geotextiles. Although staged construction may still be necessary to construct the entire fill, using geotextile reinforcements could reduce the number of stages required or could allow for single-stage construction. Lightweight fill material could be used in areas where staged construction is not feasible. Because of the lighter weight of the fill material, the subgrade soil could support a higher depth of fill than if standard fill were used. Lightweight fills that could be considered include expanded polystyrol (EPS), foamed cement, and other lightweight materials that would be stable over the life of the proposed action. Consideration of flood levels would be made in design of lightweight fills. Measures to mitigate settlement resulting from temporary dewatering and/or long-term drainage are described in the Groundwater Discipline Report prepared for this project. Vibrations and Noise Due to Overpass Foundation Construction Driven piles may be used to support elevated structures. To mitigate noise and vibration during driven pile installation, low vibration/noise pile driving equipment could be selected. Alternatively, the steel pipe piles could be driven open-ended or could be driven into a predrilled hole, which would result in lower vibrations. Preconstruction surveys of existing structures and vibration monitoring during pile driving would be required to monitor and mitigate potential damage to adjacent sensitive structures. Mitigation for noise from pile driving is discussed further in the Noise Discipline Report prepared for this project. Erosion and Sediment Transport Construction best management practices (BMPs), such as construction staging barrier berms, filter fabric fences, temporary sediment detention basins, and use of slope coverings to contain sediment onsite, would be effective in protecting water resources and reducing erosion from areas with cuts, fills, and/or excavations. Erosion control measures suitable to the construction site conditions would be included as part of the proposed action design. Temporary erosion and sediment control plans would be prepared for approval in accordance with BMPs used by the cities of Renton and Tukwila. Erosion control measures would include vegetative and structural controls. ~ 5-7 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Other controls that could be implemented include restricting slope work activities to the dry season and limiting access to the site. Vegetative methods would include covering cleared or graded areas and excavation or fill approach slopes with jute or other netting as well as mulching or hydroseeding, as appropriate, to minimize erosion and encourage revegetation. Vegetation buffers would be maintained between construction areas and Springbrook Creek to filter out sediments. Structural controls consist of artificial means of preventing sediment from leaving the construction area. Parking and staging areas for vehicles and equipment could be covered with a gravel work pad where appropriate to prevent the disturbance and erosion of the underlying soil. Silt fences would be placed around disturbed areas to filter sediment from unconcentrated surface water runoff. Straw bales would be placed in paths of concentrated runoff to filter sediment. Temporary ditches, berms, and sedimentation ponds would be constructed to collect drainage. Cleaning tires and tracks on heavy equipment before they leave the construction site would also assist in retaining sediment on site. In addition, truckloads should be covered to mitigate sediment deposit onto roadways. Proposed mitigation measures would comply with storm water design and treatment procedures based on the current City of Renton and City of Tukwila requirements. The erosion and sediment control measures would be in place before any clearing, grading, or construction. Groundwater Under the proposed action, the production of contaminated groundwater discharge from shallow unconfined aquifer construction dewatering may be mitigated by utilizing water- tight shoring systems in utility trench excavations that extend below the water table. If the production of contaminated discharge water is unavoidable because of construction requirements, the discharge may be contained and treated on-site to meet relevant water quality criteria before final disposal. Depending on the volume of discharge and specific contaminant levels, the discharge, if properly permitted, may be disposed to the sanitary or stormwater sewer systems. Similarly, the induced migration of contaminated groundwater in the shallow unconfined aquifer resulting from construction dewatering may be mitigated by using watertight shoring systems in utility trench excavations that extend below the water table. . The potential for shallow unconfined aquifer contaminant migration through stormwater drainage pipes or permeable trench backfill may be mitigated by using water-tight pipes or constructing low-permeability "dams" within the backfill. Potential water quality impacts to the shallow unconfined aquifer system from general construction activities may be mitigated by implementing effective stormwater, hazardous material, and spill response management practices. ~ 5-8 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Hazardous Materials Worker exposure concerns can be mitigated by requiring the contractor to follow the appropriate health and safety procedures. Sites To Be Avoided At All Costs Old Uncontrolled Disposal/Landfill Site The Renton Junction Landfill, at 1800 Monster Road (EDR site #15) poses unknown but potentially large risks related to possible contamination emanating from this site. There is very little infonnation available regarding the potential contaminants and health risks associated with this property. The track relocation and all construction activities should be designed to avoid this site. Sites tltat Should be Avoided Contaminated Sites at the North and South Ends of the UP RR Track StemoffMetals Corp. site (EDR site #83) at the south end of the project area has undergone an extensive site investigation and cleanup for contaminated soils. There is some contaminated soil remaining in place on site; however, these areas are nearly 200 feet from the railroad right-of-way at the closest point.1 Contaminated Sites to the East or West of the UPRR Track Five sites were identified west of the UPRR track that have confinned or suspected contamination including Daniel Boone Paint Company, Tukwila BP Gas Station, Cello Bag Company, US Printing Ink Co.IENC Power Systems Co., and NC Machinery Co. The best alternative would be for track relocation and construction activities to avoid work near these sites. Most of these sites have had some characterization of contamination completed. The contamination identified on the Daniel Boone Paint Company, Cello Bag Company, and NC Machinery Co. sites appears to be confined to within the property boundaries and does not appear to be within the railroad right-of-way; therefore work within the right-of-way should not be impacted by contaminants? The US Printing Inc. Co. site has a railroad spur from the UPRR tracks that is adjacent to four areas of concern within petroleum and metals contamination in soils. Construction in this I Hart Crowser, 1997. Cleanup Action Plan, Stemco Property, Renton, W A. (This information was updated since the publication of the Hazardous Materials and Waste Discipline Report, May 2004.) 2 ERM, 2003. 'Revised Site Investigation Report, Former Boone Paint Facility. Columbia Environmental, 1996. UST and Vault Closure Report, Cello Bag. NC Machinery, 1992. Site Assessment Report for Underground Storage Tank Removal, NC Machinery. (This information was updated since the publication of the Hazardous Materials and Waste Discipline Report, May 2004.) ~ 5-9 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I area should be coordinated with the owner of the US Printing Inc. Co. site to ensure that the most recent data on the site characterization and cleanup is reviewed prior to the commencement of work in this area.3 The Tukwila BP Gas Station is within the study area and may have contamination due to the nature of the business, but this has not been confirmed with sampling; therefore caution should be used in this area. A mitigation proposal for working in this area includes expanded health and safety requirements. Alternatively, the right-of-way near the gas station could be characterized for the presence of contamination, and if such contamination were found, a responsive approach would need to be developed prior to commencing with work in this area. Miligalioll Options for Conlamillaled Soils Given the industrial and commercial history of many locations in the proposed project area, it would be prudent to minimize the extent of the areas that would be disturbed and limit the exposure to soils and groundwater. It is highly recommended that soils and groundwater be characterized for contaminants prior to commencement of project construction. The early sampling and characterization would allow time for consideration of redesign of the project or planning for construction staging if the results indicate that such alterations would be desirable in order to a~oid problems with worker health and safety and with disposal of potentially hazardous waste. A site-specific health and safety plan would be developed for construction workers to address each type of chemical that is expected to be encountered in soil, groundwater, . and the railroad ties. The plan would identify a field health and safety manager, who will be responsible for ensuring that the plan is followed. In addition, the plan would outline field-screening methods to determine what level of personal protective equipment is necessary for the type of conditions encountered. The plan would also require that personnel have special training for working in contaminated areas. If it is determined that soil or groundwater waste will be classified as a hazardous waste, then a Waste Characterization Plan would be developed that would identify procedures to effectively manage waste generated during construction so that delays can be kept to a minimum and all regulations are adhered to. The plan would be comprehensive and address issues such as field screening methods, notification requirements, personnel responsibilities, waste management, and disposal. Miligalioll Optiolls for Demolition Debris (Railroad Ties alld Roadbed) The old wooden railroad ties should be characterized prior to any construction activities for the type and concentration of preservatives (such as creosote or pentachlorophenol). Early sampling and characterization would allow time to consider and develop hazardous materials handling and to develop worker exposure procedures. 3 Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 1992. USPIC/Relco Partnership, Environmental Assessment and Shallow Soil Investigation (US Ink Property). (This information was updated since the publication of the Hazardous Materials and Waste Discipline Report, May 2004.) ~ 5-10 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mitigation Options for Underground (and Aboveground) Storage Tanks For any existing aboveground or underground storage tanks that would be affected by construction, fuel should be pumped from the tanks by a licensed fuel carrier and the tanks removed. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) would be developed to ensure that impacts to the environment are minimized. The potential for releases from tanks and fuel distribution systems should be assessed during removal, and samples should be collected to document the presence or absence of contamination. For tanks with substances other than fuels, the substances should be identified by the owner and handled appropriately; where the substances are not known, sampling should first be conducted to identify the substances. Where tanks have been closed and contained in place, it should first be ascertained whether the tanks are indeed empty. These activities must be accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations, including requirements in the Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303) and MTCA (WAC 173-340). Management of Fuels, Oils, and Other Materials Efforts should be made during construction to prevent any spills during transfer of materials. An SPCC Plan should be in place, and appropriate measures should be taken to limit any potential impacts to the environment. All fuels, oils, and other materials that are not to be stored for future use should be recycled, reclaimed, or disposed of at an appropriate waste handling facility. These activities must be accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations including requirements in the Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303). Worker and Public Health and Safety Improper use or management of hazardous substances can result in unacceptable exposures to project personnel and the general public. Proper employee training, contingency planning, and secondary containment for hazardous materials should be required of the contractor. With respect to the public, attention to the following measures should minimize potential public health and safety concerns: • Any contaminated environmental media and hazardous substances should be contained so they are not readily available to the public. • Any contaminated environmental media and hazardous substances transported on a public right-of-way should be packaged and shipped in accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) requirements to reduce the potential for releases. ~ 5-11 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I During activities associated with work within excavations, proper care should be taken to monitor for dangerous atmospheres and to ventilate as necessary. Readings should be taken using a multi-gas meter. WAC 29~2 limits entry to excavations where the atmosphere presents a hazard. WSDOT prohibits entry into spaces where oxygen levels do not fall between 19.5% and 23%. Monitoring for concentrations of airborne particulates (including lead and metals) should be accomplished. Land Use The City of Renton has expressed a commitment to ensure continued access through the proposed project area during construction, where feasible, and to ensure that disruption to businesses during construction is minimal. One response to business concerns would be to endeavor that· no street closures occur during construction of the proposed action, and to maintain one lane of traffic in each direction at all times, if possible. Utilities and roadway engineers report that every effort will be made to minimize impacts on merchant's driveways and sidewalks during construction, especially during business hours. Information would be provided to the public of transit and pedestrian re-routings, schedules of operation, road closures, and alternative modes of transportation as appropriate. Traffic signals and design would be used to help maximize traffic operation efficiency and improve traffic flow during construction activity. Best management practices (BMPs) would be used during construction to reduce the exposure of construction noise and dust. The BMPs may include locating stationary construction equipment away from sensitive receiving properties where possible, and street watering and cleaning to prevent dust, dirt, and other debris deposits on paved roadways that are open to the public. All construction work would occur during hours permitted by the City of Renton Ordinance, and vibrating hammers would be used in place of traditional pile driving equipment if feasible. ' Noise Construction State and local regulations specify noise limits within which construction contractors would have to comply, but daytime construction activities are exempt from these limits. If nighttime construction activities are required, a noise variance may be required from the appropriate jurisdiction for construction activities in locations relatively near residential areas. Since construction noise would likely exceed the sound levels deemed appropriate during daytime and nighttime hours at nearby sensitive receivers, even if only temporarily, construction noise could negatively affect people living or working nearby, and some relatively simple and inexpensive practices could reduce the extent to which people are affected. For example, construction noise could be reduced with properly sized and ~ 5-12 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I 'I I: I I I I I I I maintained mufflers, engine intake silencers, engine enclosures, turning off idle equipment, and confining activities to daytime hours. A construction contract could specify that mufflers be in good working order and that engine enclosures be used on equipment when the engine is the dominant source of noise. Stationary equipment could be placed as far away from sensitive receiving locations as possible. Where this is infeasible, or where noise impacts would still be significant, portable noise barriers could be placed around the equipment with the opening directed away from the sensitive receiving property. These measures are especially effective for engines used in pumps, compressors, welding machines, and similar equipment that operate continuously and contribute to high, steady background noise levels. In addition to providing about a 10-dBA reduction in Leq, the portable barriers demonstrate to the public the contractor's commitment to minimizing noise impacts during construction. Substituting hydraulic or electric models for impact tools such as jackhammers, rock drills, and pavement breakers could also reduce construction and demolition noise. Although backup alarms are exempt from the noise ordinances, noises from such devices are among the most annoying sounds from a construction site. Where feasible, equipment operators could drive forward rather than backward to minimize this noise. Requiring operators to lift rather than drag materials wherever feasible could also minimize noise from material handling. Public Services and Utilities Public Services During construction the following mitigation measures would be put into place: • Emergency services would be provided, with regular updates on the progress of the construction activities and adequate notice of any proposed road closures or lengthy traffic delays. • Emergency vehicles would be encouraged to use alternative routes to avoid potential delays when possible. • Personnel controlling the movement of vehicles along roads where construction works are being carried out would give priority to emergency vehicles over other vehicles. Utilities Some existing utilities would be relocated. Existing utilities (railroad signal and communication lines, fiber optic and telephone lines) that currently run parallel with the railroad tracks in the right-of-way and cross the proposed roadway alignment area would have to be relocated. The relocation of the UPRR track would require the settling of property ownership and easement issues with Seattle Public Utilities and the construction of the crossing of the pipeline would be based on Seattle Public Utilities' requirements. ~ 5-13 Perteet Inc. I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I For some other existing utilities, new lengths would be constructed, or could be relocated. New stonn drain lines and detention/treatment facilities will be constructed. In . coordination with the road project the City of Renton will install a water supply line and a sanitary sewer line (the size of each of these may be up to 12 inches in diameter) within easements and crossing the road right-of-way. The remaining utilities in this area are underground utilities and most likely could remain in their current locations. Surface Water The mitigation measures for stonnwater runoff and stormwater quality treatment would be developed in accordance with the following standards: • Stormwater Management Manualfor Western Washington (WDOE 2001), for detention design and stormwater quality treatment • Surface Water Design Manual (King County 1998) for stonn conveyance design Hydrology Mitigation Measures Detention would be provided to address and mitigate the increase in flows and change in runoffhydrograph generated by the new impervious surfaces of the project. Detention would meet the standards of the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SMM). To mitigate the effects on surface waters resulting from construction activities, management techniques and control facilities to be used during construction would be incorporated. These facilities would be of sufficient size, strength and durability to readily outlastthe longest possible construction schedule and worst anticipated rainfall condition. Mitigation would include the prompt implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), with facilities designed and constructed to reduce flows, and capture pollutants and sediment-laden runoff prior to discharging to surface waters. Several Best Management Practice (BMP) facilities and management techniques would be implemented to mitigate the increase in flows generated from the construction site. The BMPs used in the course of construction would vary depending on the construction site conditions, which can change over time and by season. The BMPs to be used in the course of construction are listed below. These techniques mitigate the increase in flow of runoff from the construction site. • Provide temporary and pennanent seeding to areas outside of the pavement limits. • Provide temporary mulching or plastic coverings of exposed areas and stockpile locations. • Provide temporary silt traps, or sediment trapping ponds/vaults. ij 5-14 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • Discharge runoff through grassed/plant buffer areas. Water Quality Mitigation Storrnwater quality facilities would all be designed for "enhanced treatment" (which provides a high rate of removal of dissolved metals) as well as to meet other treatment objectives using BMPs (wetpools, biofiltration, and filtration) to remove sediment, petroleum products, and nutrients from the storm water. The treatment facility BMPs would use one or more of the following types of systems: wetponds, wetvaults, constructed wetlands, filter strips, biofiltration swales, sand filters, and media filters. Where vaults would be used they would be designed as a treatment train of two vaults (a wet vault and then a sand filter vault) functioning in series, as listed in Table 3.2 of Volume V of the SMM's standards. These measures are described in more detail in the project's Hydraulic Report (30% plans). Mitigation for water quality during construction would include the prompt implementation of an SWPPP for construction, with facilities designed and constructed to reduce flows, and capture pollutants and sediment-laden runoff prior to discharging to surface waters. Water quality facilities and management measures (e.g., construction BMPs) would be used in the course of construction, and they do vary depending on the construction site conditions, which can change over time and by season. The BMPs that would be used in the course of construction are listed below. These mitigation measures would capture pollutants and runoff constituents prior to discharging to surface waters. • Provide temporary silt traps, or sediment trapping ponds/vaults for capturing of sediment-laden runoff. • Discharge runoff through grassed/plant buffer areas. • Construct temporary silt fences and/or straw wattles. • Implement a SWPPP throughout the duration of construction, which includes maintaining and cleaning facilities, and cleaning them after significant storm events. Wetlands Construction of the proposed project would incorporate avoidance and minimization measures where practicable, while meeting the purpose and need of the project. However, 2.02 acres of unavoidable wetland impacts would result from the construction of this project. Approximately 3.8 acres of wetland creation would be required based on Ecology mitigation ratios. A conceptual wetlands mitigation plan is provided in Section 16 of this application. ~ 5-15 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I Cultural Resources A professional archaeologist should monitor ground-disturbing activities in native alluvial soils in areas with a high probability for hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period and historic Indian, and historic period archaeological resources that may be significant (see Figure 4.12). An Archaeological Construction Monitoring Plan will be developed, reviewed and implemented prior to any subsurface construction excavation or excavation of areas for geotechnical samples, including excavation of geotechnical borings or auger samples. An Archaeological Construction Monitoring Plan will be developed for areas with a high probability for significant archaeological resources and that will be affected during construction excavation and/or excavations and borings for geotechnical studies. The monitoring plan will include: • A review of construction techniques or geotechnical sampling techniques • Monitoring procedures, techniques, and protocols • Reporting requirements Recreation and Sections 4(f) and 6(fJResources All prudent measures have been considered to minimize harm and to provide necessary mitigation of Section 4(f) property. During construction, the traffic from the Interurban Trail would need to be rerouted to the intersection of West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard. Because the construction ofthe roadway underpass structure would directly cross the trail, it would be difficult to find a location to temporarily reroute the trail close to the existing trail. A portion of the Interurban Trail may have to be closed and rerouted for several blocks along West Valley Highway. Current use of the unfinished Springbrook Trail is so minimal that rerouting should not be necessary. The constructed project would require the proposed mitigation measure for rerouting the Interurban Trail would be to permanently re-route the bicycle/pedestrian traffic, approximately 400 feet to the east and cross under the bridge structure of Strander Boulevard. Proposed improvements to the Springbrook Trail include converting a 6-foot length of the trail from gravel to pavement. ~ 5-16 Perteet Inc. Calculations 1 JEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS ~~!~r~~:@p.~:~~r::~~#.I~¥::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Construction Mitigation Description 2 AND 4 :w.~~!~:W9tj(#~~~~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Drainage Control Plan 2 :p'~j~~~~:~~p'~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Elevations, Architectural 3 AND 4 ~ :$~~~~~~~~i:¢~~~~!i~~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::8;::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy) 4 :$~i~!89:~~~~~~~@~~~f.~~~:¢9P.Y.}:f:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Flood Hazard Data 4 . :~!~~r::P:~~~:~:~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::~:::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Geotechnical Reporh AND 3 :$(~~j#g:~i~~;::¢#.~~Pt~~(~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Grading Plan, Detailed 2 :~~~l~fp~~#:~#.~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site4 );~@~#'p'i~~:J.?I~~;::9?~¥.P.t~~i:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::adF:::::::::::: :::::1.:';fp;:~::~~:;j~::~~:~::~:::::: Legal Description 4 V ~t;:,blv ~ {~(}j?J ~. :q~i:~($.~~r.~@~!~~::&:f.~~:P.~n~r:~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::~)ijf:}::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::8: Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 I M~p.:~f::$i~n~:$.I~:~~i~~8#.:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Master Application Form 4 :M9~~~~¢:~~~i~~:~:iB9~~i!i~~tj:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Neighborhood Detail Map 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT' , 2004 RECE'VED Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls PROJECT NAME: DATE: 01106/2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS ~·~~~<~\i:~~i<m~%.~£EJ61~~~~:'~Nt~i~:~~::~:~:~i<fi/~lrfnU:~~g~1~~~Ui~~~H:/i~i~i::~·~.~i~HBB#:~#N*#~/-~:~:!:~·~·!.:.~:!i)!/~· Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 RI~~)~~~~~:~@'1~}'~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Postage 4 R~#-p.p.!i~!i9r:(M~~i~9:~~#'i!:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Public Works Approval Letter2 ~~~~!~t~~!9~:R~~:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Screening Detail 4 ~it~::P:!~~:~:~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Street Profiles 2 ffi!~:~~P'8~:~:~!~f9.~#.ii~:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Topography Map3 J.f~~~:$.!~~Y::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan 4 ~~:¢~~~f::~i9~:9Y~~YP~*-~:~~::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 w~li~~:Mi~tiri~:~i:F.~:4::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Preliminary 4 w.e~!~~::R.~P'9~~I~~~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND. 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3. Photosimulations 2 AND 3 This requirerpent may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section I 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Fonns\Planning\waiver.xls PROJECTNAME: ________________________ __ DATE: ________________________ __ : /; I; '/." .. . .,' ',' "-', . ': " '~ ! f ~ .. Ii I , ..... : ~., ~ # 01/0612004 .. ~"'. " . , , ", -~ . .,., ;.:- ~;'" ',: _>7' . " ',' '\ . .. : •... :(i<." ... ,.1' '. ';-" , , ',": , ~t· , . ,~ ': ~ . I '~:i ; r··~ ...... > ~' --,',. " " / ," '" " '" \,; . ,,>" .. ' , . r~~~.,. ' .... \. - r :.'~ -', "" ~ '"\'-..... , .. ":,.\ ," ~ " "'" . ,~ "'.' :,~ .... " • ~. I ..",,' . I ~. , -.t." , .~- .;. ,,, : ... "-":; .~l_ ~ " ( '-': '; . ~ \ ,.., '-: ~, ~. "i.~.~ : ;.=:; >. ~ :.' ,', .' . -"\ .~ . ''''J' . :'; ~"'.:.; "',}C • £. ,:' V~ •• ~ :-~_. ". ',<.\ <>-!' ... '.I" .r~ ••• "" ~-. '-,1 ,., .'-. I ~ ... .. : ' .J..~ , I,. ::.: -,' r "' .... ). f_ :; ; ;. 'f', ,:t' ", , .. '1--" ... : . :.' .: .:. ,~. ,~ .,' J',. ,~ • ; ,~, ~ ~ ~ ; '~: .. :'~~,-::.;~-:~;.:.'. '., .,' ,~ <.' '.. , " .... " o'~ " • , • ': .t ) , ~: " " ".': ". .: .. -', . ;.>" , , ",; " '" ...... :', .... ;-~ ':~ 'i", " -". .. ~ '" ,-;'" ,. ~.,. ", '-."\ '. .J " .( ..... "\: ~ ';';'~ .. '~ " . ~. . ... -. .' ... ' -.-".:::: :, ~ .. " l'~ " J' ....... • .': -~ .; ..... , .. - """ ...... ': .. ~ ......... ' .. , >+-"L. ',.;. . ':r •.... " : r "0' ~. . ~.~ -:.<~~ . . ~ ',. ' ".', ;', • \.' .. ~ -4 ..,..'. ".',,',' -. ' .• !, .... .; ," ,', . ',(.', :-, ~~". ; . . .. ' . dt ," 'f . ~" . " f '. ~ • ~'l ... : . '.' ", . ,-\..':, " '~.' .. : "':'. , • -':.".,.<.' ,' ...... ,, ~ f.-' , .. ; , '~;','~ . ). " ..... , '.:: " ,; " .' / . " . .,., . ~:' ~~. ..'., ,.', ~ ;. • .' 0 ~: , • ~. l , ...... -;", t' .. '; ~ ... ~ .; .. '~~:, , ': '-~ , . ~' ;' ~.~. \~:<, ~",:~:,;,~:-;;, .' , " . '~';'" SEP A Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton September 2004 -12 - LANDSCAPE PLAN CONCEPTUAL ................................................................................................................................... , Please refer to Figure 12", 1 for the landscape conceptual plan. A landscape designer is currently working to develop a more detailed design for this project. ENT PLANNING OEV'Th~~F RENTON oel , , 2004 RECEIVED ~ Perteet Inc. 12-1 m 0. "tl < (1) ~ ~ > ~ ~~~tT1 "3 ~ g z ., (JQ .,., g :;0 :::l ....., " (1) iil ~ (1) PO c. ..., ~ g' S' ~ Z ;l flO ,~ --~. I-0oI " ::l fro (") cn(") .---..., .-0)'< :::J 0 a. _ ~ :::u roCD 03-e 0 CD :::J < Q) a. m ~ CD :::J en (;- :::J or o Ol ::::s ::::s (") 0-CD (f) "T1 "0 (") --.-Olee c"o C Ol CD ro "U~ -'" Ol I ::::s ~ G' PLANTER 1 G'SIDEWALK STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION ,; TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION 90' ROW GO' 12' 12' 12' 12' THRU LANE 1 TURN LANE °1 THRU LANE 1 THRU LANE ~ WIDEN WITHIN THE ROW WITH SHARED USE PATH ON SOUTH SIDE ~ =-..J --_c~"'I:=-""'" ~ ., , SEP A Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton September 2004 -15 - FLOOR PLANS This requirement is not applicable to this project. This is a road construction project and there are no buildings proposed. DEVELOPMENT CITY OF RE~~~NINL OCT 11 2004 RECEIVED ~ Perteet Inc. 15-1 Printed: 10-11-2004 NT PLANNING OE'Jra~~~ RENTON ~ITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT OC1 , , 2QQ~ RECE\VED Permit#: LUA04-123 Payment Made: 10/11/2004 09:43 AM Receipt Number: R0405467 Total Payment: 1,519.24 Payee: TRANSPORTATION, ROB LOCHMILLER Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment lOT LUA04123 1,519.24 Account Balances Amount 500.00 1,000.00 19.24 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Park Mitigation Fee Annexation Fees Appeals/Waivers Binding Site/Short Plat Conditional Use Fees Environmental Review Prelim/Tentative Plat Final Plat PUD Grading & Filling Fees Lot Line Adjustment Mobile Home Parks Rezone Routine Vegetation Mgmt Shoreline Subst Dev Site Plan Approval Temp Use or Fence Review Variance Fees Conditiona'l Approval Fee Comprehensive Plan Amend Booklets/ElS/Copies Maps (Taxable) Special Deposits Postage Tax .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 i\ . \. \. Transfer Number: INTERFUND TRANSFER WAO£.f-IZ3 ------Date: 9 / V:I /0+ ( 7 General Description: ~ sabstrJ.wjzaL ~~ ~M {?p,f1C,.J ~ 9hiliR.v...x Department To Be Charged (Transfer Out -From)----Ie'-f-A.;;..&-+-/-'-e...:;~_=_ ______ .: I ( Description Account Number . WOlFunction Amount ,S.\-r .... 6\.f"\ ck.,. 'R t,,l J S£,J 27th 31/. ()11_'2."~C\ ... OIl.... 5'i5l) 5\7D l _c...lq. Zit ~ ~,)(-knC,M ("'\ l~ II (I? 7 /1 / / ~ / 1/ Department Authorization: "--/ f/ 1/-/2/ /~ \...?' ...... ',7"- Department To Be Credited (Transfer In -TO)--+r--+-(_B>-+/J....I.A_tJ~ _________ : I I Description Account Number WOlFunction 5010 Distnoutioo: White: Finance Department Yellow: Department to be Cllarged Pink: Department to be Oediled ~\ SEP A Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton September 2004 -14 - ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... ~ Figure 14-1 provides the architectural elevations of the proposed project. ! : : . . : . : . . ~ .................................................................................................................................. : DEVELOPMENT P CITY OF REM"'1>%NING OCT, J 2004 RECEIVED ~ Perteet Inc. 14-1 ~u~~ [Q)~~ ~(Q)(\JJ [L~~ ffi\~[Q) .- RENTON' AHEAD OF THE CURVE SOUND TRANSIT Perteet ~~~~~©~ • BNSF e' . , .. " , -", .' . : ' SCALE 250 a 250 500 Figure 10-1 General Site Plan 031\13031:1 ~ooz t t 1JO NOlN38 :10 Al.IO -9NINNVld l.N3VVd0131\3a SEP A Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 11 200~ RECEIVED City of Renton September 2004 - 1 0, 11, 13, 20 - The requirements for Sections 10 (Site Plan), 11 (Topography Map), 13 (Tree CuttinglLand Clearing (Tree Inventory) Plan), and 19 (Utilities Plan) are fulfilled by the attached set of plans. Figure 10-1 provides an aerial overview of the project area included existing conditions and the proposed project. Figures 1 0-2a through 1 0-2f show the detailed site plans that include the existing vegetation, topography, waterbodies and critical areas as well as the proposed project details, tree cutting and land clearing plan, and utilities. A formal tree cutting / land clearing plan has not yet been developed for this project. Most of this project is still in the 30% design or conceptual design phase at this time: Therefore, a conceptual plan showing the general work areas and vegetation type is provided to show approximately where vegetation may need to be removed. It is anticipated that there will not be many trees removed during construction of this project. The attached Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report provide the remainder of the information requested for Section 19, the Utilities Plan. ~ 10-1 Perteet Inc. \. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I SEPA Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton September 2004 -17 - FLOOD HAZARD DATA ,. ................................................................................................................................................. . The proposed project is a road construction project, therefore most of the improvements will be at or above grade and all improvements will include stonn water management provisions and mitigation, as described in Section 6 of this application and in the Hydraulics Report provided in Section 21. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the project area are not updated to reflect . current elevation conditions and do not contain the detail to use for engineering design. In general, most of the project occurs below the 50-foot contour. The most current drawing of the floodplain areas available for this project is depicted on Figure 17-1, which shows the location of flood zones in relation to the project area. For more details, please refer to the attached Floodplains Technical Discipline Report. ~ Perteet Inc. . DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 1 2004 RECEIVED 17-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT FLOODPLAINS TECHNICAL DISCIPLINE REPORT Prepared For: Prepared By: Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton Department of Public Works Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Everett, WA 98201 (425) 252-7700 May 2004 I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE ........................................................................ 1 1.2 STUDY AREA .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 5 1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE ..................................................................................................... 7 1.5 PROJECT NEED .................... ' ....................................................................................... 7 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................... 9 2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ..................................................................................... 9 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND COORDINATION ........................................................ 15 3.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA ........................................................................................... 15 3.2 ApPROACH TO ANALySES ................................ : ....................................................... 15· 3.3 COORDINATION WITH AGENCIES AND JURISDICTIONS ........... : ................................. 16 4.0 'AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........•....... ~ ........................•...................................•. 17 4.1 TOPOGRAPHY AND HYDROGEOLOGY .................................... : .................................. 17 4.2 HISTORY OF LAND USE ............................................................................................ 18 4.3 FLOOD ZONE MAPPING ............................................................................................ 19 4.4 MODELING RESULTS ................................................................................................ 19 4.5 PROPOSED ACTION EVALUATION FINDINGS AND PROJECT AREA-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ......................................................................................... 21 5.0 IMPACT ANAL YSIS ...•••........................................................................................ 22 5.1 No ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................... 22 5.2 ALTERNATIVE 1: CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWAY OVERPASS CROSS-VALLEY LINK, RELOCATION OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACK, AND MODIFICATION OF SW 27TH STREET TO FIVE LANES ......................................................................................... 22 5.3 ALTERNATIVE 2: CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWAY UNDERPASS CROSS-VALLEY LINK, RELOCATION OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACK, AND MODIFICATION OF SW 27TH STREET TO FIVE LANES .................................................................................. 23 5.4 AL TERNA TIVE 3: CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWAY UNDERPASS CROSS-VALLEY LINK, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACK NOT RELOCATED, AND MODIFICATION OF SW 27TH STREET TO FIVE LANES ................................................................................ ; ........ 24 6.0 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES ...............•........................................ 24 7.0 REFERENCES AND SOURCES ........................................................................... 26 Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT LIST OF TABLES TABLE 6.1 : SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS FOR FLOODPLAINS ................................... 25 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1: LOCATION MAP .......................................................................... ~ ..................... 3 FIGURE 1.2: TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION ......................................................................... .4 FIGURE 1.3: PROJECT SEGMENTS .. · ....................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 2.1: PROPOSED ROADWAY LIMITS ........................................................................ 10 FIGURE 4.1: FLOODPLAINS ........................................... : ...................................................... 20 Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension ii May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Organization and Scope This report has been prepared by Perteet Engineering, Inc. (Perteet) on behalf of the City of Renton to provide information regarding floodplain conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project area in the City of Tukwila and City of Renton, and to identify potential environmental issues that could affect the proposed action. It provides supporting information for the Environmental Assessment being prepared by Perteet for the proposed action. This report identifies and describes locations and quantities of fill below the IOO-flood elevation by the Project. 1.2 Study Area This project study area is located within the jurisdictions of both the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila in Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 5 East; Sections 24 and 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East; Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East (See Location Map, Figure 1.1). Renton is located at the south end of Lake Washington on the edge of metropolitan and rural King County. Its location between Seattle, Tacoma, and Bellevue places Renton in the center of a region that is the economic hub of the state. Renton encompasses approximately 16.7 square miles. Renton and Tukwila are at the crossroads of a regional transportation network where seven state and interstate highways converge and which is central to national and international air traffic. The study area is sideways T -shape. It includes the area between the west side of the Interurban Trail and the east side of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad track. The study area is wider in the vicinity of Strander Boulevard because it is possible that the trail would be moved .. The southern boundary is south of a railroad spur heading northwest from the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline (the spur that crosses the Green River, not the short spur that serves adjacent businesses), which is about 1,700 feet south ofStrander Boulevard. The spur would be the approximate takeoff point for a new UPRR mainline track that would replace the existing track. The new track would parallel the existing BNSF tracks. On the north end, the study area extends just past 1-405 where the UPRR track b.egins to parallel the BNSF tracks. East of the BNSF tracks, the bulk of the proposed project construction in the primary study area would be confined to the Strander/2ih Avenue corridor, branching off at the points where the Boeing access roads and Sounder station access are to be located. From Oakesdale to East Valley Road, the expectation is to widen the existing roadway within the right-of-way limits. The new roadway would be five lanes with sidewalks and planter Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT strips on both sides (See Figure 1.2). The. intent is to keep the project within City right- of-way. Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 2 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Puget Sound AH~:\i" c:-.::: n-:t=.: (1 ;+-:::,~~ ;-~erteet Engineering, Inc. _~ lVII, Transportation and Sur . "eymg City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension fI D Figure 1.1 Location Map I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z 0 -If) Z l1.J Z 1-0 >< ~ l1.J U D lL1 <J) ~ >-« « > S l1.J D --.J « :::J 0 oi 0 ~ ((J « U ~ (L l1.J >-D ~ Z « ~ 1- If) "\ .. Perteet Engineering, Inc. :--r-~~ Civil, Transportation and Sun'eying [Ii lU I-Z « -' D.... lLJ z « N -' ::J -[Ii I: I- lLJ 2 « N -' -::J [Ii I: I- :;: lLJ 2 0 « [Ii 0 N-' 0 \j) _2 [Ii (J) ::J I- lLJ 2 « N -' -::J [Ii I: I- lLJ 2 « -' C\I ::J [Ii I: I- City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension :;:I: O~ [liD....lU lUlU D I:Ulm I-::J:r:: ~DI-:r::lU::::l I-[liO ~:2Ul ZUlZ lU:r::O 91-:;:~ Figure 1.2 Typical Roadway Section I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 1.3 Project Background This project began with the formation of the Project Stakeholder Committee composed of public agencies and private businesses. Members of the committee have some insight concerning the needs of this project, opportunities that this project could promote, and potential transit and commuter rail improvements it could provide for the Tukwila commuter rail station. The Project Team facilitated Project Stakeholder Committee meetings with affected agencies, such as WSDOT; City of Renton; City of Tukwila; King County; and private businesses, including Boeing, BNSF, and UPRR. Concurrently, the Project Team reviewed existing information regarding the corridor and the existing environment and infrastructure within the project corridor. The Project Team assembled information about to potential corridor concepts, existing and projected traffic that would be generated by the proposed corridor improvements, affected environment, and costs. The Project Stakeholder Committee, formed by the City of Renton, became a source of guidance and input with regard to the information assembled for the potential corridor concepts by the Project Team. The role of this committee was to review and comment on the major study tasks and to recommend preferred concepts. The committee met seven times during this phase of the project and provided the Project Team their endorsement to the Project Team's preliminary recommendation for each of the three proposed segments (See Figure 1.3): • Segment 1-West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW • Segment 2 -Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Highway • Segment 3 -added access to SR 167 via East Valley Road At the conclusion of the study, the City of Renton determined that construCtion of Segments 1 and 2 by themselves would provide a vital cross-valley route and have substantial utility independent of Segment 3. The Project Team prepared a statement ofthe problem based on a review of existing traffic volumes, projected 20-year traffic volumes, economic growth projections from the cities of Renton and Tukwila, and committee member discussions. There were initially 13 potential concepts for Segment 1, 5 potential concepts for Segment 2, and 4 potential concepts for Segment 3. Each of these concepts was described in a conceptual level of detail. At this level of definition, the corridor improvements included sketches, key physical and operational features, functions, benefits, and potential impacts to the environment. Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 5 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SW 17TH ST BLVD w :s: ---.--~-----------~ SW 34TH ST Y: W 0:: « (L Y: 0:: 0:: « w > (L 0 Cl 0:: Z « w > SW 41TH ST 0 Cl z « T SE 43~D 5T 18DTH ST) ~ ~ City of Renton .·\:'c.\I:(J;TFrE~"VL Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 1.3 Project Segments '\ . Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~ _~;~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT The Project Team evaluated the concepts through a first-level screening, which was essentially a "fatal flaw" analysis. Concepts were recommended for elimination ifthey contained serious flaws, were likely to perform poorly, demonstrated an undesirable combination of performance and adverse impacts, or did not appear to meet the committee's committed goal for the project. Following the initial screening, a second screening was conducted on the concepts not eliminated. During the second-level screening, a more detailed evaluation was applied using additional criteria related to transportation performance, land use/social impacts, environmental impacts, and cost/feasibility. A final screening was conducted on the last remaining concepts using the same criteria as the second screening but with additional information collected, as well as the results of a traffic analysis on the effects of adding this east-west corridor between SW Grady Way and South 180th Street/SW 43rd Street. In addition, more detailed costs of the concepts were discussed and the potential for funding the concept and the overall financial viability of a concept were evaluated. During each of the evaluation screenings, the Project Stakeholder Committee was briefed on the evaluation. Upon endorsement by the Project Stakeholder Committee, the Project Team continued to the next level of evaluation. The final screening resulted in a preliminary recommendation for each segment by the Project Team. The Project Stakeholder Committee has concurred with this preliminary recommendation. 1.4 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to improve travel speed, reliability, and access in the north Renton/south Tukwila area. This would be accomplished by adding a new roadway segment from Strander Boulevard to SW 2ih Street and roadway improvements along SW 2ih Street. This would result in a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and East Valley Road via Strander Boulevard in Tukwila and SW 2ih Street in Renton. 1.5 Project Need The proposed project would meet several needs important to both Renton and Tukwila. The project would: • Decrease travel time and increase reliability • Relieve congestion • Provide access to the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station • Improve freeway operation • Encourage transit-oriented development • Promote freight mobility and economic development Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 7 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 1.S.1 The Need to Decrease Travel Time and Increase Reliability The absence of a direct route to and from the project area between West Valley Highway and SR 167 results in extra travel time for freight shippers, transit vehicles, and general- purpose vehicles. A grade-separated route crossing the UPRR and BNSF tracks would both decrease travel times and increase the certainty that vehicles would not be delayed by trains traveling through the area. 1.S.2 The Need to Re~ieve Congestion In order for traffic from Strander Boulevard to cross the UPRR and BNSF tracks and connect with East Valley Road, vehicles must either travel approximately .6 miles north on West Valley Highway to SW Grady Way and then east or go more than a mile south to SE 180th StreetiSW 43rd Street before going east. In either case, the circuitous route causes unnecessary congestion that would be alleviated by a direct cross-valley connection. 1.S.3 The Need to Provide Access to the Future Sound Transit Tukwila Station The Boeing Longacres site currently facilitates one of south King County's highest proportions of vanpool users at a temporary Sound Transit station. The temporary station will eventually develop into the Sound Transit Tukwila Station and will become an important intermodal center for the South King County area. Current routes from the temporary facility to the freeway system are convoluted and congested. Improved access to this commuter rail station will encourage transit use, and help to relieve traffic congestion in the region. Improved access would result in shorter commute times for high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) users, and keep the use of alternative modes of transportation high. 1.S.4 The Need to Improve Freeway Operation Due to high traffic volumes, it is difficult for HOV and freight traffic on 1-40S, SW Grady Way, and SW 43rd Street to access important employment and industrial centers in the GreenlDuwamish River valley. Bus movements across congested SR 167 traffic lanes between the inside HOV lanes and on-and off-ramps at the outside lanes increase travel times for HOVs and contribute to general purpose traffic congestion. By providing an additional cross-valley link, the proposed project would take some traffic off ofI-40S and SR 167. I.5.S The Need to Encourage Transit-Oriented Development If the UPRR tracks are relocated to more closely parallel the BNSF tracks through the project area, additional land could be made available for economic development in Tukwila adjacent to the planned Sound Transit Tukwila commuter rail station. The location would be ideal for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and would reinforce Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 8 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT opportunities for development and growth within the Boeing Longacres site and surrounding areas. 1.5.6 The Need to Promote Freight Mobility and Economic Development Fast, reliable freight access to industrial areas in the GreenlDuwamish River Valley is crucial to economic development in the area; without such access, businesses could suffer and may choose to relocate. The extension ofStrander Boulevard from West Valley Highway (SR 181) to SW 27th Street would improve access to SR 167, thus providing an alternative to the existing freight routes in the area. In addition to reducing travel time, the new facility may also reduce congestion in the area by drawing vehicles from other truck routes, thus reducing the overall congestion level in the area. Additional access to the future development of the Boeing Longacres site is equally important to the economic development currently projected and being planned. Without improved local and through access, the rate at which new and existing businesses choose to locate or expand here is likely to be significantly reduced. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Alternatives Considered Three action alternatives and a No Action alternative are evaluated in this report. The alternatives focus on a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and East Valley Road (see Figure 2.1) that would begin at the signalized intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valle~ Highway on the west and would terminate at the unsignalized intersection of SW 27t Street and East Valley Road on the east, a distance of 6,500 feet. At present, West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW is an unimproved area with no roadway that directly connects Strander Boulevard with the area to the east. From Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road, there is an existing roadway approximately 3600 feet long. The project alternatives focus on strategies to cross the unimproved area, especially railroad tracks owned and operated by Union Pacific Railroad and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway. 2.1.1 No Action Alternative The No Action alternative would keep the project corridor as it currently exists. No new roadways would be constructed or improved in the corridor. The purpose and need for the project would not be met by the No Action alternative. Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 9 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5T \ V1 w > <: . S S 147[" 5T ->m :~ <" , ;-i§ 1515T (/) 51 STRAND~R ::1 '" 0: <{ C- '" w > 0 ::l Z < i80f.-1 ST SEC. 19, T 23N, R 5E, W.M. W '< ~ "- '" w > 0 c Z < R45E, .M. 15TY! S1 i i ~% , ~' ~:XU!I : ~~ RO ITS LONG"'CRE~IW/i P R '!: ' - _ •• ~ ~ : H ~ SPRIN BOOK , --?L C',;)_~ u TRAIL a ~ : \ ! I , U ~-~-o-" SW 27TH S '" -U ~ --:-J-v-c;~-O-o-O-O_O 0-:::-0-0-0·0 ~ BNSF T ACKS( ) ~ :+ UPRR T ACK(1) ~ N ~ < > ~ , ~ \ ~ : I :IS=W'--34=,-,-TH'-S"'~t-_--j ___ -..j ;~I IV .; (I ~ , J °r-_-"sw.:..:......:.4.:..:.1T:.:..H -,,-ST,--+-__ ~c' ;J ~ 50 "3RC R~N / City of Renton Figure 2.1 Proposed Roadway Limits Strander Boulevard Extension ~. Perteet Engineering, Inc. r ------------""-Civil. TrJnsport~tloil and Sun ~ying I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 2.1.2 Alternative 1: Construction of a Roadway Overpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification ofSW 27th Street to Five Lanes Alternative 1 would create a link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single overcrossing of both Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) tracks. From Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road, SW 2ih Street would be widened and include pedestrian facilities and landscaping. Alternative 1 would include five elements: • Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad track • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW • • • Improvements to SW 2ih Street Modifications to the Interurban Trail Modifications to South Longacres Way Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track The UPRR track would be shifted to the east to parallel the existing two sets of BNSF track. To develop this alternative, a new railroad track would be constructed within a new 100-foot right-of-way adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way and then joined with the existing UPRR track at both ends of the project area. Approximately 5,500 feet of new track would be constructed at an elevation similar to that of the existing BNSF tracks. Construction would require placement of 125,000 cubic yards of earth and gravel for the new railroad bed. The new UPRR track would be located at the center of the new 100- foot right-of-way. Approximately the same amount of track and railroad bed would be removed from the existing UPRR location as will be constructed at the new UPRR track location. The railroad bed material would be disposed of at an approved location or reused as a construction fill material. Construction would be sequenced so that disruption of railroad service would be avoided or minimized. With this alternative, the new UPRR track can be constructed while service is continuing on the old track. When the new track is completed, UPRR train traffic would be moved to the new track, the existing UPRR track and railroad bed would be removed, and construction of the roadway overpass would begin. New Roadway Construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW A new roadway would be constructed from the intersection of West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Strander Boulevard to the intersection of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 27th Street. The roadway alignment would be an extension of Strander Boulevard and curve to match up with the existing alignment of SW 2ih Street. Alternative 1 would feature an overpass that would be constructed over the two existing BNSF tracks and the new UPRR track. The overpass would provide vertical clearance of Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 11 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 17 feet and include four travel lanes, a sidewalk on the north side, and a shared use path (combined bicycle/pedestrian path) on the south side for pedestrians and bicycles. From West Valley Highway to the overpass, the roadway would consist of five lanes (four thru lanes and a two-way left turn lane), landscaped strips, a sidewalk-on the north side, and a shared use path on the south side. Bicycle facilities would be provided in either combined travellaneslbicycle lanes or as a shared use path. The landscaped strips would be provided between the traveled way and the pedestrian facilities, and in some locations where a two-way left turn lane is not needed, a landscaped median would be provided. The overpass would not have the two-way left tum lane and planter strips. From the overpass east to Oakesdale Avenue SW, the same five-lane roadway, landscape strips, and pedestrianlbicycle facilities would be constructed. This section (including the roadway, pedestrian facilities and landscaped strips) would be 90 feet wide from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, staying, for the most part, within the appropriate existing City-owned right-of-way. The new roadway construction would result in three new intersections between West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW. There would be one intersection at the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station access road, and two intersections that would result from access roads to the Boeing Longacres site. New traffic signals would be installed at each of these intersections. Improvements to SW 27th Street The existing section of roadway between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road would be widened to match that of the new roadway segment to the west (five lanes, landscaping strips, and pedestrian/bicycle facilities on each side). The section would be 90 feet wide from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, staying, for the most part, within existing City-owned right-of-way. At some locations where there are space constraints or the need to avoid wetland impacts, the planter strip may be eliminated. Portions of the north side and south side of the proposed improvements may require a 3-to 8-foot block or rock wall at the back of the sidewalk to minimize impacts to the adjacent wetlands. A handrail would be required along the top of these wall sections. Modifications to the Interurban Trail The new roadway segment linking West Valley Highway and Oakesdale AvenueSW would cut across the Interurban Trail. As a result, it would be necessary to construct a new means of making the trail continuous. The least obtrusive and preferred route is to have an at-grade crossing at either West Valley Highway or at the future Tukwila Station access road intersection. On the north side and the south side of the roadway, trail users would be routed onto the new bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the roadway, directed toward the intersection, cross the intersection, and then be directed back to the existing trail. Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 12 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Modifications to South Longacres Way South Longacres Way, which is approximately 1,700 feet north of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway, is bridged by the UPRR track and the BNSF tracks. It currently provides access to the temporary Sound Transit commuter rail parking area. The existing railroad bridges over South. Longacres Way are narrow and have clearances that are below the minimum requirements. As a result of this project, if South Longacres Way were to continue to remain open, improvements would have to be made to provide minimum vertical clearances. A new UPRR bridge structure would have to be built, improvem(;mts would need to be made to the BNSF bridge structure, and the vertical profile of South Longacres Way would have to be lowered. 2.1.3 Alternative 2: Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification ofSW 27th Street to Five Lanes Alternative 2 would create a link between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale A venue SW with a single underpass of both the UPRR and BNSF tracks. As described previously for Alternative 1, the UPRR track would be relocated to the east to parallel the existing BNSF tracks. The roadway would be the same as Alternative 1 and have the same five elements as Alternative 1, listed below: • Relocation of the UPRR track • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW • • Improvements to SW 27th Street Modifications to the Interurban Trail • Modifications to South Longacres Way Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1; however, construction sequencing would be different. Construction would be sequenced so that disruption of railroad service would be avoided or minimized. The construction of the new railroad track and the roadway underpass (see new roadway construction subsection below) would also be constructed simultaneously. When the new track is completed, train traffic from the western BNSF tracks would be temporarily shifted to the new track and construction of the underpass beneath the unused tracks would take place. After completion of the second section of the underpass, train traffic from the eastern BNSF track would be temporarily shifted to the western track, and the third section of the underpass would be constructed under the eastern BNSF track. When the underpass is completed, BNSF train traffic would be shifted back to their two original tracks, and UPRR train traffic would be relocated to the new track, and the existing UPRR track and railroad bed would then be removed. Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 13 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT New Roadway Construction/rom West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW This project element would be the same as Alternative 1, except that an underpass of all three railroad tracks (the relocated track used by UPRR and the two BNSF tracks) would be constructed rather than an overpass. The underpass would provide 17 feet of clear distance between the roadway and the bottom of the bridge structure and would contain all of the same roadway elements as in Alternative 1. Other elements of Alternatives would be walls along the underpass and in other various locations and the construction of water quality treatment and detention facilities. The underpass section would include a pump system to remove the accumulated rainwater. Improvements to SW 21h Street This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to thelnterurban Trail This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to South Longacres Way This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. 2.1.4 Alternative 3: Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Union Pacific Railroad Track Not Relocated, and Modification of SW 2ih Street to Five Lanes As with Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would create a link between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single underpass of both the UPRR and BNSF tracks. Alternative 3 differs from Alternatives 1 and 2because the UPRR track would not be relocated to the east to parallel the existing BNSF tracks. For this alternative, the UPRR track would remain in their existing location. The roadway would be the same as that for Alternative 2 and would have most ofthe same elements as Alternative 2: • • • • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW Improvements to SW 2ih Street Modifications to the Interurban Trail Modifications to South Longacres Way New Roadway Construction/rom West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW Under Alternative 3, this project element would be the same as Alternative 2 except that the length of the underpass would be longer because of the different location of the railroad structures. The longer underpass would result in the purchase and modification to the existing parcels and businesses on the northeast and southeast comers of the intersection of Strander and West Valley Highway. Changes would have to be made to Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 14 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT these lots so that the driveways could match into the new roadway, which would be at a lower elevation than the existing roadway. All other elements of the project that would result from the Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2. Improvements to SW 27th Street This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to the Interurban Trail This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to South Longacres Way With Alternative 3, there would be no required modifications to South Longacres Way because no changes would be made to the existing UPRR or BNSF tracks. 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND COORDINATION 3.1 Evaluation Criteria The impacts of the proposed action on floodplains were evaluated by determining the location and amount offill below the maximum elevation of the IOO-year flood and considering the ability of flood waters to pass along the route of any identified floodway. Identified areas of concern include: • • • Location and. volumes of construction and fill that would be placed below the elevation of a IOO-year flood Location and volumes of construction and fill that might impede the passage of flood flows along floodways Possible effects of mainstem river channel migration on the flood zone and proposed proj ect area. 3.2 Approach to Analyses This study was performed in general accordance with the WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual M31-11 (WSDOT 2004). The study was accomplished by performing the following tasks: • The proposed project area was located in relation to the IOO-year floodplain and floodway, as they are identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). • The flooding history of the GreenlDuwamish River valley was researched. • The elevation of the 100-year flood was compared with proposed action construction work and elevations. • Areas of fill below the 100-year flood elevation were identified, and fill volumes calculated using cross-sections through the construction and fill areas. Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 15 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT • • • • • • • The crossing of Springbrook Creek, an identified floodway, was analyzed for flow passage. Analyses by King County of channel migration hazard for large rivers were consulted. Publicly available records were reviewed at local environmental agencies, as necessary, to obtain supplemental information regarding present and past environmental conditions. Available geologic literature and topographic maps were reviewed to preliminarily identify surface drainage paths in the project study area. Environmental conditions within the proposed study area were summarized. Potential impacts to the proposed action due to the potential or known presence of floodplain encroachment were identified Potential measures and options to mitigate potential impacts of floodplain encroachment to the proposed action were identified. 3.3 . Coordination with Agencies and Jurisdictions The City of Renton was consulted during the preparation of this report. In addition, FEMA NFIP FIRMs (dated May 1995) for King County and Incorporated Areas were reviewed for the proposed project area. FEMA and King County web sites were also consulted .. King County's "iMAP," an interactive map-making application that provides online access to an extensive library of geographic information, was reviewed? The information available in iMAP includes 100-year Floodplains and Floodways, which are a compilation of best available floodplain boundaries using FEMA preliminary and final FIRMs and King County flood boundary work maps. Channel Migration Hazard Areas have also been mapped by King County and were reviewed on the website. 3.3.1 Policies and Approvals Presidential Executive Order Presidential Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (May 24, 1977) directs federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible adverse impacts associated with floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development. The Flood Control Zone Act The Flood Control Zone Act of 1935, as amended, (Title 86 RCW) is the primary statutory authority regulating state flood control jurisdictions, which include flood control districts, counties, and zone districts. The act also regulates flood control management, flood control contributions, cooperation with federal agencies on flood control, and state participation in flood control maintenance. The 1937 Act at RCW 86.09, Flood Control Districts, is the section of the act most relevant to WSDOT projects. Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 16 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on Work in State Waters Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on Work in State Waters, June 2002. This interagency MOA is between Washington State Departments ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW), Ecology, Military (Emergency Management Division and Transportation); Washington State Association of Counties; and Association of Washington Cities. The MOA addresses construction work in state waters and establishes procedures to prevent habitat loss through damage by flooding and future land development and to restore fish and wildlife habitat loss resulting from past flooding, land development activities, or public transportation facilities. The MOA outlines permit requirements and WSDOT responsibilities to contact WDFW and Ecology during times of emergencies (and defines what constitutes an emergency). The MOA also includes methods for reducing flood hazard, both by project design and by retrofitting undersized or below standard stormwater conveyances. Water Quality Permits Shoreline permits are required for work in floodplains; a variety of water quality permits (such as Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404, HPA) may also apply. Applications for a nationwide permit to work in the IOO-year floodplain are required by Ecology to demonstrate that there will be no loss of flood storage or function. Also, prior to any work in the IOO-year floodplain, notice must be given to the Army Corps of Engineers. Floodplain Development Permit In addition to the water quality permits, local city or county governments that are participating in the NFIP issue a floodplain development permit for any structure or activity that may adversely affect the flood regime of a stream within the flood zone. State law requires local entities to have a local floodplain ordinance that meets or exceeds NFIP requirements; cf RCW 86.16 and WAC 173-158. . 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.1 Topography and Hydrogeology Several rivers originally flowed into the GreenlDuwamish River valley. The Green and White rivers flowed out of the mountains to the east and from Mount Rainier, forming a confluence near what is now downtown Auburn. From there, the Green River traveled north and was met by the Black River (an outflow from Lake Washington) near what is now Tukwila. The combined rivers formed the Duwamish ("many colors") River, which t flows north into Elliott Bay. South of the White/Green river confluence lay the Stuck River, which flowed into the Puyallup River and Commencement Bay in south Puget Sound. The Stuck and White rivers flowed so near to each other that during spring floods, the two rivers would Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 17 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT sometimes merge, spilling water far to the north and south. In 1906 one of the largest floods diverted most of the White River's water to the Stuck River, leaving the White River's northern channel dry. Subsequently, government engineers built a diversion dam that permanently diverted all of the water into the Stuck River and then into the Puyallup River. The natural hydrology was greatly altered by considerable other filling, diking, channelizing, and other activities, and by the Howard HansonDam (see Section 4.2). The East Side Green River Watershed, also known as the Black River Basin, encompasses 24 square miles and includes portions of the cities of Renton, Tukwila and Kent, as well as some land in unincorporated King County. The proposed project area includes the Green River and its floodplain and adjacent areas, mostly below the 50-foot contour. 4.2 History of Land Use Up until the middle of the 20th century, the GreenlDuwamish River valley (originally the valley of the White River) was used almost exclusively for agriculture and animal husbandry, as well as isolated single-family residential use. When settlers first arrived in the Green River Valley in the 1850s, they found arable land, abundant salmon, and proximity to both Puget Sound and the mountain passes. The valley was a center for hop farming until an aphid infestation in 1890, after which the area was devoted mostly to dairy and berry farms. The land was very fertile, but farmers dealt continuously with the problem of annual flooding. Farmers built their buildings on small stilts or on slightly higher ground and learned to tie-up rowboats to their front porches in case of extreme flooding conditions. By the late 1950s, levees were constructed along much of the Green River. The Howard A. Hanson Dam, dedicated in 1962, brought flood relief to the Green River valley from major valley flood events. For the next few years, farming flourished in the valley because floods were no longer an issue. However, developers who had previously shunned the waterlogged valley saw that miles of flat, open land were available. In the 1960s, the Boeing Company built a vast aerospace plant a few miles north of downtown Kent, while other companies began building warehouses up and down the valley. Farmland acreage decreased as industry moved in. Jobs were created in the valley, and apartment houses and condominiums began sprouting up over the next few decades, as well as shopping centers, strip malls, and auto dealerships. By the end of the 20th century, farming was a mere side industry in the area. The dam project that was meant to be a boon for farmers turned out to have quite the opposite effect. While farms are still interspersed in the valley, many of those that remain are being encroached by asphalt, concrete, and steel. Busy highways and traffic jams have taken the place of flooded waterway logjams. While the major valley flooding has been controlled, portions of the East Side Green River Watershed, have experienced recurrent flooding problems. For example, there were five floods (January 9 and November 24,1990; AprilS, 1991; February 8-9,1996; Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 18 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Decemberl996-January 1997) in the 7 years preceding the 1997 watershed report (City of Renton, 1997). None of these flood events have affected any parts of the proposed project area. This area is the subject of continuing flood control planning. 4.3 Flood Zone Mapping The NFIP FIRMs for the proposed project area (King County Washington ~md Incorporated Areas) are dated May 1995. These and other FIRMs are designed for insurance purposes; as such, most are not accurate enough to rely on for engineering design or land use decision-making. The NFIP maps tend to underestimate both the extent and depth of inundation; some of the drawbacks of the FIRMs are listed below: • Many FIRMs do not have calculated base flood elevations. • Many are based on outdated hydrographic and channel cross-section data, and/or inadequate topographic data. • Many are based on inadequate topographic data. • The delineation of channel migration zones and the relationship between these zones and the lOa-year floodplain are not well established on the FIRM maps. The most current Floodplain information that is available from the City of Renton is shown in Figure 4.1. The City of Renton is currently preparing an updated, more accurate delineation of the floodplain in the Springbrook Creek area. However, this work is in progress, and revised mapping is not available. The 1997 corrections to lOa-year floodplain elevations were used in the cross-sectional analysis of the proposed action. Because floodplain maps only show inundation areas, King County has begun to map areas at risk from stream bank erosion. This mapping is part of the process of updating the critical areas information for the la-year updates of its Comprehensive Plan under the state Growth Management Act. Channel migration hazard areas have been mapped in unincorporated areas of King County along major water courses including the Green River, Cedar River, White River, Skykomish River, and all three forks of the Snoqualmie River. 4.4 Modeling Results For the 1997 East Side Green River Watershed Project, the City of Renton developed hydrologic (Hydrologic Simulation Program-FORTRAN [HSPF)) and hydraulic (Full EQuations [FEQ)) computer models to analyze the existing drainage system and its response to current and future storm events and to evaluate flood control measures. FEQ is a complex computer program for flood management and hydraulic-structure evaluation that simulates the movement of a flood through streams that include hydraulic control structures. HSPF -generated hydro graphs were imported into the FEQ model and then routed through the GreenlDuwamish River valley'S conveyance system. Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 19 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OrN Dr S J "-' . . ~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. ',= Civil. Transportation and Surveying City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Project Area City Limits i Wetlands ~dI7 Flood Zone Figure 4.1 Floodplains I I I I I I I I 1- I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT High water surface elevation in Springbrook Creek is a major cause of flooding in its tributary systems. This causes water toback-up in the tributaries and reduces their storage capacities and contributing to the ponding of excess water. Future increases in the creek's surface water elevation will increase the frequency of flooding events. The high surface elevations are due to a combination of restrictions at several roadway crossings plus inadequate stream channel capacity. . Future land use in the East Side Green River Watershed will be based on the comprehensive land use plans of King County and the cities of Renton, Tukwila and Kent, as of 1996, and is projected to result in the conversion of approximately 590 acres of undeveloped lowland area to commercial and industrial uses. The total amount of impervious surface is projected to increase by 45 percent, from approximately 5,300 to 7,740 acres. The City of Renton's 1997 future land use condition analysis included the assumption, with a few exceptions, that there would be no constructed improvements to the existing Springbrook Creek system. The SW 27th Street crossing of Springbrook Creek was included as one of the output points for the 1997 modeling. Under the FEQ simulation of the 100-year event, the current elevation of the 100-year flood is 16.58 feet above mean sea level, using the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NA VD88). The future 100-year flood elevation is 17.48 feet. 4.5 Proposed Action Evaluation Findings and Project Area-Specific Environmental Concerns The research for this report addressed the following identified floodplain concerns for the proposed project area: 4.5.1 Impacts on 100-Year Flood Storage Volume With the proposed action, impacts on flood storage capacity would occur along SW 27th Street in the proposed project area, in the vicinity of Springbrook Creek. Floodplain volume impacts were calculated as volume displaced, as a result of construction or project-related fill, below the elevation of the 100-year flood. Volumes were found via Eaglepoint, through the Site Design Module. The "Calculating Prismoidal Volume" Function was used with the Flood Plain Surface Model and Existing Surface Model. 4.5.2 Impacts on the Passage of Flood Flow along a FEMA Floodway The proposed action would add lanes across Springbrook Creek, which is an identified FEMA floodway. In 1999, the City of Renton replaced two 128-inch-wide by 83-inch- high corrugated metal pipe arches with a new three-sided box culvert (lO-feet-high by 30-feet-wide) at this location. The culvert was sized to pass the future 100-year flood Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 21 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT volume, as modeled by HSPF using future land use conditions flows that were hydraulically routed through an FEQ model. The culvert itself was built broadly enough to accommodate extra lanes on SW 27th Street. Therefore, the proposed action would not impact the floodway. 4.5.3 Mainstem River Channel Migration The Green River is diked and bermed along the reaches above and below the proposed project area. No channel migration zone is mapped.to the proposed project area, and the proposed action is not expected to impact channel migration. 5.0 IMP ACT ANALYSIS 5.1 No Action Alternative 5.1.1 Direct Impacts There would be no direct floodplain impacts associated with the No Action alternative. 5.1.2 Indirect Impacts There would be no indirect floodplain impacts associated with the No Action alternative. 5.1.3 Cumulative Impacts There would be no cumulative floodplain impacts associated with the No Action alternative. 5.1.4 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures for the No Action alternative would be necessary. 5.2 Alternative 1: Construction of a Roadway Overpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification ofSW 27th Street to Five Lanes 5.2.1 Direct Impacts Impacts on IOO-Year Flood Storage Volume Alternative 1 would place construction and associated fill below the 100-year flood elevation in the SW 27th Street area in the vicinity of Springbrook Creek. This fill would total approximately 107 cubic yards for current conditions and 375 cubic yards for future conditions, and if unmitigated, would reduce flood storage capacity by those amounts. Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 22 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Impacts on the Passage of Flood Flow Along a FEMA Floodway Alternative 1 would add lanes across Springbrook Creek, an identified FEMA floodway. In 1999, the City of Renton replaced two 128-inch-wide by 83-inch-high corrugated metal pipe arches with a new 3-sided box culvert (10 feet high by 30 feet wide) at this location. The culvert was sized to pass the 1 ~O-year flood volume, and built to accommodate extra lanes on SW 27th Street. Therefore, Alternative would not adversely impact floodway. 5.2.2 Indirect Impacts If unmitigated, the reduction of flood storage capacity under Alternative 1 would result in the additional backing-up of water in the upstream tributaries so Springbrook Creek, which would reduce their floodwater storage capacities and contribute to the ponding of excess water. This would contribute to additional ponding of excess water and contribute to a slightly higher flood elevation and frequency in these upstream areas. Mainstem Green River Channel Migration The Green River is diked and bermed along the reaches above and below the proposed project area. No channel migration zone is mapped to the area, and no impacts to or from channel migration are expected. 5.2.3 Cumulative Impacts Portions of the East Side Green River Watershed have had recurrent flooding problems. If unmitigated, the loss of some floodwater storage capacity would result in a slightly higher flood elevation and frequency in upstream tributaries of Springbrook Creek. 5.2.4 Mitigation Measures Under Alternative 1, a location(s) should be identified in the Springbrook Creek drainage upstream of the SW 27th Street crossing for the development of approximately 375 cubic yards of compensatory storage. The compensatory storage could be achieved by . removing dirt below the floodplain elevation and transferring the volume to a receiving location above the floodplain elevation. One hundred seven cubic yards should be below elevation 16.58 feet, and an additional 268 cubic yards should be below 17.48 feet. 5.3 Alternative 2: Construction ofa Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification ofSW 27th Street to Five Lanes 5.3.1 Direct Impacts Impacts from Alternative 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 23 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 5.3.2 Indirect Impacts Impacts from Alternative 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1. \ 5.3.3 Cumulative Impacts Impacts from Alternative 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1. 5.3.4 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures would be the same as described for Alternative 1. 5.4 Alternative 3: Construction ofa Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Union Pacific Railroad Track Not Relocated, and Modification ofSW 27th Street to Five Lanes 5.3.1 Direct Impacts Impacts from Alternative 3 would be the same as described for Alternative 1. 5.4.2 Indirect Impacts Impacts from Alternative 3 would be the same as described for Alternative 1. 5.4.3 Cumulative Impacts Impacts from Alternative 3 would be the same as described for Alternative 1. 5.4.4 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for Alternative 3 should be the same as described for Alternative 1. 6.0 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 all would result in the same impacts on floodplains. Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 24 May 2004 City of Renton I DRAFT I I I Alternative 1: Improvements to SW Improvements to SW Improvements to SW Construction of a 27th Street 27th Street 27th Street Roadway Overpass Construction and If unmitigated, reduced Portions of the East I Cross-Valley Link, associated fill will be flood storage capacity Side Green River Relocation of the placed below the 100-would result in some Watershed have had Union Pacific RR year flood elevation in additional backing-up recurrent flooding Track, and Modification I of SW 27th Street to the vicinity of of water in the problems. If Five Lanes Springbrook Creek. upstream tributaries unmitigated, the loss of This fill will total and ponding of excess some floodwater I approximately 107 water. This would storage capacity would cubic yards for current contribute to a slightly result in a slightly conditions, and 375 higher flood elevation higher flood elevation I cubic yards for future and frequency in these and frequency in conditions. If upstream areas. upstream tributaries of unmitigated, floodwater Springbrook Creek. I storage capacity would be reduced I Alternative 2: Impacts would be the Impacts would be the Impacts would be the Construction of a same as described for same as described for same as described for Roadway Underpass Alternative 1. Alternative 1. Alternative 1. I Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific RR I Tracks, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five I Lanes Alternative 3: Impacts would be the Impacts would be the Impacts would be the Construction of a same as described for same as described for same as described for Roadway Underpass Alternative 1. Alternative 1. Alternative 1. I Cross-Valley Link, Union Pacific RR Track not Relocated, and I Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes I I I Draft Floodplains Discipline Report 25 May 2004 I Strander Boulevard Extension City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 7.0 REFERENCES AND SOURCES Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1995 (May). National Flood Insurance Program's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), King County Washington and Incorporated Areas. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1987. Technical Advisory T6640.8A. King County. 2004. Best Available Science. Volume I. A review of science literature. King County Executive Report. Critical Areas, Stormwater, and Clearing and Grading Proposed Ordinances. Ch. 4. Channel Migration Zones. 2004. Channel Migration Hazard Areas mapping. 2004. iMAP (interactive map-making application) at: http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/mapportal/iMAP_main.htm. • Countywide aerial images (1998). • Floodplains-100-year layer. A compilation of best available floodplain boundaries. Sources for the data include FEMA preliminary and final flood insurance maps (FIRMs) and King County flood boundary work maps. • Floodway layer. A compilation of best available floodplain boundaries. Sources for the data include FEMA preliminary and final flood insurance maps (FIRMs). and King County flood boundary work maps. Renton, City of. 1997 (September). East Side Green River Watershed Project Final Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I.. Stein, Alan 1.2001. "White River Valley" and "Howard A. Hanson Dam," at SeattlelKing Co.HistoryLink.org. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2004. Facility/Site Atlas (USGS topography, 1:24,000; aerial imagery 1:24,000,1991-97). Washington State Department of Transportation. 2004. WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual M31-11 (March 2004). Draft Floodplains Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 26 May 2004 City of Renton I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEP A Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton September 2004 -21 - DRAINAGE REPORT This project is federally funded and therefore is following the Washington State Department of Ecology's Stonnwater Management Manual for Western Washington rather than the King County Stonn Water Design Manual. The attached Hydraulics Report and the proposed Supplement to the Hydraulics Report satisfy the requirement for the Drainage Report. The Hydraulics Report for Strander Boulevard Extension 30% Plans (July, 2004) provides conceptual to 30% design plans for the entire project, the Supplement to the Hydraulics Report will provide the addition of stonn water plans for the overcrossing, and the Floodplains Discipline Report provided in Section 17 describes how special requirements in Section 1.3 of KCSWDM are addressed. ~ Perteet Inc. OEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 1 2004 RECEIVED 21-1 I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Hydraulics Report FOR STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION 30% Plans Renton, Washington July 6, 2004 Prepared by: Prepared for: [~~f-~ Perteet, Inc. I'i(" ~., '1 Civil and Transportation Consultants !\\:~~j ~~~5~o~~2~;;n~~ St;;:x ~~~~t;' ;~_~~~~ PEI# 22036 City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 I I I I I I, 'I I I I I I' I I I I I I I Preliminary Hydraulics Report for Drainage Facilities Project: Date: Owner: Strander Boulevard Extension Renton, WA July 6,2004 City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Ph. 425.430.7321 Civil Engineering Team: Perteet Engineering, Inc. 2707 Colby Ave, Suite 900 Everett, W A 98290 Project Manager -Rich Perteet, P .E. Sf. Drainage Manager -Dean Franz, P.E. Staff Engineer -Erik Emerson, P.E. I I I ,I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 2 1.1 EXISTING CONDmONS ......................................................................................... 2 1.2 PROPOSED CONDmONS ........................•.............................................................. 3 1.3 SOILS ..........................................•........................................................................ 4 1.4 WETLANDS ........................................................................................................... 5 2 SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS .................................. 5 3 OFFSITE ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 5 3.1 REGIONAL DRAINAGE SySTEMS ................................................................................. 5 3.2 UPS1REAM AREAS .............. , ........................................................................•............. 6 3.3 DOWNS1REAM ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 6 4 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ............................................................................................................................. 9 4.1 FLOW'CONTROL DESIGN ............................................................................................. 9 4.2 WATER QUALITY FACILITY DESIGN ......................................................................... 11 5 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ..................................... 14 6 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES ................................................................. 14 6.1 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REpORTS ..................................................................... 14 6.2 GEOTECHNICAL REpORT .......................................................................................... 15 7 OTHER PERMITS ................................................................................................. 15 Appendix A-Hydrologic Calculations Appendix B-Basin Maps Appendix C-30 % Plans Appendix D-Soil Boring Logs I~ I Perteet Inc. '=-July 6, 2004 Strander Boulevard Preliminary Hydraulics Report I I, I I I I I I' I I I I' I I I 1 Project Overview The project proposes to construct approximately 2500 linear feet of new roadway beginning at the intersection Strander Boulevard and the West Valley Highway and extending East to the intersection of Oaksdale A venue. In addition approximately 3600 linear feet of existing roadway (27th Street) between Oaksdale Avenue and East Valley Road will be widened to match the cross section of the new roadway portion. See Figure 1.2.2. The new portions of the project will connect the South Center Mall area with developing areas of the City of Renton. This will improve congestions both on a local and regional level. The project will cross two railroad lines (Burlington Northern Sante Fe and Union Pacific). An underpass and bridge is planned for this crossing. A relocation of one of the railroad lines is also probable in order to facilitate the construction of the underpass. Springbrook Creek crosses the road at a point midway between Oaksdale A venue and Lind Avenue. The majority of the on site areas discharge to this creek via several storm pipes and ditches. A more in depth discussion of the project drainage routes is given in Section 3. 1.1 Existing Conditions The area within the project right-of-way and surrounding properties is relatively flat terrain (slopes less than 2% grade). At the extreme western end of the road project Strander Boulevard crosses the West Valley Highway and dead ends a few hundred feet east of the intersection near the Interurban Trail. From the trail a gravel access road leads up to the Union Pacific Railroad. East of the Union Pacific the project route traverses through unmaintained grassland and blackberry thickets, crossing the Burlington Northern Railroad, to the intersection of 27th Street and Oaksdale Avenue. Here 27th Street is a five lane arterial roadway with a sidewalk on the north side to the eastern end of the project at East Valley Ro.ad. . The area is interspersed with several drainage ponds, open channels, ditches, and storm pipe facilities. A map of the existing drainage facilities, open channels, pipes, nearby wetlands, and pipe outfalls to the creeks is provided in Figure 3.2.1. A more detailed view schematic of the existing 27th street storm system is provided in the existing basin maps located in Appendix B-1. Drainage from the majority of the project discharges to Springbrook Creek as described in the downstream analysis in section 3.2. In the existing condition the project can be divided into ten distinct Subbasins. Table 1.1 lists the names and areas of these basins. Refer to Figure 1.1.1 for an overview of the· locations of these basins. A more detailed view of the basins and the land cover listed in I""' 1 Pertee! Inc. '-July 6, 2004 Strander Boulevard Preliminary Hydraulics Report ------ -.. ---- - Jun 29, 2004 -3:32pm ErikE J:ITrans_Design122044-StranderBlvdl11_ Hydraulics_ReportlExisting Basin Map-Master.dwg Layout Name: Basin Map .. \ ,-,..) :/ ~ 0 'T1 'T1 (Jl =i IN, m I ':._. , -.-+ =r '(J) ''-+ )" o L..j-' 'j',i -z":" '-r,' • ..L ~'~""\\I:I ,', ......... . , '1' . '.' I '~.1' ":1,1-1-" . -r.:-.i 1~ " I •• " ;::-'.,\~,,,\ 1",11 '\, '/1 . 'i~;:':.:: 'JI,~;-fl:'- "~. I" \' \1",: I,> ,'(( r~I~:?::-,:;r'll~":_: 0 , i, ,! ... _ ~ § ~ "\1 1F;, 11-(1!: 'rUE Cl )RifE ""'":: Perteet Engineering, Inc. :'C C;vil, Tr:msporl:'lion and Surveying n~u qllU I ~ I i I ~ ~ I i I ~ " 1"\ / --.,<~' -.·,1 .. -'/»~~'I~' >, ,~, :.~ ·"l,';h.'11'I.J\;f-;("~~~~...!.I."·" ;--,1 '~"t ............. , ... , __ .,.~;: ::':.::t;" -1)1; '!ii'!,.:l'~:I'" li:~~~:"~~'~_ .. /~~?"~" [I f(,~\j}i:;~"/' "',. ';;-~~~"=+:~~ .- City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Preliminary Hydraulics Report ------ FIGURE 1.1.1 EXISTING DRAINAGE BASINS I I I I I, I I' I I I I I I I I I I Table 1.1.1 can be found in Appendix B-1. This table identifies the pollution generating impervious surface (PGIS), the gravel areas, and the non pollution generating impervious surface (NPGIS) as well as the pervious areas. POlS areas are those areas subject to traffic, while NPOIS areas are those not subject to vehicular traffic such as sidewalks. $j.j~b~~i!:i~lP~Nt:'\VI~ii~~ ~~~~~lro~:tVi91i$~~~~~~ ~R.~iiv.19J,I.s~ ~Tpj8IA~ . Total Total Total See Figure 1.1.1 PGIS Gravel NPGIS Impervious Pervious Area Ac. Ac. Ac. Ac. Ac. Ac. West Valley Highway 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 O~ 1 0.5 Railroad West 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 Railroad East 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 Boeing West 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 2;9 Boeing East 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 1.3 Oaksdale 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 Springbrook Greek West 1.4 0.0 0.2 1.6 1.0 2.7 Springbrook Creek East 1.2 0.0 0.2 1.4 0.8 2.2 Lind Avenue 0.9 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.6 1.9 East Valley Highway 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.4 1.1 Project Totals 5.4 0.1 0.9 6.4 7.5 14.0 Table 1.1.1 Existing Subbasin Areas 1.2 Proposed Conditions The project will create a 90 foot wide roadway section from the West Valley Highway to East Valley Road. This section will include five 12 foot wide driving lanes, two 6 foot wide planter strips, a 6 foot sidewalk and a 12 foot asphalt shared use path. Construction of the project will be split into three stages. See Figure 1.2.2. Stage 1 -Highpoint at Station 23+ 10 to Springbrook Creek Bridge This first stage of the project will construct new roadway from the highpoint to Oaks dale Avenue, and widen the existing 27th Street Road to Springbrook Creek. In the developed condition the project has been divided into six drainage sub basins (See Figure 1.2.1.) Stage 1 will include all work within Basin 2. Basins 2 and 3 share a new detention and water quality facility, located in Basin 3, which will need to be constructed as part of Stage 1. Stage 2 Springbrook Creek Bridge to East Valley Road Stage 2 will widen 27th street beginning at the east end of Stage 1 work (Oaksdale Avenue) then easterly through Lind Avenue and extending to East Valley Road. Work in this stage will encompass developed drainage basins 4,5, and 6 (See Figure 1.2.1.) Stage 3 West Valley Highway to Highpoint at Station 23+10 Perteet Inc. July 6,2004 Strander Boulevard Preliminary Hydraulics Report I I T"" a.. N ~ T"" ~ I W Z c::: en ::> ~ C> ID I U. Cl W a.. 0 ...J I: W > W Cl I-a:: I 0 11. W a:: CI) u ::::; :l I ~ c >-::c iii '~, E IV I z '5 0 >-IV "C o::~ ...J I ~ "0 ~ 7ii IV ::!; "'- >. 1 Q) I CO r~ > u.J IV I ::!; I: Iii IV m BASIN ,SW, 27th St':- "0 CD a. " ~'l 0 I a; ", > CD c 1: 0 " a. '--'"'~~'''T~ BASIN CD a:: I IIJI ,g :; I!! "0 >-::c "-.-~ '> ." I '. SW 2!~'th St. I ~ )' . '6 > iE CD "0 I: I, ~ 0 N ~ I: 0> 'iii LEGEND sw aOth St. - - --• EXACT fLOW PATH UNDETERIAINED • DRAINAGE fLOW PATH >,' ~ I CD ~I I: I!! I;:: ., I w .>< ijj E CO > f ... en Q) "',. I :> a. It) I 0; .... 0 Blvd 0 N ai ----N I c :::> ~ FEET SCALE ::====:S=:W==3=:4=th=S=t===. __ S_W_3_4_th_S_t.J ~_"_c !:')W 34th St. r H------~'~-~-~----~,-, 150 75 0 150 300 I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I ~. Perteet Engineering, Inc. ,~ .~ Civil. Transportation and Surveying 5W 7TH 5T STAGE 1 City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension STAGE 2 w ; I-I '------- 43RD 5T lo0TH 51) FIGURE 1.2.2 Construction Stages I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I As part of this construction an underpass beneath the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Sante Fe railroad lines is planned to be built. Included will be new bridges for the railroads, embankment walls, and a storm water pump station at the bottom of the underpass. This stage incorporates Developed Basin 1. The exact configuration of this underpass is not determined at the time publication of this report. Consequently the drainage layout for Stage 3 is conceptual at this time. A supplement to this report will be prepared when the configuration of the underpass is finalized. As mentioned, the project is divided into 6 sub-basins in the developed condition. An overview of these basins can be found in Figure 1.2.1. More detailed information on these subbasins and the developed land cover can be found in Appendix B-2. Table 1.2.1 lists the areas of each of the basins. Basii:l!lpj~~~¥~ ~~~~f~~lntP~tyiousJ!ii~~~ ~~~Miic;u~l ~.iJiofilJl~ PGIS Gravel NPGIS Total Total Total Area See Figure 1.2.1 Ac. Ac. Ac. Ac. Ac. Ac. Basin 1 1.9 0.0 0.4 2.3 0.3 2.6 Basin 2 2.7 0.0 0.4 3.1 0.4 3.5 Basin 3 2.0 0.0 0.4 2.3 0.3 2.7 Basin 4 1.6 0.0 0.3 1 .9 0.3 2.2 Basin 5 1.4 0.0 0.3 1.6 0.2 1.9 Basin 6 0.8 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.1 1.1 Project Totals 10.3 0.0 2.0 12.2 1.8 14.0 Table 1.2.1 Developed Subbasin Areas 1.3 Soils The Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey -King County Area shows the project located within the following Newberg, Puget Snohomish, and Woodinville Silt Loam zones, as well as a small amount of Tukwila Muck at the eastern most end of the project. For hydrologic calculation purposes these soils are till soils. The hydrologic computer software used (WWHM) only recognizes two soil types, Till and Outwash. Ground water levels are relatively high and can be expected to be encountered in the proposed underpass beneath the railroads and potentially in utility excavations in other parts of the project. Groundwater elevations observed by Shannon and Wilson in their February 2004 explorations (Geotechnical Report for Conceptual Design-Strander Boulevardl21h Street Improvements, Renton and Tukwila, Washington, February 27, 2004) were observed to be between 9 and 12 feet below the existing 27th Street roadway area (elevation 6 and 10 feet.) West of Oaksdale A venue the groundwater depth is approximately 7 feet below the ground. Considering the rise in the ground elevation this corresponds to steady elevation climb to an approximate high elevation of 20 feet in the vicinity of the Railroad Tracks. The exploration logs of Shannon and Wilson's explorations are copied in Appendix D . Areas on the south side of the existing 27th street portion of the project are covered by wetlands. Soils in this area can be anticipated to be saturated for portions of the year. The project proposes to minimize impacts to these areas. r' I Pertee! Inc. ~ July 6, 2004 Strander Boulevard Preliminary Hydraulics Report I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I, I 1.4 Wetlands Wetland areas have been identified in and around the project. One identified location of the wetlands is south of the project between the two railroad lines and west ofthe Union Pacific railroad line. The remainder of the identified wetlands are hydraulically connected to Spnngbrook Creek. The southern side of the project is bounded by wetlands from approximately 500 feet west of Oaksdale Avenue to Lind Avenue. Wetlands were also identified on the north side of the 27th Street on the east side of Springbrook Creek. Other wetland areas identified on the north side of 27th street appear to beconstnicted drainage facilities. The identified wetlands are shown in Figure 1.1.1 and also in more detail in the existing basin maps in Appendix B-1. The project proposes to minimize impacts to these wetlands, and to mitigate for any wetland impacts by replacing disturbed wetlands in another area. Replacement will be at a ratio defined by the City of Renton and any state or federal requirements. 2 Summary of Conditions and Requirements Federal funding is proposed for the project. Based upon the involvement of federal agencies in the environmental review process it was determined that the project will adhere to the Washington State Department of Ecology's stormwater regulations, as put forth in the Stormwater Management Manualfor Western Washington (WDOE 2001), for detention design and stormwater quality treatment. However, the DOE manual does not contain guidance for conveyance system design. Conveyance systems will be designed to the requirements of the Surface Water Design Manual (King County 1998), which has been adopted by the City of Renton. The specific requirements of each of these manuals are further addressed in the appropriate design sections of this report The project lies within the floodplain of Springbrook Cr~ek. The City of Renton has determined that detention facilities should be constructed above the 2 year floodplain elevation based on the East Side Green River Watershed Project -Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (City of Renton 1997.) In the Strander project's datum this elevation is 15.1 feet at the 27th Street Box Culvert. 3 Offsite Analysis 3.1 Regional Drainage Systems The Strander Boulevard project is located within the Black River Basin Study area and the Valley Subbasin, which is part of the East Side Green River Watershed. This area is identified as the DuwarnishiGreen Water Resources Inventory Area, WRIA #9. These are shown in Figures 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. The major water bodies near the Strander Boulevard project is Springbrook Creek, and the Green River. Springbrook Creek flows south to north and bisects the Strander Boulevard project along 27th Street SW between Oakesdale Avenue SW and Lind Avenue SW. To the west of the project is the Green I' I Pertee! Inc. , July 6, 2004 Strander Boulevard Preliminary Hydraulics Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t ~ j ::i ~ I I ~ STRANDER BLVD PROJECT AREA Note; This figure depicts the zoned full build-out land-use. The modeled land-use was obtained by overlaying the future zoned land-use with oreos assumed to remain undeveloped (large wellands, steep slopes, etc). The areas assumed to remain undeveloped ore shown in Figure 5 of NHC, 1996. Commercial Multi-family High Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Upper Land Cleared Upper Land Forested Lowland Undeveloped Parks Approximate Jurisdictional Boundoeries ! ~ East Side Green River Watershed ~.~ r=::E9~t=::E~~'l===s=CAl.=E=::::::f~~~~~=l1 mHe, Zoned Future Land Use _ 1/2 2 northwest hydraulic consultants ~~--============================~--~ ~. Perteet Engineering, Inc. ,lir" ~ Civil. Transportation and Surveying City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Preliminary Hydraulics Report FIGURE 3.1.1 WATERSHED MAP I I I I I I I I I " ! I i i !I -i J! <;j ., I ~ ~ z I !I I I '" ~ I i .s ~ ~ I , i' "i- I '" -' ~ '!! ~ a I ~ !:I a ~, ~ I ~ ~ w I I N @ LEGEND ------Slr8amJI)rainageChann61 __ •• _n Stonn Drain Pipe ---SUbbasil'l Boundary o 1000 2OCIO 3000 H City of Renton RENTON r-1· .,~ BBslnlStudy Area Boundary " : \ RDIling Hills ." Subbasin I Springbrook Springs SUbbasin I \" ... ' . . . '-/ }.J -- \ ) \ \ \ "'----.-" Black River Basin Water Quality Management P1an FIGURE 3.1.2 Strander Boulevard Extension Preliminary Hydraulics Report SUBBASIN BOUNDARIES I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I River which flows south to north and is located along the west side of the West Valley Highway (SR 181). The West Valley Highway defines the westerly limit of the Strander Boulevard project. Other water bodies adjacent to the Strander Boulevard project include several wetlands, drainage ponds, and drainage ditches. These are identified in Figure 3.2.1. The mouth of the Duwamish River is at Elliot Bay in Seattle. The name of the river changes to the Green River at river mile 11.0, where it converges with the Black River. See Figures 3.1.1 and ~.1.2. 3.2 Upstream Areas Four areas will discharge onto the project from adjacent properties. These areas are shown in Figure 1.1.1. Storm runoff from offsite areas will be routed through the stormwater facilities, which have been designed for these additional flows. The areas of the offsite basins and their associated land cover areas are listed in Table 3.2 Basin;.ID;?~~i;~~ ;':[:i~~:t$~:~~~ll11pe~.iol,is~~~¥i~~a~~ ~,e~lWi(tLisl '~J;,o~l~ rDrairJ$Z[9 Total Total Onsite See Figure 1.1.1 PGIS Gravel NPGIS Impervious Pervious Total Area Basin # Ac. Ac. Ac. Offsite A 0.3 0.0 0.0 Offsite B 0 0.0 0.0 Offsite C 0 0.0 0.0 Offsite 0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Offsite Totals 0.8 0.0 0.0 Table 3.2 Contributing Off site Drainage Areas 3.3 Downstream Analysis Ac. 0;3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 Ac. Ac. 0.0 0.3 2.0 2.0 7.7 7.7 0.2 0.7 9.9 10.7 1 1 2 5 Strander Boulevard Downstream Analysis (refer to Figure 3.2.1) Project Beginning to Union Pacific RR (Existing) This portion of the project has no definable downstream conveyance. Much of the area drains to undeveloped land on both the north and south sides of the right of way, where it collects into small closed depressions and then infiltrates. The paved portion of the site, an extension of Stander Boulevard east of the West Valley Highway, reportedly drains to an undergr<;mnd infiltration system located north of the roadway adjacent to the Interurban Trail. See Figure 3.2.1. Union Pacific RR to Burlington Northern Sante Fe RR (Existing) The area between the Union Pacific and Burlington northern railroads lacks well defined drainage features. While a sizable ditch runs along the east side of the Union Pacific lines (the west side of the area between the railroads), the area generally drains to the I"" I Perteet Inc. ~ July 6, 2004 Strander Boulevard Preliminary Hydraulics Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E "-~ I~ ,C/) I- I I I .~ 1-""-'---~-----~-~""'-,.-,c:-. , ,j I! 'i :: I:: '; j , ········· .. ··_··········_-_···-+:.1· ./ •• :<f i ... ·~···~ SW 23rd -.. .....::---~-. c. .. ~ Vi. \ ---------~ .--~ : . INlTERt.tITTENT DIRECTIONAL FLOW PATH SHEET FLOW DRAINAGE FLOW PATH \ LEGEND I 1 DRAINAGE BASIN RAlNAGE BASIN WM#t0l CONTRIBUTING OFF-SITE 0 1---: '"" -0_-' :1 WETlANDS (Flagged) SCALE ................... 300 150 o FEET 300 600 ...-a. C'! « C") ~ w ~ c::: « ::J w C9 c::: u.. I-CIJ Z ~ 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I northeast. The embankment of the Burlington Northern tracks dams any westward drainage, thus directing runoff to the north. Approximately 1600 feet north of the proposed Strander Blvd Location, the drainage is stopped by the Longacres Way roadway embankment. A depression near where Longacres Way passes underneath the Burlington Northern tracks is the lowest point in the area, and shows visible sighs of ponded water. The only outlet located for this area is a 6" pipe running across Longacres Boulevard to the headwall of a 2' x 8' concrete box culvert that drains Longacres Boulevard. The Union Pacific west ditch dead ends at Longacres Way, with no visible outlet. It appears that most runoff in this area is held on the surface until it can infiltrate or evaporate. After discharging from the box culvert in Longacres Way, runoff is directed northerly along the west side of the Burlington Northern tracks in a wide, well defined, vegetated channel. Approximately 800 feet north of Longacres Way, the channel flows east underneath the railroad tracks through an 18" concrete culvert, then in to a 48" concrete' pipe in 16th Avenue. This 48" pipe drains east within the 16th Avenue right-of-way for approximately 1600 feet before discharging directly to Springbrook Creek. According to asbuilt information from the 16th Avenue construction project this outfall has a Tide Flex Valve which prevents backflow from the creek into the system. This downstream route is shown in Figure 3.2.1 Burlington Northern Sante Fe RR to Oaks dale (Existing) Runoff from this portion of the project generally drains overland to the east before reaching an unmaintained storm sewer system on the site of an apparent demolished building or complex near Oaksdale Avenue. Although none of the buildings remain, a majority of the sites pavement still exists, along with the storm drainage collection system. The storm sewer then drains south under a Boeing road (an extension of 27th Avenue) into a wetland at the southwest comer of the Oaks dale Avenue-27th Street intersection. No defined channel exists through this wetland. The wetland drains south to a pair of 36" concrete culverts under Oaksdale Avenue approximately 450 feet south of 2ih street. These culverts outlet on the east side of Oaksdale Avenue in another wetland. This wetland extends from Oaksdale Avenue to Springbrook Creek, where it flows into the creek. Detention Pond (Proposed) A proposed detention and water quality facility, located west of the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad (and proposed new location of the Union Pacific Railroad) on the south side of the proposed Strander Boulevard, will collect runoff from the portions of the project between the West Valley Highway and Oaksdale Avenue. The outlet of this facility will drain east for approximately 150 feet, through a through a proposed storm sewer pipe under the Burlington Northern Rail Road Embankment, to property owned by the City of Renton on the east side of the railroad. From this point the storm sewer will drain south for approximately 1000 feet before discharging to a wetland banking facility that will be constructed by the City of Renton. See Figure 3.2.1. It is expected that the wetland banking facility will be constructed prior to the construction of this stage of the f' I Pertee! Inc. , July 6, 2004 Strander Boulevard Preliminary Hydraulics Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Strander Boulevard project. The exact route of the outflow of the proposed constructed wetland is unknown at this time, but it will likely somehow drain to the east to Springbrook Creek, which is approximately 1400 feet away. Oaksdale to Lind (Basins 3 and 4) Storm drainage from the portions of 27th Street east of Oaks dale Avenue (Basin 3) discharge east to Springbrook Creek, while the portions west of Lind A venue (Basin 4) discharge west to Springbrook Creek. Each portion discharges through a 24 inch storm sewer pipe on the respective side of a concrete box culvert over the creek. Both outfalls discharge to the creek on the north side of 27th Street at elevations below both the 25 and 100 year floodplains (as defined in the East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan and Environmental Impact Statement). From these outfalls Springbrook Creek flows north to the Black River Pump Station; more than 2000 feet downstream, where it is pumped to the Green River. Figure 3.1.2 shows the location of the pump station. Lind to High Point (Basin 5) This portion of the project drains west to a 36 inch concrete storm sewer line draining north along the west side of Lind Avenue. The storm sewer continues along Lind Avenue to an outfall west side of the street approximately 1200 feet north of Strander" Boulevard. The storm sewer outfalls to a ditch which drains west for approximately 900 feet to Springbrook Creek which drains north to the Black River Pump Station, then to the Green River. High Point to East Valley Highway (Basin 6) Runoff from this portion of the project drains east to a storm sewer running along the west side of East Valley Road. The East Valley Road storm sewer then drains north along the backside of the westerly roadway sidewalk. According to record drawings provided by the City of Renton this pipe is a 36" pipe. However, the size of this pipe could not be confirmed due to standing water conditions in the storm sewer system from the connection point of the 27th Street storm sewer. The water in the catchbasin appeared stagnant, and the day of the observation was dry and sunny, although some rain had fallen in previous days. From the point of connection of the 27th Street storm sewer the East Valley storm sewer runs north for approximately 1200 feet to a pond on the west side of East Valley Road. From this point a channel drains west out of the pond towards Springbrook Creek. I""' I Pertee! Inc. ~ July 6, 2004 Strander Boulevard Preliminary Hydraulics Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design 4.1 Flow Control Design Detention facilities will be provided to mitigate increased flows from runoff, and the corresponding potential for stream erosion. The main element of detention design is the development of runoff hydro graphs and sizing the storage volume. The detention sizing methodology uses a continuous simulation modeling of multiple storm events occurring in sequence. The software is named WWHM (Western Washington Hydrologic Model). It is based upon the EPA's HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran) model, and it uses long-term (43-50 years) precipitation data to simulate the potential impacts of sequential storms. The computational time step used in the model is 1 hour. The WWHM uses soil types to determine initial abstraction values and interception, and it assumes that pre-developed land conditions are forested (for those areas that are to be paved/developed). Existing impervious areas are considered as remaining when determining the detention facility target flow durations. Detention facility outflow target levels are based on the runoff statistics from the existing pavement, as pavement, and existing pervious areas, as forest, within the project area. The detention facilities are designed to match the developed discharge durations to pre-developed durations for the range of pre-developed discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow. Flow control facilities are proposed for each of the basins described in section 1.2. Basins 2 and 3 will share a detention facility. The calculations for each of these facilities are included in Appendix A. A summary of each of the facilities is listed below.· Each will discharge through a control structure comprised of a riser with a lower orifice and a rectangular notch cut out at the top of the riser. The Department of Ecology has determined that this is the most efficient control structure configuration, and produces smaller facilities than the more common 3 orifice configuration. 4.1.1 Basin 1 }~r)etehti'ont~Ea:cilito~~1f-'''f''}i ~11ie'(riiIie.a~&91\lmeil~~~ Pond 31,000 CF As previously described, the final road configuration of the project in the Basin 1 (construction stage 3) design is undetermined. The detention facility calculations are therefore of a preliminary nature. A detention pond is proposed to provide the required detention volume for this basin. This pond will be located on the south side of Strander Boulevard in property located between the current Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad lines. A pump station located in the underpass sag curve will pump all of the Basin 1 stormwater up to the pond. The pond is currently proposed to be constructed at or below the existing grade in order to meet City of Tukwila goals to have an aesthetically pleasing use for the property. As such the pond discharge will be to a second, smaller, pump station. Outflow from the pond will be pumped to a system running east under the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad tracks, then south to a proposed wetland banking site proposed by the City of Renton. This route is shown in the I"" 1 Pertee! Inc. '=-July 6, 2004 Strander Boulevard Preliminary Hydraulics Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I downstream map (Figure 3.2.1) In the case of failure of the pump system the pond will overflow into the undeveloped area directly south of the pond. See Appendix C-3 for a schematic layout of the Basin 1 storm drainage system. 4.1.2 Basins 2 and 3 Basin 2 comprises more thari '1600 linear feet of roadway, all draining to the east at a minimal slope. No feasible outfall locations exist for a detention facility within the limits or surrounding area of this basin, so runoff will be piped to an underground vault located in Basin 3. This 940 foot long vault serves both Basin 2 and 3, and takes up the southern 20 feet of the majority of Basin 3. Drainage from the detention vault passes through a sand filter (described in section 4.2) before discharging to Springbrook Creek via an existing outfall on the north side of 27th Street. The precast detention vault may double as a retaining wall, helping to minimize encroachment on the wetlands south of the project in Basin 3. This will not only avoid the construction of a substantial amount of wall construction, but allows the majority of the vault to be constructed underneath the proposed mixed use path, thus gaining a few inches of vertical storage capacity and minimizing the traffic loads on the vaults. The schematic layout of this system can be found in the plans in Appendix C-I. 4.1.3 Basin 4 :;E)eientiolf,Fadiiit";Jr~r,'''''ef,~ {Rec:oiiltiienaea:Qlmensi0ns*'J~~&~~~~~\~ ~iDefruH@(rxolum'ei~J Wetvault 145'L x20'W x2.9' Detention De th 8400 CF Basin 4 drains eastJtom Lind Avenue and west from the Spring Brook Creek Culvert to a low point at in the middle of the basin. Runoff will flow to a detention wetpond, as shown in the plans, then to an existing discharge pipe to Springbrook Creek on the north side of 27th Street. The schematic layout of this facility can be found on sheet RP4 of the plans in Appendix C-2. 4.1.4 Basin 5 fE)eteriiion~F~cillt~~1~e~~ b~RecQfl1me'Ifae'a~:IDim~n~l:On~H~{t~"~~1fIlI~~I~1)etrune"ci~~QlUme~~~~~~ Wetvault 85'L x20'W x3.4' Detention Depth I 5800 CF Runoff from Basin 5 drains west to Lind Avenue. An existing tee connection to the Lind Avenue storm sewer will be replaced with a structure connection and will serve as an outfall for the Basin 5 detention system. The vault will be located partially under the proposed landscape and mixed use path in order to maximize the vertical storage capacity r' I Pertee! Inc. ~ July 6, 2004 Strander Boulevard Preliminary Hydraulics Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of the vault. The schematic layout of this facility can be found on sheet RP8 of the plans in Appendix C-2. 4.1.5 Basin 6 Basin 6 drains to East Valley Road. In the existing condition drainage flows to a storm sewer which drains to the East Valley Road storm sewer. The intersection of 27th Street and East Valley Road is lower than the majority of the basin. When combined with the need to keep the detention volume above the 2 year floodplain elevation, the elevation of the intersection is prohibitive to constructing a detention vault at or near the intersection. To address the issue the detention facility is to be located at the higher end of the basin. A portion of the basin having approximately the same impervious area as the existing pavement will be allowed to flow undetained to the discharge point at East Valley Road. The higher (western) portion of the basin, with approximately the same impervious area as the new improvements in the basin, will be over-detained before discharging to the same location as the lower (eastern) portion of the basin. The WWHM program allows an analysis ofthe entire system (detained and undetained areas) as a whole, and examines the flow duration statistics at the point where the flows come together with the statistics from the entire basin in the existing condition. This analysis is included in Appendix A-6 and shows that the system taken as a whole can match the existing flow duration statistics. 4.2 Water Quality Facility Design The Department of Ecology's Stormwater Manual outlines 6 steps to determining the level of treatment required for a project in Chapter 4 of Volume #1. These steps, and how they are applicable to this project, are outlined in Table 4.2.1. !s:~1¥#~:~31$.i~~~~~~~!.t~=t1 Step 1-Determine Receiving Waters and Pollutants of Concern Step 2-Determine if an Oil Control Facility Perteet Inc. July 6,2004 &1!Ii£~'s-tfoJQ~~1ill~E:~f~~~~~ Offsite analysis suggested Intersections with 25,000 ADT on the primary road and 15, 000 on the secondary road require Oil Water Control Facilities. ~~mQj~cc~:J8ppli~~pJltY4~i{iitllil~ An offsite analysis is included in section 3 of this report. TMDL's established for this drainage system apply only to sewer treatment overflows and are not applicable to stormwater discharges. According to projections prepared for the project Strander Blvd! 2ih Street will have approximately 23,000 ADT in the year 2015. Cross streets have less than 20,000 ADT. No Strander Boulevard Preliminary Hydraulics Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Oil Control is required (see Figure 4.2.1) Step 3-Determine if Can infiltration occur and High ground water levels and Infiltration For Pollutant do soils have adequate poor soil infiltration rates make Removal is Practicable treatment properties infiltration for pollutant control infeasible Step 4-Determine if Have local, state, or No phosphorous control Control of Phosphorus is federal agencies requirements have been Required. designated the receiving identified for Springbrook waters as requiring Creek. phosphorus control? Step 5-Determine if Arterials and Highways The new roadway will be Enhanced Treatment is are required to provide designated as an arterial and Reqpired enhanced treatment. will be required to provide enhanced treatment. Proposed enhanced treatment BMPs are a constructed wetland and treatment train. Step 6-Select a Basic As required in step 5 the project Treatment Facility will provide enhanced treatment, which supercedes the need for basic treatment. Table 4.2.1-Water Quality Facility Selection Steps. As determined in step 5 of the BMP selection process the project will require enhanced water quality treatment. In order to meet this criteria a stormwater treatment wetland will be constructed to treat runoff from Basin 1, and will be constructed in conjunction with· the proposed detention pond for the same basin (See section 4.1) Stormwater treatment wetlands are described in Section 10.3 of Volume V of the DOE Stormwater Manual. As discussed previously the configuration of Basin 1 (Stage 3) and the detention pond! constructed wetland are undecided at this time. The facility will be further defined by a supplementary report at a later date. Water quality treatment for the remainder of the project will be provided by a treatment train consisting of wetpool storage in combination with a detention vault followed by a sand filter vault. These two facilities together provide enhanced treatment. The wetpool settles out coarse to medium sediments, while the sand filter removes finer particles. In the process, other pollutants attached to the sediments are also removed. An oil separating baffle will also be installed in the sand filter vault to trap oils and floatables. These facilities are shown in the plan set located in Appendix C, and the supporting calculations can be found in Appendix A. Per the redevelopment criteria listed in Section 2.4.2 of Volume I of the DOE Stormwater Manual, only runoff from new pollution generating impervious areas are required to be treated. Existing areas of pollution generating impervious surface (PGIS) can be treated r' I Pert eel Inc. ~ July 6, 2004 Strander Boulevard Preliminary Hydraulics Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ City of Renton . AHEADOFTHEOlRVE Strander Boulevard Extension ~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. lEI Civil, Transponation and Surveymg Average Daily Traffic Volumes Opening Year 2015 with Strander Extension Figure 4.2.1 I I 1 I 1 I 1- I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I in lieu of new impervious new POlS in other portions of the site as long as the treated area drains to the same receiving waters as the new impervious area. This "swapping" of treatment areas allows a treatment facility to account for the runoff from multiple different basins on a site. This project proposes such an approach. As shown in Table 4.2.2 the existing POlS in Basin 3 exceeds the amount of new POlS in Basins 4, 5 and 6. By treating all of the runoff from basins 1, 2, and 3 the project treats more than it's total increase in POlS, thus eliminating the need for water quality treatment in the remaining basins and still meeting the DOE manuals requirement of providing enhanced treatment for all of the new POlS. An 18 foot wide by 225 foot long sand filter vault will be constructed downstream of the Basin 2 and 3 detention vault. This sand filter is designed to treat 91 % of the outflow volume from the pond (see calculations in Appendix A-3), and by extension the two basins. Developed1Basin~~GIS64~~ Net~NeV)f~~~_GIS~ raGI~jjTJe~ted~~J~ SF Ac. SF Ac. SF Ac. Basin 1 84810 1.95 72683 1.67 84810 1.95 Basin 2 107514 2.47 62593 1.44 107514 2.47 Basin 3 84876 1.95 22339 0.51 84876 1.95 Basin 4 65340 1.50 14044 0.32 0 0.00 Basin 5 54780 1.26 14003 0.32 0 0.00 Basin 6 32274 0.74 9046 0.21 0 0.00 Project Totals 429594 9.86 194708 4.47 277200 6.36 Table 4.2.2 Summary of PGIS Treatment areas. While the requirements of the DOE Manual are met by the area swapping and Basin 2 and 3 sand filter, some additional treatment will be provided for each of the Basins east of Springbrook Creek. The detention vaults proposed for the eastern basins is required by safety regulations to be at least 6 feet deep if they are going to be entered by workers. Due to the vertical constraints (floodplain vs. roadway elevation) of this project the required detention depth is generally 2 to 3 feet. After subtracting off 0.5 feet of depth for overflow above the detention there will still be 2.5 to 3 feet of extra depth remaining. This depth can be used to provide a wet pool volume. This wet pool volume mayor may not meet the volume requirements for the BMP as defined by the DOE Manual, but it will certainly provide some removal of sediments and other pollutants. The storage volume, as well as what would be required to meet the BMP standard, is listed in Table 4.2.3. As additional treatment each vault can be built with an oil and floatables removing Frop T. Table 4.2.3 Wetpool volumes by basin. Perteet Inc. July 6, 2004 Strander Boulevard Preliminary Hydraulics Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 Conveyance System Analysis and Design Conveyance analysis will be presented in the final hydraulics report after the conveyance system design has been completed. 6 Special Reports and Studies 6.1 Previous Environmental Reports Several studies have been conducted for the watershed and surrounding areas which the Strander Boulevard project is located within. The resources listed below were reviewed to gather information on the condition of surface water in the Study Area. Some of these studies provided relevant information that pertains to the area, and potentially the Strander Boulevard project itself. A listing of the studies reviewed is provided in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 Previously Prepared Studies DocumentlMap Black River Basin Water Quality Management Plan (May 1993) Surface Water Utility Comprehensive Plan, City of Renton (November 1995) City of Renton East Side Green River Watershed Program, Plan and Environmental Impact Statement- Volume 1 (September 1997) Project Definition Report for: Strander Boulevard SW 27th Street Corridor Improvements (February 2002) Wetland Mitigation Bank Program and Plan, City of Renton (February 2002), 3 Volumes. Boeing Development Stormwater As- Built Drawings (Various Dates) Storm Sewer Inventory, City of Renton. (November 2002) I"'" 1 Perteet Inc. ~ July 6, 2004 Primary Information From Document Historical water quality data summary. Predicted peak flows in Springbrook Creek. Flood history of S~ringbrook Creek. Springbrook Creek data including: flow, storage, and wetland information; Black River Pump Station Data, and Floodplain Elevation information. Report provided some of the existing drainage features in the area, Springbrook Cr. information and classification. Map of proposed wetland banking sites. Locations of storm sewers and detention and water quality facilities in and around the Boeing properties through which the project passes. Location of storm water facilities and natural drainage features within the City of Renton Strander Boulevard Preliminary Hydraulics Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6.2 Geotechnical Report A report entitled Geotechnical Report for Conceptual Design-Strander Boulevardl21h Street Improvements, Renton and Tukwila; Washington, February 27,2004 has been prepared for this project by Shannon and Wilson~ Inc. This report discusses the results of geotechnical investigations as well as recommendations for selecting project design and construction methods, including wall and bridge design, groundwater impacts and soil structural information. 7 Other Permits The following permits have been identified as being potentially needed for the project National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Classification Summary (ECS) and Categorical Exemption State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) Checklist Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act (CWA) §404 permit State of Washington CW A §40 1 Water Quality Certification State of Washington NPDES (CWA §402) general construction permit State of Washington Hydraulic Project Approval City of Renton Shoreline Substantial Development Permit City of Renton Special Fill and Grade Permit City of Renton Right of Way Use Permit City of Tukwila Right of Way Use Permit City of Tukwila Drainage Permit City of Tukwila Land Alteration Permit (Grading or Fill; clearing) (possibly, City of Tukwila Flood Control Zone Permit) (possibly, City of Tukwila Shoreline Subst,antial Development Permit) Cities of Renton and Tukwila building and construction permits Perteet Inc. July 6, 2004 Strander Boulevard Preliminary Hydraulics Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS, DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY SIZING A.l HYDROLOGIC SITE INFORMATION A.2 BASIN 1 A.3 BASINS 2 AND 3 A.4BASIN4 A.5BASIN 5 A.6BASIN6 !C!perteet Engineering Incorporated I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I, I I I I I Appendix A-J HYDROLOGIC SITE INFORMATION Iclperteet Engineering Incorporated I N ~\j D B8:. tJG\Jv + ).5~ TABLE 7-2 Summary of Peak Flows and Water Surface Elevations Future Land Use Conditions FEQ Hydraulic Analysis (Elevation Datum NGVD) ROld· z·y[ fill fl2w . I!!'Y[ fill fll!w lEtt Elil flllw l ~.y[ Elil flQw IOO.y[ Eill EJow WrtTop I:IID"£\'IO" III S.ImI.C.ill t:IID"'~IDe, III LocalionlOiscriplion Panlhcr Creek ,,'s of SR·16 7 ( II Rollin@ Hills Crcek II Renlon (I) (2) Shoppin!! Cenler CIII,·. Olltlet Rolling Hills w·s ).405 132" ellh'en (I )(2) SR· 167 Nonh Crossins Sprinsbrook Creek BRPSolilflow BRPSinflow F100d.ller Slor.~e Pond Inflow Grod)'Wrt "'S SW 161h Strect Confluence of Rollins Hills Crcek ConOuence of 5W 23rd 51 ChaMel SW 271h uls SW 341h "'s Oakesdale dis Oakesdale "is SW 43rd dis SW 43rd uls Notes Elev. 17.9 14.9 17.1 17.1 22,9 22.9 Flow lefs' 62 70 70 45 726 726 728 593 584 561 526 518 564 567 527 525 52S Eln' Flow accO Icfs' 86 20.4 89 16.6 89 14.7 71 1021 3.8 1021 4.2 1023 6.2 904 6.7 897 ·9.4 882 10.4 807 1 LS 808 12.9 840 13.5 843 14.3 787 14.7 781 14.9 781 Elc\' Flow Ifeell lefsl 96 20.7 102 16.9 102 15.6 87 1095 4.0 1095 4.5 1095 7.1 959 7.6 951 10.8 933 11.9 843 14.0 831 15.3 847 15.9 849 17.3 800 17.6 795 18.1 795 Elc,' Ifeetl 20.9 17.0 16.0 4.1 4.6 7.2 7.8 11.1 12.1 14;3 15.4 15.9 17.4 17.6 18.1 (1) FEQ simulated flows at these locations are based up~n frequency analysis of Springbrook Flow Ele,· Flow Icfs) Ifcet, tcfs) 32 170 35 19.6 174 35 16.3 174 32 14.1 98 960 1223 960 5.5 1223 464 5.5 1223 413 5.6 1110 408 6.1 1106 395 8.41088 360 .~ 989 350 Q.Q,.Q I 989 309 /0.6 1219 311 I 11.3 1227 292! 11.5 1167 , 291 i 12.1 1158 291/ 12.3 1158 l I I ,., '3·~ Creek inflows to the BRPS forebay. Refer to ESGRWP Hydrologic Analysis Report (NHC, 1996) for flows based upon frequency analysis of Panther Creek and Rolling HiI1s Creek. (2) Flows are based upon assumption that capacity restriction through Renton Shopping Center is improved such that no attenuation from surface ponding occurs. Elc,· (fcCII 21.8 17.8 17.0 4.1 4.7 7.6 8.2 11.6 12.6 15.6 16.1 16.9 17.9 18.3 -19.5 (3) Conveyance event reflects a severe local rainstorm without pumping restrictions at the BRPS due to high Green River flows. Storage eve~t ~eflects a high Green River flow event in which the BRPS musl re~trict pumping rates in accord~ce with GRJA. (4) uls = upstream, dis = dO\\llstream (5) Note that summar), tables do not reflect wider SW 16th Street bridge opening and minor elevation adjustments at Oakesdale Avenue. See discussion of modeling in Section 8.3 of Plan. \~ l0o.)'r EIIl EI~w S!IIuWlI Flow E1e,· lefs) I fcc., 92 99 20.9 99 16.9 69 15.6 ·1700 1700 13.0 1153 13.0 1045 13.0 960 13.0 898 13.1 807 13.3 775 @' 845 Ip 846 is.8 792 /17.3 783 i 17.6 783 / 18.0 ! 17 .. ~' SI-r~JvJ. I I I I I I I I I I If I, I I, I I II " I I I I ·1' I I I il I 'I' I AppendixA-2 BASIN 1 1'"'1 P erteet E n gin e erin g '-Incorporated - I II' I: ,I I I I ·1 I I I I I' I I WESTERN WASHINGTON HYDROLOGY MODEL V2 PROJECT REPORT Project Name: strander 1 Site Address: . City Renton Report Date 6/24/2004 Gage Seatac Data Start 1948 Data End 1998 Precip Scale: 1. 00 PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Basin Flows To GroundWater: Land Use TILL FOREST: IMPERVIOUS: Basin Flows To GroundWater: Land Use IMPERVIOUS: Basin Flows To GroundWater: Land Use TILL PASTURE: Basin 1 Point of Compliance No Acres 2.2 0.4 Offsite A Point of Compliance No Acres 0.3 Offsite B Point of Compliance No Acres 2 DEVELOPED LAND USE Basin Flows To GroundWater: Land Use TILL GRASS: IMPERVIOUS: Basin Flows To GroundWater: Land Use IMPERVIOUS: Basin Basin 1 Pond 1 No Acres 0.3 2.3 Offsite A Pond 1 No Acres 0.3 Offsite B ~nnrl 1 nnn I' I, I I 1,,- ,I, GroundWa ter: No Land Use TILL PASTURE: Acres 2 RCHRES (POND) INFORMATION Pond Name: Pond 1 Pond Type: Trapezoidal Pond Pond Flows to : Point of Compliance Pond Rain / Evap is not activated. Dimensions Depth: 4ft. Bottom Length: 157.52ft. Bottom Width: 52.51ft. Side slope 1: 3 To 1 Side slope 2: 3 To 1 Side slope 3: 3 To 1 Side slope 4: 3 To 1 Volume at Riser Head: 0.707 acre-ft. Discharge Structure Riser Height: 3 ft. Riser Diameter: 18 in. NotchType Rectangular Notch Width: 0.053 ft. Notch Height: 1.326 ft. Orifice 1 Diameter: 1.95 in. Elevation: 0 ft. stage (ft) 0.000 0.044 0.089 0.133 0.178 0.222 0.267 0.311 0.356 0.400 0.444 0.489 0.533 0.578 0.622 0.667 0.711 0.756 0.800 0.844 0.889 0.933 0.978 1. 022 1. 067 1.111 1.156 1. 200 1. 244 1. 289 1.333 1. 378 1. 422 1. 467 1.511 1. 556 1.600 Pond Hydraulic Table Area (acr) 0.190 0.191 0.192 0.194 0.195 0.196 0.198 0.199 0.200 0.202 0.203 0.204 0.206 0.207 0.208 0.210 0.211 0.212 0.214 0.215 0.216 0.218' 0.219 0.220 0.222 0.223 0.224 0.226 0.227 0.229 0.230 0.231 0.233 0.234 0.235 0.237 0.238 Vol.ume (acr-ft) 0.000 0.008 0.017 0.026 0.034 0.043 0.052. 0.060 0.069 0.078 0.087 0.096 0.105 0.115 0.124 0.133 0.142 0.152 0.161 0.171 0.180 0.190 0.200 0.210 0.219 0.229 0.239 0.249 0.259 0.269 0.280 0.290 0.300 0.310 0.321 0.331 0.342 Dschrg(cfs) 0.000 0.021 0.030 0.036 0.042 0.047 0.052 0.056 0.060 0.063 0.067 0.070 0.073 0.076 0.079 0.082 0.084 0.087 0.089 0.092 0.094 0.096 0.099 0.101 0.103 0.105 0.107 0.109 0.111 0.113 0.115 0.117 0.119 0.121 0.123 0.125 0.126 Infil.t(cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ,If 1. 644 0.240 0.353 0.128 0.000 1. 689 0.241 0.363 0.130 0.000 1. 733 0.243 0.374 0.134 0.000 I 1.778 0.244 0.385 0.139 0.000 1. 822 0.245 0.396 0.145 0.000 1. 867 0.247 0.407 0.151 0.000 1.911 0.248 0.418 0.157 0.000 'I 1. 956 0.250 0.429 0.165 0.000 2.000 0.251 0.440 0.172 0.000 2.044 0.252 0.451 0.180 0.000 . 2.089 0.254 0.462 0.188 0.000 II 2.133 0.255 0.474 0.196 0.000 2.178 0.257 0.485 0.204 0.000 2.222 0.258 0.496 0.213 0.000 I 2.267 0.260 0.508 0.221 0.000 2.311 0.261 0.520 0.230 0.000 2.356 0.263 0.531 0.239 0.000 2.400 0.264 0.543 0.248 0.000 I 2.444 0.266 0.555 0.257 0.000 2.489 0.267 0.566 0.266 0.000 2.533 0.268 0.578 0.275 0.000 2.578 0.270 0.590 0.285 0.000 I, 2.622 0.271 0.602 0.294 0.000 2.667 0.273 0.614 0.303 0.000 2.711 0.274 0.627 0.314 0.000 2.756 0.276 0.639 0.325 0.000 ,II 2.800 0.277 0.651 0.336 0.000 2.844 0.279 0.663 0.347 0.000 2.889 0.280 0.676 0.359 0.000 2.933 0.282 0.688 0.371 0.000 I 2.978 0.283 0.701 0.383 0.000 3.022 0.285 0.714 0.438 0.000 3.067 0.286 0.726 0.642 0.000 I 3.111 0.288 0.739 0.933 0.000 3.156 0.289 0.752 1. 289 0.000 3.200 0.291 0.765 1.701 0.000 3.244 0.292 0.778 2.161 0.000 I 3.289 0.294 0.791 2.665 0.000 3.333 0.295 0.804 3.209 0.000 3.378 0.297 0.817 3.791 0.000 3.422 0.299 0.830 4.408 0.000 I~ 3.467 0.300 0.844 5.059 0.000 3.511 0.302 0.857 5.741 0.000 3.556 0.303 0.870 6.453 0.000 3.600 0.305 0.884 7.195 0.000 I 3.644 0.306 0.897 7.964 0.000 3.689 0.308 0.911 8.760 0.000 3.733 0.309 0.925 9.583 0.000 3.778 0.311 0.939 10.43 0.000 I 3.822 0.313 0.952 11. 30 0.000 3.867 0~314 0.966 12.20 0.000 3.911 0.316 0.980 13 .12 0.000 3.956 0.317 0.994 14.06 0.000 I' 4.000 0.319 1. 009 15.02 0.000 I ANALYSIS RESULTS t Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped Return Period Flow (cfs) 2 year 0.258569 5 year 0.347435 ,I' 10 year 0.409429 25 year 0.491466 50 year 0.55533 100 year 0.621597 I' Flow Frequency Return Periods for Developed Unmitigated Return Period Flow (cfs) \I~ 2 year 0.706559 5 year 0.872008 10 year 0.980175 ,II 25 year 1.116326 50 year. 1.217806 100 year 1.319609 I Flow Frequency Return Periods for Developed ~tigated Return Period Flow (cfs) 2 year 0.148441 ,I, 5 year. 0.218308 10 year 0.273934 25 year 0.355961 50 year. 0.426317 I 100 year 0.505236 II Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Developed-~tigated Year Predeveloeed Develoeed 1949 0.308 0.121 1950 0.543 0.161 II, 1951 0.396 0.414 1952 0.220 0.109 1953 0.182 0.111 1954 0.250 0.132 I, 1955 0.310 0.191 1956 0.308 0.179 1957 0.318 0.134 1958 0.235 0.130 I: 1959 0.193 0.121 1960 0.326 0.319 1961 0.228 0.127 1962 0.159 0.101 I 1963 0.228 0.128 1964 0.261 0.126· 1965 0.209 0.131 ,' ..... -1966 0.236 0.114 I 1967 0.348 0.165 1968 0.263 0.118 1969 0.237 0.123 I: 1970 0.238 0.124 1971 0.228 0.141 1972 0.405 0.261 1973 0.219 0.118 I 1974 0.223 0.125 1975 0.367 0.173 1976 0.240 0.141 1977 0.179 0.099 I 1978 0.245 0.126 1979 0.229 0.101 1980 0.290 0.246 1981 0.258 0.112 I 1982 0.446 0.311 1983 0.240 0.158 1984 0.238 0.107 1985 0.155 0.120 'I 1986 0.391 0.284 1987 0.359 0.314 1988 0.172 0.113 1989 0.160 0.093 I, 1990 0.576 0.339 1991 0.515 0.355 1992 0.238 0.121 1993 0.182 0.123 I 1994 o .l32 0.086 1995 0.232 0.175 1996 0.446 0.368 1997 0.376 0.368 II 1998 0.202 0.119 III Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Developed-~tigated Rank Predeveloped Developed 1 0.5429 0.3681 ,I, 2 0.5152 0.3680 3 0.4462 0.3547 4 0.4462 0.3390 5 0.4053 0.3191 'I' 6 0.3964 0.3144 7 0.3906 0.3111 8 0.3761 0.2843 ,I 9 0.3672 0.2606 10 0.3587 0.2463 11 0.3482 0.1912 12 0.3260 0.1791 I 13 0.3180 0.1746 14 0.3097 0.1733 15 0.30.85 0.1648 16 0.3084 0.1607 I 17 0.2905 0.1584 18 0.2627 0.1410 19 0.2611 0.1410 20 0.2577 0.1337 " 21 0.2496 0.1322 22 0.2450 0.1309 23 0.2400 0.1301 24 0.2398 0.1277 II, 25 0.2382 0.1275 26 0.2381 0.1260 27 0.2376 0.1258 28 0.2366 0.1255 I 29 0.2357 0.1237 30 0.2347 0.1234 31 0.2321 0.1226 32 0.2294 0.1215 ,I 33 0.2283 0.1215 34 0.2281 0.1208 35 0.2278 0.1198 ,I 36 0.2229 0.1186 37 0.2200 0.1183 38 0.2185 0.1176 39 0.2091 0.1141 II 40 0.2024 0.1128. 41 0.1929 0.1123 42 0.1824 0.1107 43 0.1816 0.1087 I 44 0.1794 0.1066 45 0.1719 0.1009 46 0.1605 0.1007 47 0.1586 0.0993 ,I 48 0.1550 0.0927 49 0.1316 0.0864 I 1/2 2 year to 50 year Flow (CFS) Predev Final Percentage Pass/Fail 0.1293 1691 1278 . 75.0 Pass 0.1336 1562 1125 72.0 Pass I, 0.1379 1427 1025 71.0 Pass 0.1422 1285 907 70.0 Pass 0.1465 1193 840 70.0 Pass I: 0.1508 1093 774 70.0 Pass 0.1551 1004 700 69.0 Pass 0.1594 942 647 68.0 Pass 0.1637 881 606 68.0 Pass :1' 0.1680 801 564 70.0 Pass 0.1723 757 530 70.0 Pass 0.1766 696 498 71.0 Pass 0.1809 652 478 73.0 Pass I 0.1852 596 443 74.0 Pass 0.1895 560 420 75.0 Pass 0.1938 516 399 77.0 Pass ,I 0.1981 468 381 81. 0 Pass 0.2024 446 362 81.0 Pass 0.2067 414 343 82.0 Pass II, 0.2111 385 325 84.0 Pass 0.2154 366 309 84.0 Pass 0.2197 340 288 84.0 Pass 0.2240 318 274 86.0 Pass 'I 0.2283 287 255 88.0 Pass 0.2326 270 238 88.0 Pass 0.2369 248 221 89.0 Pass ,I 0.2412 220 209 95.0 Pass 0.2455 205 197 96.0 Pass 0.2498 198 185 93.0 Pass 0.2541 179 175 97.0 Pass 0.2584 170 167 98.0 Pass ;1 0.2627 158 158 100.0 Pass 0.2670 146 144 98.0 Pass 0.2713 140 137 97.0 Pass I 0.2756 128 129 100.0 Pass 0.2799 120 119 99.0 Pass 0.2842 109 107 98.0 Pass 0.2885 105 102 97.0 Pass t 0.2928 100 96 96.0 Pass 0.2971 92 83 90.0 Pass 0.3014 90 74 82.0 Pass 0.3057 82 69 84.0 Pass ·1 0.3100 73 62 84.0 Pass 0.3143 71 52 73.0 Pass 0.3186 66 46 69.0 Pass 0.3229 60 37 61. 0 Pass I 0.3272 56 33 58.0 Pass 0.3315 52 31 59.0 Pass 0.3359 50 26 52.0 Pass 0.3402 48 24 50.0 Pass I: 0.3445 43 22 51.0 Pass 0.3488 39 18 46.0 Pass 0.3531 33 15 45.0 Pass I 0.3.574 33 13 39.0 Pass 0.3617 30 10 33.0 Pass 0.3660 28 8 28.0 Pass 0.3703 25 5 20.0 Pass I 0.3746 24 3 12.0 Pass 0.3789 23 3 13.0 Pass 0.3832 22 3 13.0 Pass 0.3875 20 3 15.0 Pass I 0.3918 19 3 15.0 Pass 0.3961 17 2 11. 0 Pass 0.4004 15 1 6.0 Pass 0.4047 13 1 7.0 Pass ,I, 0.4090 11 1 9.0 Pass 0.4133 11 1 9.0 Pass 0.4176 11 0 .0 Pass 0.4219 9 0 .0 Pass .1 0.4262 9 0 .0 Pass 0.4305 9 0 .0 Pass 0.4348 9 0 .0 Pass 0.4391 9 0 .0 Pass I 0.4434 9 0 .0 Pass 0.4477 7 0 .0 Pass 0.4520 7 0 .0 Pass 0.4563 7 0 .0 Pass I 0.4607 6 0 .0 Pass 0.4650 6 0 .0 Pass 0.4693 6 0 .0 Pass 0.4736 6 0 .0 Pass :1' 0.4779 6 0 .0 Pass 0.4822 6 0 .0 Pass 0.4865 6 0 .0 Pass I 0.4908 6 0 .0 Pass 0.4951 6 0 .0 Pass 0.4994 6 0 .0 Pass nnnnl'l;n"<7 h n n P::::IC::C: nn , ,I I ,I I " I I I I I I 0.5080 6 0 .0 0.5123 6 0 .0 0.5166 5 0 .0 0.5209 5 0 .0 0.5252 5 0 .0 0.5295 5 0 .0 0.5338 5 0 .0 0.5381 5 0 .0 0.5424 4 0 .0 0.5467 2 0 .0 0.5510 2 0 .0 0.5553 1 0 .0 water Quality BMP Flow and Volume. On-line facility volume: 0.364 acre~feet On-line facility target flow: 0.37 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.4 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.21 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.22 cfs. Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass program and accompanying documentation as provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. AQUA TERRA Consultants and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but· not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall AQUA TERRA Consultants and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the user of, or inability to use this program even if AQUA TERRA Consultants or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of .the possibility of such damages. I, :1 '1 ,I: I I, ,I: Ii I 'I I I I I Yearly Peaks for Developed W/Pond I 1\ I ,I I I, 'I I' ,I I: I ',I I I I I I' I I I I I 'I I Appendix A-3 . BASINS 2 AND 3 I"CI Perteet Engineering Incorporated .1 I II 1- I I I I I I I I WESTERN WASHINGTON HYDROLOGY MODEL V2 PROJECT REPORT Project Name: Site Address: City Report Date Gage Data Start Data End Precip Scale: strander 2+3 Renton 6/17/2004 Seatac 1948 1998 1. 00 PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Basin Flows To Offsite C Point of Compliance GroundWater: No Land Use TILL FOREST: IMPERVIOUS: Basin Flows To GroundWater: Land Use TILL PASTURE: Acres 3.4 2.8 Offsite C Point of Compliance No Acres 7.7 DEVELOPED LAND USE Basin Flows To GroundWater: Land Use TILL GRASS: IMPERVIOUS: Basin Flows To GroundWater: Land Use TILL PASTURE: Basin Pond No 1 1 Acres 0.9 . 5.3 Offsite C Pond 1 No Acres 7.7 RCHRES (POND) INFORMATION Pond Name: Pond 1 Pond Type: Trapezoidal Pond Pond Flows to : Filter 1 Pond Rain / Evap is not activated. Dimensions Depth: 2.4ft. Bottom Length: 940ft. ~~~~~ w;~~~. ~n~T ,I Side sl.ope 1: 0 To 1 Side sl.ope 2: 0 To 1 Side sl.ope 3: 0 To 1 I, Side sl.ope 4: 0 To 1 Vol.ume at Riser Head: 0.820 acre-ft. Dischar2e Structure I Riser Height: 1.9 ft. Riser Diameter: 18 in. NotchType Rectangular .Notch Width : 0.220 ft. I: Notch Height: 0.870 ft. Orifice 1 Diameter: 4.55 in. El.evation: 0 ft. Pond Hydraul.ic Tab1e I, stalle (ft) Area (acr) Volume (acr-ft) Dschr!l(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 15.10 0.432 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 15.13 0.432 0.014 0.098 0.000 15.16 0.432 0.028 0.138 0.000 I, 15.20 0.432 0.042 0.169 0.000 15.23 0.432 0.056 0.195 0.000 15.26 0.432 0.070 0.218 0.000 ,I 15.29 0.432 0.083 0.239 0.000 15.33 0.432 0.097 0.258 0.000 15.36 0.432 0.111 0.276 0.000 15.39 0.432 0.125 0.293 0.000 I, 15.42 0.432 0.139 0.309 0.000 15.45 0.432 0.153 0.324 0.000 15.49 0.432 0.167 0.338 0.000 15.52 0.432 0.181 0.352 0.000 Ii 15.55 0.432 0.195 0.365 0.000 15.58 0.432 0.209 0.378 0.000 15.62 0.432 0.223 0.390 0.000 15.65 .0.432 0.236 0.402 0.000 I 15.68 0.432 0.250 0.414 0.000 15.71 0.432 0.264 0.425 0.000 15.74 0.432 0.278 0.436 0.000 15.78 0.432 0.292 0.447 0.000 I 15.81 0.432 0.306 0.458 0.000 15.84 0.432 0.320 0.468 0.000 15.87 0.432 0.334 0.478 0.000 15.91 0.432 0.348 0.488 0.000 I 15.94 0.432 0.362 0.498 0.000 15.97 0.432 0.375 0.507 0.000 16.00 0.432 0.389 0.516 0.000 16.03 0.432 0.403 0.526 0.000 I 16.07 0.432 0.417 0.535 0.000 16.10 0.432 0.431 0.543 0.000 16.13 0.432 0.445 0.552 0.000 I 16.16 0.432 0.459 0.565 0.000 16.20 0.432 0.473 0.581 0.000 16.23 0.432 0.487 0.599 0.000 16.26 0.432 0.501 0.619 0.000 I 16.29 0.432 0.515 0.640 0.000 16.32 0.432 0.528 0.662 0.000 16.36 0.432 0.542 0.685 0.000 16.39 0.432 0.556 0.709 0.000 I, 16.42 0.432 0.570 0.733 0.000 16.45 0.432 0.584 0.759 0.000 16.49 0.432 0.598 0.784 0.000 16.52 0.432 0.612 0.811 0.000 I 16.55 0.432 0.626 0.837 0.000 16.58 0.432 0.640 0.865 0.000 16.61 0.432 0.654 0.892 0.000 16.65 0.432 0.668 0.920 0.000 ',I, 16.68 0.432 0.681 0.948 0.000 16.71 0.432 0.695 0.977 0.000 16.74 0.432 0.709 1.006 0.000 16.78 0.432 0.723 1. 035 0.000 I' 16.81 0.432 0.737 1.064 0.000 I 16.84 0.432 0.751 1. 093 0.000 16.87 0.432 0.765 1.123 0.000 I I· I ,I I, I, ,I I I: I I I I' I I I I I I 16.90 16.94 16.97 17.00 17.03 17.07 17.10 17.13 17.16 17.19 17 .23 17.26 17.29 17.32 17.36 17 .39 17.42 17.45 17.48 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 Filter Name: 0.779 0.793 0.807 0.820 0.834 0.848 0.862 0.876 0.890 0.904 0.918 0.932 0.946 0.960 0.973 0.987 1.001 1.015 1.029 Filter 1 1.152 1.182 1.212 1. 241 1.336 1. 499 1.706 1. 950 2.226 2.531 2.860 3.214 3.590 3.988 4.405 4.841 5.296 5.768 6.256 Filter. Flows to : Point of Compliance Hydraulic Conductivity (in/hr): 1 Filter Material Depth: 1 Filter Material: sand Volume Filtered (acre ft): 948.68 Percent of Total Volume: 00.00 Pond Rain / Evap is not activated. Dimensions Depth: 3.5ft. Bottom Length: 225ft. Bottom Width: 18ft. Side slope 1: 0 To 1 Side slope 2: 0 To 1 Side slope 3: 0 To 1 Side slope 4: 0 To 1 Volume at Riser Head: 0.186 acre-ft. Discharge Structure Riser Height: 2 ft. Riser Diameter: 18 in. Pond Hydraulic Table Stage (ft) 10.80 10.90 11. 00 11.10 11. 20 11.30 11. 40 11. 50 11. 60 11.70 11. 80 11. 90 12.00 12.10 12.20 12.30 12.40 12.50 12.60 12.70 12.80 12.90 13.00 13.10 13 .20 13.30 1'< II n Area (acr) 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 n no'< Volume (acr-ft) 0.000 0.009 0.019 0.028 0.037 0.046 0.056 0.065 0.074 0.084 0.093 0.102 0.112 0.121 0.130 0.139 0.149 0.158 0.167 0.177 0.186 0.195 0.205 0.214 0.223 0.232 n ?II? Dschrg(cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.462 1.307 2.400 3.696 5.165 e:; 7QO 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Infilt(cfs) 0.000 0.100 0.106 0.113 0.119 0.125 0.131 0.138 0.144 0.150 0.156 0.163 0.169 0.175 0.181 0.188 0.194 0.200 0.206 0.213 0.219 0.225 0.231 0.238 0.244 0.250 n ?c:,e:; I' I I ,I I I I I, I I I I I I I ,I I 13.50 0.093 0.251 8.556 0.263 13.60 0.093 0~260 10.45 0.269 13.70 0.093 0.270 12.47 0.275 13.80 0.093 0.279 14.61 .0.281 13.90 0.093 0.288 16.85 0.287 14.00 0.093 0.298 19.20 0.294 14.10 0.093 0.307 21. 65 0.300 14.20 0.093 0.316 24.20 0.306 14.30 0.093 0.325 26.84 0.312 ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow FrequenCY'Return Return Period 2 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year Flow Frequency Return Return Period 2 year 5·year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year Flow Frequency Return Return Period 2. year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year Periods for Predeveloped Flow (dfs) 0.924788 1.20414 1.398428 1. 655117 1. 854771 2.061871 Periods for Developed Unmitigated Flow (cfs) 1.533479 1. 922452 2.179823 2.506776 2.752435 3.000414 Periods for Developed Mitigated Flow (cfs) 0.607336 0.888097 1.096939 1.387414 1.62351 1.876853 Yearly Year Peaks for Predeveloped and Developed-Mitigated 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962. 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Pre developed 1. 075 1.838 1.235 0.773 0.683 0.905 1. 052 1. 043 1.134 0.879 0.706 1. 076 0.819 0.633 0.819 0.940 0.775 0.847 1.170 1.050 0.830 0.848 0.823 1.378 0.780 Developed 0.573 0.657 1. 249 0.479 0.443 0.491 0.924 0.626 0.671 0.612 0.483 1. 080 0.534 0.431 0.520 0.511 0.555 0.430 0.807 0.490 0.580 0.518 0.520 0.950 0.515 I 1974 0.805 0.454 1975 1.273 0.836 1976 0.839 0.520 I 1977 0.717 0.379 1978 0.975 0.530 1979 0.917 0.432 1980 1.055 0.828 I 1981 1.010 0.460 1982 1.601 1.179 1983 0.851 0.629 1984 0.864 0.491 I 1985 0.618 0.496 1986 1.306 1.171 1987 1.215 1.193 1988 0.601 0.488 I 1989 0.642 0.289 1990 1.962 1. 959 1991 1.769 1. 366 I 1992 0.854 0.503 1993 0.612 0.525 1994 0.525 0.202 1995 0.787 0.612 I 1996 1.466 1.160 1997 1.203 1. 441 1998 0.808 0.484 I. Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Developed-M1tigated Rank Predeveloped Developed 1 1.8376 1.4406 I 2. 1.7695 1. 3664 3 1.6007 1.2493 4 1. 4658 1.1934 5 1.3782 1.1792 I 6 1.3058 1.1709 7 1. 2731 1.1595 8 1. 2353 1. 0799 I 9 1. 2150 0.9497 10 1. 2025 0.9236 11 1.1695 0.8355 12 1.l342 0.8280 I l3 1.0757 0.8069 14 1. 0754 0.6707 15 .1.0545 0.6568 16 1.0525 0.6289 I' 17 1.0498 0.6258 18 1.0429 0.6124 19 1. 0104 0.6123 20 0.9753 0.5803 I 21 0.9402 0.5732 22 0.9173 0.5546 23 0.9050 0.5344 24 0.8789 0.5299 .1 25 0.8639 0.5248 26 0.8537 0.5200 27 0.8509 0.5198 28 0.8480 0.5195 I 29 0.8473 0.5184 30 0.8394 0.5151 31 0.8298 0.5112 32 0.8226 0.5029 I 33 0.8189 0.4965 34 0.8188 0.4912 35 0.8083 0.4910 I 36 0.8052 0.4899 37 0.7871 0.4884 38 0.7803 0.4838 39 0.7752 0.4833 I 40 0.7728 0.4793 41 0.7173 0.4604 42 0.7057 0.4539 A -:) (\ e::o')c:; (\ AA')'7 I 44 0.6418 0.4323 45 0.6326 0.4309 46 0.6179 0.4302 I 47 0.6115 0.3793 48 0.6013 0.2889 49 0.5254 0.2017 I 1/2 2 year to 50 year Flow (CFS) Predev Final Percentage Pass/Fail 0.4624 1445 1402 97.0 Pass ,I 0.4765 1314 1241 94.0 Pass 0.4905 1204 1088 90.0 Pass 0.5046 1099 958 87.0 Pass 0.5187 993 848 85.0 Pass I 0.5327 919 757 82.0 Pass 0.5468 858 670 78.0 Pass 0.5608 803 602 74.0 Pass I 0.5749 739 546 73.0 Pass 0.5890 686 500 72.0 Pass 0.6030 640 456 71. 0 Pass 0.6171 586 421 71.0 Pass I 0.6312 539 399 74.0 Pass 0.6452 498 373 74.0 Pass 0.6593 473 344 72.0 Pass 0.6734 437 327 74.0 Pass I 0.6874 403 302 74.0 Pass 0.7015 378 289 76.0 Pass 0.7156 349 276 79.0 Pass 0.7296 327 258 78.0 Pass I 0.7437 313 245 78.0 Pass 0.7577 300 235 78.0 Pass 0.7718 282 221 78.0 Pass 0.7859 261 207 79.0 Pass I 0.7999 242 200 82.0 Pass 0.8140 215 183 85.0 Pass 0.8281 197 174 88.0 Pass 0.8421 183 165 90.0 Pass I 0.8562 171 156 91. 0 Pass 0.8703 160 152 95.0 Pass 0.8843 148 141 95.0 Pass I 0.8984 140 130 92.0 Pass 0.9125 134 125 93.0 Pass 0.9265 126 115 91. 0 Pass 0.9406 117 108 92.0 Pass I 0.9546 112 103 91. 0 Pass 0.9687 106 102 96.0 Pass 0.9828 93 97 104.0 Pass 0.9968 90 90 100.0 Pass. I 1.0109 83 83 100.0 Pass 1. 0250 73 74 101. 0 Pass 1. 0390 70 70 100.0 Pass 1.0531 65 64 98.0 Pass I 1. 0672 60 59 98.0 Pass 1. 0812 52 52 100.0 Pass 1.0953 48 48 100.0 Pass 1.1094 46 44 95.0 Pass I 1.1234 43 41 95.0 Pass 1.1375 40 36 90.0 Pass 1.1516 39 31 79.0 Pass 1.1656 38 29 76.0 Pass I 1. 17 97 36 25 69.0 Pass 1.1937 32 21 65.0 Pass 1. 2078 27 18 66.0 Pass I 1.2219 25 16 64.0 Pass 1. 2359 22 15 68.0 Pass 1. 2500 21 13 61. 0 Pass 1.2641 20 12 60.0 Pass I 1.2781 18 11 61. 0 Pass 1. 2922 18 9 50.0 Pass 1. 3063 16 9 56.0 Pass 1 .')1"1. 1 t; a e::1"1 1"1 O~~ro I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. 3344 14 7 50.0 1.3485 14 7 50.0 1. 3625 13 7 53.0 1. 3766 12 5 41.0 1. 3906 10 4 40.0 1. 4047 9 3 33.0 1.4188 9 3 33.0 1. 4328 9 3 33.0 1. 4469 9 2 22.0 1. 4610 9 2 22.0 1.4750 8 2 25.0 1.4891 8 2 25.0 1. 5032 8 2 25.0 1. 5172 8 2 25.0 1. 5313 8 2 25.0 1.5454 7 2 28.0 1. 5594 7 2 28.0 1.5735 7 2 28.0 1.5875 7 2 28.0 1. 6016 6 2 33.0 1. 6157 6 2 33.0 1. 6297 6 2 33.0 1. 6438 6 2 33.0 1.6579 6 2 33.0 1.6719 6 2 33.0 1. 6860 6 2 33.0 1.7001 6 2 33.0 1. 7141 6 2 33.0 1.7282 6 2' 33.0 1. 7423 6 2 33.0 1. 7563 6 2 33.0 1.7704 5 2 40.0 1. 7844 4 2 50.0 1.7985 4 2 50.0 1. 8126 4 2 50.0 1.8266 4 2 50.0 1. 8407 2 2 100.0 1. 8548 1 1 100.0 Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume. On-line facility volume: 0.853 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.79 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.83 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.44 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.46 cfs. Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass program and accompanying documentation as provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. AQUA TERRA Consultants and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall AQUA TERRA Consultants and/orthe Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss' of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the user of, or inability to use this program even if AQUA TERRA Consultants or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. 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 I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-4 I BASIN 4 I I I I I I I I~I Perteet Engineering I Incorporated I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WESTERN WASHINGTON HYDROLOGY MODEL V2 PROJECT REPORT Project Name: Site Address: City Report Date Gage Data Start Data End Precip Scale: strander4 Renton 6/25/2004 Seatac 1948 1998 1.00 PREDEVELOPED LAND. USE Basin Basin 4 Flows To GroundWater: Point of Compliance No Land Use TILL FOREST: IMPERVIOUS: DEVELOPED LAND USE Acres 0.9 1.3 Basin Flows To Basin Pond 4 1 GroundWater: No Land Use TILL GRASS: IMPERVIOUS: Acres 0.3 1.9 RCHRES (POND) INFORMATION Pond Name: Pond 1 Pond Type: Trapezoidal Pond Pond Flows to : Point of Compliance Pond Rain / Evap is not activated. Dimensions Depth: 3.9ft. Bottom Length: 145ft . Bottom Width : 20ft. Side slope 1: 0 To 1 Side slope 2: 0 To 1 Side slope 3: 0 To 1 Side slope 4 : 0 To 1 Volume at Riser Head: Discharge Structure Riser Height: 2.9 ft. Riser Diameter: 18 in. 0.193 NotchType Rectangular Notch Width: 0.060 ft. Notch Height: 1.550 ft. acre-ft. Orifice 1 Diameter: 2.7 in. Elevation: 0 ft. Pond Hydraulic Table stage (ft) Area(acr) Vo1ume(acr-ft) Dschrg(cfs) Inf~1t(cfs) 15.10 0.067 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.14 0.067 0.003 0.040 0.000 I 15.19 0.067 0.006 0.056 o hOOO 15.23 0.067 0.009 0.069 0.000 15.27 0.067 0.012 0.080 0.000 I 15.32 0.067 0.014 0.089 0.000 15.36 0.067 0.017 0.098 0.000 15.40 0.067 0.020 0.105 0.000 15.45 0.067 0.023 0.113 0.000 I 15.49 0.067 0.026 0.120 0.000 15.53 0.067 0.029 0.126 0.000 15.58 0.067 0.032 0.132 0.000 15.62 0.067 0.035 0.138 0.000 I 15.66 0.067 0.038 0.144 0.000 15.71 0.067 0.040 0.149 0.000 15.75" 0.067 0.043 0.154 0.000 I 15.79 0.067 0.046 0.159 0.000 15.84 0.067 0.049 0.164 0.000 15.88 0.067 0.052 0.169 0.000 15.92 0.067 0.055 0.174 0.000 I 15.97 0.067 0.058 0.178 0.000 16.01 0.067 0.061 0.183 0.000 16.05 0.067 0.063 0.187 0.000 16.10 0.067 0.066 0.191 0.000 I 16.14 0.067 0.069 0.195 0.000 16.18 0.067 0.072 0.199 0.000 16.23 0.067 0.075 0.203 0.000 16.27 0.067 0.078 0.207 0.000 I 16.31 0.067 0.081 0.211 0.000 16.36 0.067 0.084 0.215 0.000 16.40 0.067 0.087 0.218 0.000 16.44 0.067 0.089 0.222 0.000 I 16.49 0.067 0.092 0.227 0.000 16.53 0.067 0.095 0.233 0.000 16.57 0.067 0.098 0.241 0.000 16.62 0.067 0.101 0.249 0.000 I 16.66 0.067 0.104 0.258 0.000 16.70 0.067 0.107 0.267 0.000 16.75 0.067 0.110 0.276 0.000 I 16 . .7 9 0.067 0.113 0.286 0.000 16.83 0.067 0.115 0.296 0.000 16.88 0.067 0.118 0.306 0.000 16.92 0.067 0.121 0.317 0.000 I 16.96 0.067 0.124 0.327 0.000 17.01 0.067 0.127 0.338 0.000 17.05 0.067 0.130 0.349 0.000 17.09 0.067 0.133 ·0.360 0.000 I 17.14 0.067 0.136 0.371 0.000 17.18 0.067 0.138 0.383 0.000 17.22 0.067 0.141 0.394 0.000 17.27 0.067 0.144 0.405 0.000 I 17.31 0.067 0.147 0.417 0.000 17.35 0.067 0.150 0.428 0.000 17.40 0.067 0.153 0.439 0.000 17.44 0.067 0.156 0.451 0.000 I 17.48 0.067 0.159 0.463 0.000 17.53 0.067 0.162 0.477 0.000 17.57 0.067 0.164 0.490 0.000 17.61 0.067 0.167 0.504 0.000 I 17.66 0.067 0.170 0.518 0.000 17.70 0.067 0.173 0.532 0.000 17.74 0.067 0.176 0.546 0.000 17.79 0.067 0.179 0.561 0.000 I 17.83 0.067 0.182 0.575 0.000 17.87 0.067 0.185 0.590 0.000 17.92 0.067 0.188 0.605 0.000 I 17.96 0.067 0.190 0.620 0.000 18.00 0.067 0.193 0.637 0.000 18.05 0.067 0.196 0.784 0.000 18.09 0.067 0.199 1.034 0.000 I 18.13 0.067 0.202 1.353 0.000 18.18 0.067 0.205 1.729 0.000 18.22 0.067 0.208 2.154 0.000 nn'll R ?h n nh7 n ? 1 1 ? h?~ n nnn nn I 18.31 0.067 0.213 3.132 0.000 18.35 0.067 0.216 3.678 0.000 18.39 0.067 0.219 4.260 0.000 I 18.44 0.067 0.222 4.874 0.000 18.48 0.067 0.225 5.519 0.000 18.52 0.067 0.228 6.193 0.000 18.57 0.067 0.231 6~896 0.000 I 18.61 0.067 0,234 7.627 0.000 18.65 0.067 0.237 8.384 0.000 18.70 0.067 0.239 9.166 0.000 18.74 0.067 0.242 9.973 0.000 I 18.78 0.067 0.245 10.80 0.000 18.83 0.067 0.248 11. 66 0.000 18.87 0.067 0.251 12.53 0.000 18.91 0.067 0.254 13.43 0.000 I 18.96 0.067 0.257 14.35 0.000 19.00 0.067 0.260 15.30 0.000 I ANALYSIS RESULTS I Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped Return Period Flow (cfs) 2 year 0.337134 I 5 year 0.412296 10 year 0.461092 25 year 0.522183 I 50 year 0.567505 100 year 0.612807 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Developed Unmitigated I Return Period Flow (cfs) 2 year 0.490001 5 year 0.599296 10 year 0.670257 I 25 year 0.759102 50. year 0.825017 100 year 0.890904 I Flow Frequency Return Periods for Developed Mitigated Return Period Flow (cfs) 2 year 0.233153 I 5 year 0.30701 10 year 0.360978 25 year 0.43515 50 year 0.494906 I 100 year 0.558659 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Developed-Mitigated I Year Predeveloeed Develoeed 1949 0.357 0.265 1950 0.524 0.234 1951 0.356 0.320 I 1952 0.290 0.185 1953 0.268 0.191 1954 0.323 0.190 I 1955 0.339 0.335 1956 0.327 0.243 1957 0.383 0.304 1958 0.338 0.230 I 1959 0.261 0.205 1960 0.331 0.300 1961 0.289 0.196 1962 0.284 0.170 I 1963 0.283 0.174 1964 0.336 0.196 1965 0.296 0.205 I 1966 0.298 0.191 1967 0.428 0.304 1968 0.484 0.205 I 1969 0.276 0.227 1970 0.297 0.214 1971 0.280 0.199 1972 0.421 0.345 I 1973 0.273 0.203 1974 0.294 0;176 1975 0.404 0.331 1976 0.275 0.200 I 1977 0.332 0.187 1978 0.431 0.260 1979 0.426 0.184 1980 0.366 0.269 I 1981 0.393 0.218 1982 0.533 0.388 1983 0.394 0.265 I 1984 0.309 0.194 1985 0.282 0.223 1986 0.381 0.390 1987 0.492 0.385 I 1988 0.237 0.183 1989 0.297 0.155 1990 0.584 0.581 1991 0.544 0.498 I 1992 0.305 0.219 1993 0.204 0.187 1994 0.244 0.155 1995 0.306 0.216 I 1996 0.399 0.380 1997 0.371 0.361 1998 0.371 0.203 I Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Developed-~tigated Rank Predeveloped Developed I 1 0.5436 0.4982 2 0.5329 0.3897 3 0.5245 0.3876 4 0.4924 0.3848 I 5 0.4835 0.3799 6 0.4306 0.3608 7 0.4276 0.3451 8 0.4256 0.3354 I 9 0.4207 0.3310 10 0.4035 0.3197 11 0.3986 0.3043 12 0.3943 0.3036 I 13 0.3927 0.3002 14 0.3827 0.2692 15 0.3809 0.2651 16 0.3711 0.2648 I 17 0.3710 0.2598 18 0.3664 0.2430 19 0.3566 0.2344 20 0.3558 0.2295 I 21 0.3388 0.2275 22 0.3375 0.2225 23 0.3355 0.2186 24 0.3324 0.2185 I 25 0.3306 0.2160 26 0.3271 0.2142 27 0.3234 0.2052 I 28 0.3086 0.2052 29 0.3060 0.2046 30 0.3050 0.2033 31 0.2985 0.2032 I 32 0.2975 0.1997 33 0.2970 0.1987 34 0.2959 0.1958 ':II:; (\ ')O':lc:. (\ 10l:;Q I 36 0.2902 0.1935 37 0.2894 0.1911 38 0.2844 0.1907 I 39 0.2833 0.1897 40 0.2823 0.1867 41 0.2796 0.1865 42 0.2764 0.1850 I 43 0.2755 0.1840 44 0.2733 0.1828 45 0.2679 0.1762 46 0.2614 0.1736 I 47 0.2436 0.1697 48 0.2370 0.1554 49 0.2040 0.1549 I 1/2 2. year to 50 year Flow (CFS) Predev Final Percentage Pass/Fail I 0.1686 1228 1222 99.0 Pass 0.1726 1132 1102 97.0 Pass 0.1766 1041 998 95.0 Pass 0.1807 967 886 91. 0 Pass I 0.1847 886 800 90.0 Pass 0.1887 828 712 85.0 Pass 0.1927 772 631 81.0 Pass 0.1968 711 566 79.0 Pass I 0.2008 673 501 74.0 Pass 0.2048 627 453 72.0 Pass 0.2089 579 415 71.0 Pass 0.2129 534 375 70.0 Pass I 0.2169 502 339 67.0 Pass 0.2210 469 297 63.0 Pass 0.2250 438 263 60.0 Pass 0.2290 402 233 57.0 Pass I 0.2330 375 217 57.0 Pass 0.2371 359 212 59.0 Pass 0.2411 333 198 59.0 Pass I 0.2451 ·311 180 57.0 Pass 0.2492 284 173 60.0 Pass 0.2532 264 161 60.0 Pass 0.2572 244 148 60.0 Pass I 0.2612 231 137 59.0 Pass 0.2653 214 124 57.0 Pass 0.2693 204 115 56.0 Pass 0.2733 193 109 56.0 Pass I 0.2774 182 106 58.0 Pass 0.2814 170 99 58.0 Pass 0.2854 155 94 60.0 Pass 0.2895 147 88 59.0 Pass I 0.2935 135 83 61.0 Pass 0.2975 122 76 62.0 Pass 0.3015 115 71 61. 0 Pass 0.3056 108 66 61.0 Pass I 0.3096 99 62 62.0 Pass 0.3136 97 58 59.0 Pass 0.3177 91 55 60.0 Pass 0.3217 83 53 63.0 Pass I 0.3257 76 48 63.0 Pass 0.3298 72 46 63.0 Pass 0.3338 66 44 66.0 Pass 0.3378 63 40 63.0 Pass I 0.3418 57 40 70.0 Pass 0.3459 56 35 62.0 Pass 0.3499 54 31 57.0 Pass I 0.3539 50 28 56.0 Pass 0.3580 45 25 55.0 Pass 0.3620 41 20 48.0 Pass 0.3660 39 19 48.0 Pass I 0.3701 38 17 44.0 Pass 0.3741 35 16 45.0 Pass 0.3781 33 16 48.0 Pass ,.., <0')1 <1 1 A At:; ,.., D ............... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0.3862 30 12 40.0 0.3902 29 9 31. 0 0.3942 28 9 32.0 0.3983 27 9 33.0 0.4023 26 9 34.0 0.4063 24 9 37.0 0.4103 22 9 40.0 0.4l44 20 9 45.0 0.4184 18 8 44.0 0.4224 17 8 47.0 0.4265 14 8 57.0 0.4305 l3 7 53.0 0.4345 12 7 58.0 0.4386 12 7 58.0 0.4426 12 7 58.0 0.4466 12 6 50.0 0.4506 12 6 50.0 0.4547 12 5 41. 0 0.4587 12 5 41. 0 0.4627 12 5 41.0 0.4668 12 5 41.0 0.4708 11 5 45.0 0.4748 10 5 50.0 0.4789 10 5 50.0 0.4829 10 4 40.0 0.4869 9 4 44.0 0.4909 8 4 50.0 0.4950 7 4 57.0 0.4990 7 3 42.0 0.5030 7 3 42.0 0.507l 7 3 42.0 0.5ill 6 3 50.0 0.5151 6 3 50.0 0.519l 6 3 50.0 0.5232 5 2 40.0 ,0.5272 4 2 50.0 0.5312 4 2 50.0 0.5353 2 2 100.0 0.5393 2 2 100.0 0.5433 2 2 100.0 0.5474 1 1 100.0 0.55l4 1 1 100.0 0.5554 1 1 100.0 0.5594 1 1 100.0 0.5635 1 1 100.0 0.5675 1 1 100.0 Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume. On-line facility volume: 0.234 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.26 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.29 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.15 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.17 cfs. Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass program and accompanying documentation as provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. AQUA TERRA Consultants and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall AQUA TERRA Consultants and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss'of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the user of, or inability to use this program even if AQUA TERRA Consultants or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Yearly Peaks for Developed W/Pond I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-5 I BASINS I I I I I I I I I"CI Perteet Engineering Incorporated I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WESTERN WASHINGTON HYDROLOGY MODEL V2 PROJECT REPORT Project Name: Site Address: City Report Date Gage Data Start Data End Precip Scal.e: strander5-w offsite Renton 6/4/2004 Seatac 1948 1998 1. 00 PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Basin Flows To GroundWater: Land Use TILL FOREST: IMPERVIOUS: Basin Flows To GroundWater: Land Use TILL GRASS: IMPERVIOUS: Basin 5 Point of Compliance No Acres 0.7 1.2 Offsite 0 Point of Compliance No Acres 0.2 0.5 DEVELOPED LAND USE Basin Flows To Basin Pond 5 1 GroundWater: No Land Use TILL GRASS: IMPERVIOUS: Basin Flows To GroundWater: Land Use TILL GRASS: IMPERVIOUS: Acres 0.4 1.5 Offsite 0 Pond 1 No Acres 0.2 0.5 RCHRES (POND) INFORMATION Pond Name: Pond 1 Pond Type: Trapezoidal Pond Pond Fl.ows to : Point of Compliance Pond Rain / Evap is not activated. Dimensions I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Bottom Length: 85ft. Bottom Width: 20ft. Side slope 1: 0 To 1 Side slope 2: 0 To 1 Side slope 3: 0 To 1 Side slope 4: 0 To 1 Volume at Riser Head: Discharge Structure Riser Height: 3.4 ft. Riser Diameter: 18 in. 0.133 acre-ft. NotchType Rectangular Notch Width: 0.039 ft. Notch Height: 1.800 ft. Orifice 1 Diameter: 3.22 in. Elevation: Oft. stage (ft) 15.10 15.15 15.20 15.25 15.30 15.34 15.39 15.44 15.49 15.54 15.59 15.64 15.69 15.74 15.78 15.83 15.88 15.93 15.98 16.03 16.08 16.13 16.18 16.22 16.27 16.32 16.37 16.42 16.47 16.52 16.57 16.62 16.66 16.71 16.76 16.81 16.86 16.91 16.96 17.01 17.06 17 .10 17.15 17.20 17.25 17.30 17.35 17.40 17.45 17.50 17.54 17.59 17.64 17.69 Pond Hydraulic Table Area (acr) Volume (acr-ft) Dschrg(cfs) rnfilt(cfs) 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.013 0.015 0.017 0.019 0.021 0.023 0.025 0.027 0.029 0.031 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.038 0.040 0.042 0.044 0.046 0.048 0.050 0.052 0.053 0.055 0.057 0.059 0.061 0.063 0.065 0.067 0.069 0.071 0.073 0.074 0.076 0.078 0.080 0.082 0.084 0.086 0.088 0.090 0.092 0.093 0.095 0.097 0.099 0.101 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.000 0.085 0.000 0.104 0.000 0.120 0.000 0.135 0.000 0.147" 0.000 0.159 0.000 0.170 0.000 0.181 0.000 0.190 0.000 0.200 0.000 0.209 0.000 0.217 0.000 0.225 0.000 0.233 0.000 0.241 0.000 0.248 0.000 0.255 0.000 0.262 0.000 0.269 0.000 0.276 0.000 0.282 0.000 0.289 0.000 0.295 0.000 0.301 0.000 0.307 0.000 0.313 0.000 0.319 0.000 0.324 0.000 0.330 0.000 0.335 0.000 0.341 0.000 0.346 0.000 0.353 0.000 0.361 0.000 0.369 0.000 0.378 0.000 0.387 0.000 0.397 0.000 0.406 ' 0.000 0.416 0.000 0.426 0.000 0.436 0.000 0.447 0.000 0.457 0.000 0.467 0.000 0.478 0.000 0.488 0.000 0.499 0.000 0.510 0.000 0.520 0.000 0.531 0.000 0.541 0.000 I 17.74 0.039 0.103 0.553 0.000 17.79 0.039 0.105 0.565 0.000 17.84 0.039 0.107 0.577 0.000 I 17.89 0.039 0.109 0.589 0.000 17.94 0.039 0.111 0.601 0.000 17.98 0.039 0.113 0.614 0.000 18.03 0.039 0.114 0.626 0.000 I 18.08 0.039 o ~ 116 0.639 0.000 18.13 0.039 0.118 0.652 0.000 18.18 0.039 0.120 0.665 0.000 18.23 0.039 0.122 0.678 0.000 I 18.28 0.039 0.124 0.691 0.000 .18.33 0.039 0.126 0.705 0.000 18.38 0.039 0.128 0.718 0.000 18.42 0.039 0.130 0.732 0.000 I 18.47 0.039 0.132 0.745 0.000 18.52 0.039 0.134 0.803 0.000 18.57 0.039 0.135 1.035 0.000 I 18.62 0.039 0.137 1. 369 0.000 18.67 0.039 0.139 1.779 0.000 18.72 0.039 0.141 2.254 0.000 18.77 0.039 0.143 2.784 0.000 I 18.82 0.039 0.145 3.365 0.000 18.86 0.039 0.l47 3.993 0.000 18.91 0.039 0.149 4.665 0.000 18.96 0.039 0.151 5.377 0.000 I 19.01 0.039 0.153 6.127 0.000 I ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped I Return Period Flow (cfs) 2 year 0.444569 5 year 0.544807 I 10 year 0.609986 25 year 0.691688 50 year 0.752364 100 year 0.813063 I Flow Frequency Return Periods for Developed Unmitigated Return Period Flow (cfs) 2 year 0.53035 I 5 year 0.652303 10 year 0.731824 25 year 0.831716 I 50 year 0.906041 100 year 0.980501 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Developed ~tigated I Return Period Flow (cfs) 2 year 0.326513 5 year 0.40749 10 year 0.464234 I 25 year 0.539605 50 year 0.598504 100 year 0.659833 "I Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Developed-~tigated Year Predevelo;eed Develo;eed I 1949 0.466 0.398 1950 0.695 0.371 1951 0.464 0.401 1952 0.383 0.280 I 1953 0.353 0.284 1954 0.426 0.288 1955 0.449 0.414 I 1956 0.432 0.330 1957 0.505 0.416 1958 0.447 0:310 I 1959 0.344 ,0 .. 280 1960 0.436 0.401 1961 0.380 0.287 1962 0.378 0.251 I 1963 0.373 0;251 1964 0.441 0.312 1965 0.390 0.268 1966 0.392 0.275 I 1967 0.572 0.373 1968 0.645 0.329 1969 0.361 0.312 1970 0.391 0.303 I 1971 0.370 0.297 1972 0.554 0.446 1973 0.357 0.292 I 1974 0.390 0.264 1975 0.530 0.395 . 1976 0.360 0.284 1977 0.439 0.274 I 1978 0.568 0.402 1979 0.560 0.295 1980 0.486 0.367 1981 0.525 0.342 I 1982 0.717 0.467 1983 0.522 0.392 1984 0.407 0.261 1985 0.374 0.322 I 1986 0.495 0.472 1987 0.650 0.454 1988 0.310 0.269 1989 0.389 0.241 I 1990 0.771 0.740 1991 0.717 0.629 1992 0.402 0.327 1993 0.269 0.232 I 1994 0.320 0.235 1995 0.406 0.298 1996 0.517 0.458 I 1997 0.485 0.405 1998 0.497 0.287 I Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Developed-~tigated Rank Predeveloped Developed 1 0.7171 0.6289 2 0.7169 0.4717 I 3 0.6954 0.4671 4 0.6503 0.4583 5 0.6451 0.4538 6 0.5724 0.4457 I 7 0.5676 0.4164 8 0.5602 0.4142 9 0.5536 0.4046 10 0.5304 0.4019 I 11 0.5248 0.4011 12 0.5222 0.4009 13 0.517 4 0.3977 14 0.5046 0.3948 I 15 0.4974 0.3918 16 0.4953 0.3734 17 0.4856 0.3707 I 18 0.4852 0.3670 19 0.4664 0.3417 20 0.4643 0.3296 21 0.4486 0.3294 I 22 0.4469 0.3268 23 0.4407 0.3224 24 0.4387 0.3121 ')t; (\ A<t;e:: (\ <110 I 26 0.4324 0.3096 27 0.4260 0.3025 28 0.4066 0.2980 I 29 0.4057 0.2967 30 0.4021 0.2950 31 0.3917 0.2920 32 0.3908 0.2880 I 33 0.3904 0.2873 34 0.3898 0.2868 35 0.3891 0.2839 36 0.3830 0.2836 I 37 0.3804 0.2800 38 0.3776 0.2798 39 0.3738 0.2753 I, 40 0.3731 0.2737 41 0.3705 0.2694 42 0.3610 0.2676 43 0.3604 0.2642 I 44 0.3574 0.2609 45 0.3528 0.2512 46 0.3440 0.2510 " 47 0.3204 0.2407 I 48 0.3099 0.2349 49 0.2695 0.2324 I 1/2 2 year to 50 year Flow (CFS) Predev Final Percentage Pass/Fail 0.2223 1184 1177 99.0 Pass 0.2276 1092 1070 97.0 Pass I 0.2330 1001 985 98.0 Pass 0.2383 925 888 96.0 Pass 0.2437 852 800 93.0 Pass 0.2491 792 729 92.0 Pass I 0.2544 739 658 89.0 Pass 0.2598 686 599 87.0 Pass 0.2651 641 532 82.0 Pass I 0.2705 596 497 83.0 Pass 0.2758 551 462 83.0 Pass 0.2812 509 405 79.0 Pass 0.2865 473 370 78.0 Pass I 0.2919 444 341 76.0· Pass 0.2972 417 298 71.0 Pass 0.3026 388 272 70.0 Pass 0.3080 367 250 68.0 Pass I 0.3133 342 220 ·64.0 Pass 0.3187 316 194 61. 0 Pass 0.3240 285 176 61. 0 Pass 0.3294 266 159 59.0 Pass I 0.3347 249 142 57.0 Pass 0.3401 232 128 55.0 Pass 0.3454 220 119 54.0 Pass 0.3508 206 115 55.0 Pass I 0.3561 192 105 54.0 Pass 0.3615 182 94 51. 0 Pass 0.3669 173 89 51.0 Pass 0.3722 159 79 49.0 Pass I 0.3776 145 74 51.0 Pass 0.3829 134 68 50.0 Pass 0.3883 126 62 49.0 Pass 0.3936 114 54 47.0 Pass I 0.3990 109 45 41. 0 Pass 0.4043 103 37 35.0 Pass 0.4097 95 34 35.0 Pass I 0.4150 90 31 34.0 Pass 0.4204 85 28 32.0 Pass 0.4257 79 26 32.0 Pass 0.4311 73 24 32.0 Pass I 0.4365 69 21 30.0 Pass 0.4418 62 21 33.0 Pass 0.4472 59 18 30.0 Pass () A t:;')t:; t:;, 1, ')0 () o .... ~C"'" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0.4579 0.4632 o . 4686 0.4739 0.4793 0.4846 0.4900 0.4954 0.5007 0.5061 0.5114 0.5168 0.5221 0.5275 0.5328 0.5382 0.5435 0.5489 0.5543 0.5596 0.5650 0.5703 0.5757 0.5810 0.5864 0.5917 0.5971 0.6024 0.6078 0.6132 0.6185 0.6239 0.6292 0.6346 0.6399 0.6453 0.6506 0.6560 0.6613 0.6667 0.6720 0.6774 0.6828 0.6881 0.6935 0.6988 0.7042 0.7095 0.7149 0.7202 0.7256 0.7309 0.7363 0.7417 0.7470 0.7524 53 49 44 42 39 39 36 33 31 29 29 29 28 25 24 24 21 21 18 17 15 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 13 11 9 9 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 o o o 30.0 26.0 25.0 21. 0 23.0 20.0 19.0 21.0 22.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 25.0 28.0 29.0 29.0 33.0 33.0 38.0 41.0 46.0 46.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 41.0 41.0 45.0 45.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 33.0 33.0 25 .. 0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 50.0 66.0 66.0 33.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume. On-line facility volume: 0.259 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.28 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.31 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.16 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.17 cfs. Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass program and accompanying documentation as provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. AQUA TERRA Consultants and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall AQUA TERRA Consultants and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the user of, or inability to use this program even if AQUA TERRA Consultants or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Yearly Peaks for Developed W/Pond I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A-6 . I BASIN 6 I. I I I I I I I Iclperteet Engineering IncorDorated I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WESTERN WASHINGTON HYDROLOGY MODEL V2 PROJECT REPORT Project Name: strander6 Site Address: City Renton Report Date 6/25/2004 Gage Seatac Data Start 1948 Data End 1998 Precip Scale: 1. 00 PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Basin Basin 1 Flows To Point of Compliance GroundWater: Land Use TILL FOREST: IMPERVIOUS: No Acres 0.4 0.7 DEVELOPED LAND USE Basin Flows To GroundWater: Land Use TILL GRASS: IMPERVIOUS: Basin Pond No 1 1 Acres 0.1 0.5 Basin 1 Basin Flows To Point of Compliance GroundWater: No Land Use TILL GRASS: IMPERVIOUS: Acres 0.1 0.4 RCHRES (POND) INFORMATION Pond Name: Pond 1 Pond Type: Trapezoidal Pond Pond Flows to : Point of Compliance Pond Rain I Evap is not activated. Dimensions Depth: 3. 8ft. Bottom Length: 75ft. Bottom Width : 20ft. Side slope 1: 0 To 1 Side slope 2: 0 To 1 Side slope 3: 0 To 1 Side slope 4: 0 To 1 Volume at Riser Head: 0.096 acre-ft. Discharge Structure Riser Height: 2.8 ft. I Riser Di.ameter: 18 in. NotchType Rectangular Notch Wi.dth : 0.028 ft. I Notch Height: 1.245 ft. Orifice 1 Diameter: 1.659 in. El.evation: 0 ft. Pond Hydraul.ic Tabl.e I Staqe(ft) Area (acr) volume (acr-ft) Dschr2 (cfs) InfHt(cfs) 15.10 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.14 0.034 0.001 0.015 0.000 I 15.18 0.034 0.003 0.021 0.000 15.23 0.034 0.004 0.026 0.000 15.27. 0.034 0.006 0.030 0.000 15.31 0.034 0.007 0.033 0.000 I 15.35 0.034 0.009 0.036 0.000 15.40 0.034 0.010 0.039 0.000 15.44 0.034 0.012 . 0.042 0.000 15.48 0.034 0.013 0.045 0.000 I 15.52 0.034 0.015 0.047 0.000 15.56 0.034 0.016 0.049 0.000 15.61 0.034 0.017 0.051 0.000 15.65 0.034 0.019 0.054 0.000 I 15.69 0.034 0.020 0.056 0.000 15.73 0.034 0.022 0.058 0.000 15.78 0.034 0.023 0.059 0.000 15.82 0.034 0.025 0.061 0.000 I 15.86 0.034 0.026 0.063 0.000 15.90 0.034 0.028 0.065 0.000 15.94 0.034 0.029 0.066 0.000 15.99 0.034 0.031 0.068 0.000 I 16.03 0.034 0.032 0.070 0.000 16.07 0.034 0.033 0.071 0.000 16.11 0.034 0.035 0.073 0.000 16.16 0.034 0.036 0.074 0.000 I 16.20 0.034 0.038 0.076 0.000 16.24 0.034 0.039 0.077 0.000 16.28 0.034 0.041 0.079 0.000 I 16._32 0.034 0.042 0.080 0.000 16.37 0.034 0.044 0.081 0.000 16.41 0.034 0.045 0.083 0.000 16.45 0.034 0.047 0.084 0.000 I 16.49 0.034 0.048 . 0.085 0.000 16.54 0.034 0.049 0.087 0.000 16.58 0.034 0.051 0.088 0.000 16.62 0.034 0.052 0.089 0.000 I 16.66 0.034 0.054 0.090 0.000 16.70 0.034 0.055 0.093 0.000 16.75 0.034 0.057 0.095 0.000 16.79 0.034 0.058 0.098 0.000 I 16.83 0.034 0.060 0.102 0.000 16.87 0.034 0:061 0.105 0.000 16.92 0.034 0.063 0.109 0.000 16.96 0.034 0.064 o .ll3 0.000 I 17.00 0.034 0.065 o .ll7 0.000 17.04 0.034 0.067 0.121 0.000 17.08 0.034 0.068 0.126 0.000 17.13 0.034 0.070 0.130 0.000 I 17.17 0.034 0.071 0.135 0.000 17.21 0.034 0.073 0.139 0.000 17.25 0.034 0.074 0.144 0.000 I 17.30 0.034 0.076 0.149 0.000 17.34 0.034 0.077 0.154 0.000 17.38 0.034 0.079 0.158 0.000 17.42 0.034 0.080 0.163 0.000 I 17.46 0.034 0.081 0.168 0.000 17.51 0.034 0.083 0.173 0.000 17.55 0.034 0.084 0.178 0.000 17.59 0.034 0.086 0.183 0.000 I 17.63 0.034 0.087 0.188 0.000 17.68 0.034 0.089 0.193 0.000 17.72 0.034 0.090 0.199 0.000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 17.76 17.80 17.84 17.89 17.93 17.97 18.01 18.06 18.10 18.14 18.18' 18.22 18.27 18.31 18.35 18.39 18.44 18.~8 18.52 18.56 18.60 18.65 18.69 18.73 18.77 18.82 18.86 18.90 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034' 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.092 0.093 0.095 0.096 0.097 0.099 0.100 0.102 0.103 0.105 0.106 0.108 0.109 0.110 0.112 0.113 0.115 0.116 0.118 0.119 0.121 0.122 0.124 0.125 0.126 0.128 0.129 o .l31 0.205 0.210 0.217 0.223 0.297 0.503 0.784 1.124 1. 514 1.947 2.421 2.931 3.476 4.053 4.660 5.297 5.961 6.652 7.369 8.111 8.876 9.665 10.48 11. 31 12.16 l3.04 l3.94 14.85 ANALYSIS RESULTS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Flow Frequency Return Return Period Periods for Predeveloped Flow (cfs) 2 year 0.180368 5 year 0.220282 10 year 0.246168 25 year 0.27855 50 year 0.302557 100 year 0.32654 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Developed Unmitigated Return Period Flow (cfs) 2 year 0.235072 5 year 0.288226 10 year 0.322802 25 year 0.366157 50 year 0.398363 100 year 0.430588 Flow Frequency Return Return Period 2 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year Periods for Developed ~tigated Flow (cfs) 0.151594 0.182638 0.202563 0.227289 0.245492 0.26358 Yearly Year Peaks for Predeveloped and Developed-~tigated 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 Predeveloped 0.190 0.278 0.188 0.156 0.144 0.173 Developed 0.165 0.212 0.165 o .l32 0.123 o .l38 I 1955 0.182 0.164 1956 0.175 0.153 1957 0.204 0.180 I 1958 0.181 0.142 1959 0.140 0.131 1960 0.176 0.168 1961 0.154 0.128 I 1962 0.153 0.124 1963 0.151 0.121 1964 0.179 0.150 1965 0.158 0.128 I 1966 0.159 0.139 1967 0.230 0.187 1968 0.260 0.198 1969 0.147 0.138 I 1970 0.159 0.144 1971 0.150 0.131 1972 0.223 0.192 I 1973 0.146 0.128 1974· 0.157 0.127 1975 0.214 0.191 1976 0.147 0.133 I 1977 0.179 0.141 1978 0.232 0.193 1979 0.229 0.154 1980 0.196 0.160 I 1981 0.211 0.177 1982 0.287 0.238 1983 0.212 0.171 1984 0.165 0.127 I 1985 0.152 0.141 1986 0.201 0.191 1987 0.265 0.192 1988 0.128 0.113 I 1989 0.160 0.109 1990 0.309 0 .. 249 1991 0.288 0.241 1992 0.163 0.143 I 1993 0.110 0.102 1994 0.131 0.108 1995 0.164 0.137 1996 0.210 0.194 I 1997 0.197 0.169 1998 0.200 0.150 I Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Developed-~tigated Rank Pre developed Developed 1 0.2885 0.2412 I 2 0.2868 0.2384 3 0.2776 0.2116 4 0.2651 0.1985 5 0.2603 0.1944 I 6 0.2319 0.1927 7 0.2302 0.1925 8 0.2291 0.1919 9 0.2231 0.1914 I 10 0.2144 0.1910 11 0.2123 0.1874 12 0.2112 0.1802 13 0.2100 0.1775 I 14 0.2041 0.1715 15 0.2013 0.1686 16 0.1998 0.1680 17 0.1968 0.1654 I 18 0.1958 0.1647 19 0.1897 0.1637 20 0.1882 0.1602 I 21 0.1817 0.1541 22 0.1809 0.1534 23 0.1791 0.1504 ')A n 1'7 an n 1 A aQ I 25 0.17 64 0.1442 26 0.1754 0.1433 27 0.1728 0.1423 I 28 0.1649 0.1414 29 0.1645 0.1405 30 0.1632 0.1389 31 0.1602 0.1384 I 32 0.1593 0.1382 33 0.1587 0.1372 34 0.1585 0.1333 35 0.1572 0.1319 I 36 0.1562 0.1314 37 0.1545 0.1305 38 0.1531 0.1281 39 0.1520 0.1277 I 40 0.1512 0.1275 41 0.1503 0.1271 42 0.1471 0.1267 I 43 0.1466 0.1244 44 0.1458 0.1234 45 0.1436 0.1215 46 0.1399 0.1131 I 47 0.1311 0.1090 48 0.1276 0.1075 49 0.1098 0.1025 I 1/2 2 year to 50 year Flow (CFS) Predev Final Percentage Pass/Fa:i.l 0.0902 1228 1225 99.0 Pass I 0.0923 1127 1127 100.0 Pass 0.0945 1044 1036 99.0 Pass 0.0966 965 955 98.0 Pass 0.0988 901 871 96.0 Pass I 0.1009 839 785 93.0 Pass 0.1031 760 699 91.0 Pass 0.1052 703 656 93.0 Pass 0.1073 669 605 90.0 Pass I 0.1095 626 548 87.0 Pass 0.1116 582 504 86.0 Pass 0.1138 543 . 465 85,0 Pass I 0.1159 507 438 86.0 Pass 0.1181 459 390 84.0 Pass 0.1202 437 361 82.0 Pass 0.1224 408 332 81.0 Pass I 0.1245 379 306 80.0 Pass 0.1267 363 278 76.0 Pass 0.1288 342 259 75.0 Pass 0.1309 319 238 74.0 Pass I 0.1331 284 211 74.0 Pass 0.1352 259 195 75.0 Pass 0.1374 245 181 73.0 Pass 0.1395 231 167 72.0 Pass I 0.1417 218 158 72.0 Pass 0.1438 206 147 71.0 Pass 0.1460 194 137 70.0 Pass 0.1481 181 120 66.0 Pass I 0.1502 170 109 64.0 Pass 0.1524 153 93 60.0 Pass 0.1545 143 86 60.0 Pass 0.1567 133 75 56.0 Pass I 0.1588 125 6.6 52.0 Pass 0.1610 116 58 50.0 Pass 0.1631 105 56 53.0 Pass I 0.1653 99 52 52.0 Pass 0.1674 95 45 47.0 Pass 0.1696 90 41 45.0 Pass 0.1717 83 38 45.0 Pass I 0.1738 77 35 45.0 Pass 0.17 60 72 35 48.0 Pass I 0.1781 68 31 45.0 Pass ("\ 1 Q ("\< &:1 ')Q At; ("\ O.,C""r"" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0.1824 0.1846 0.1867 0.1889 0.1910 0.1932 0.1953 0.1974 0.1996 0.2017 0.2039 0.2060 0.2082 0.2103 0.2125 0.2146 0.2167 0.2189 0.2210 0.2232 0.2253 0.2275 0.2296 0.2318 0.2339 0.2361 0.2382 0.2403 0.2425 0.2446 0.2468 0.2489 0.2511 0.2532 0.2554 0.2575 0.2597 0.2618 0.2639 0.2661 0.2682 0.2704 0.2725 0.2747 0.2768 0.2790 0.2811 0.2833 0.2854 0.2875 0.2897 0.2918 0.2940 0.2961 0.2983 0.3004 0.3026 57 56 53 50 43 41 39 37 37 33 31 29 29 28 27 26 24 23 21 19 17 16 15 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 9 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 5 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 27 25 24 22 20 15 13 13 11 11 11 11 10 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 5 4 3 3 1 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 47.0 44.0 45.0 44.0 46.0 36.0 33.0 35.0 29.0 33.0 35.0 37.0 34.0 ·32.0 29.0 30.0 33.0 34.0 38.0 42.0 41. 0 43.0 46.0 53.0 58.0 58.0 50.0 41. 0 33.0 25.0 25.0 9.0 .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 water Qua~ity BMP F~ow and Vo~ume. On-~ine faci~ity vo~ume: 0.113 acre-feet On-~ine faci~ity target f~ow: 0.12 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.14 cfs. Off-~ine faci~ity target flow: 0.07 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.08 cfs. Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass program and accompanying documentation as provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. AQUA TERRA Consultants and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims al~ warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall AQUA TERRA Consultants and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the user of, or inability to use this program even if AQUA TERRA Consultants or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Yearly Peaks for Developed W/Pond I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AppendixB BASIN MAPS B.l EXISTING BASIN MAPS B.2 PROPOSED BASIN MAPS 1"(lperteet Engineering Incorporated I I I I I I I I Appendix B-1 . I EXISTING BASIN MAPS I I I I I I I I I"CI Perteet Engineering I Incorporated I I I I I I I I I I I I~ I N i o i __ ~--L. !~ --------. -i \ . ____ --I ;, --=--~; ----=------_1 BASIN NAME AREA WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY 0.55 AC RAILROAD WEST 0.18 AC RAILROAD EAST 0.87 AC Inc. u ,- SCALE 1~~ .. ~~III~III~~ .. ~~~~~~~~1 ~ .~IIIJ1111 ----I 100 50 0 100 200 'in07 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett, 1i'A 98201 • (425) 252-7700 FEET I t i I , , I " / ) ) i, !i; LEGEND WETLANDS 11:1,., ; 'I .; .\ . l~i~1 CZ21 ~ CONTRIBUTING OFFSITE BASINS SHEET FLOW OR FLOW PATH ---e> SO PIPE - --f> FLOW CHANNEL '! ;--r--__ : ! i I: I / II , ! -.!_---------' _\~; --- -------------~--- Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.l Existing Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I I L ------- i, i' I} , ' Ii ;~. ! ,j "~: Perteet Engineering, Inc. BASIN NAME BOEING BASIN ~07 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett, li'A 98201 • (425) 252-7700 --._---- --------- AREA 2.89 AC SCALE ~~J"~"~~"~"~~JI"""""~I I ~"4L.~ ----100 50 0 100 200 FEET .-----~--- LEGEND WETLANDS CONTRIBUTING OFFSITE BASINS l~i~1 CZ/1 .. SHEET FLOW OR FLOW PATH ------,t;> SO PIPE - --t> FLOW CHANNEL NT0N'- AHEAD OF THE ClJRVE Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.2 Existing Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I x " u: l " i 1 ; -~ ... .! ---' --~"--;---------- 1,--, -------1-----r~=~~,.-·_-_I-: . ~. -:~. -\ ~ ;,.~'~' Perteet ~ Engineering, Inc. T !I ~, 'I BASIN NAME AREA . AC OAKS DALE NORTH BASIN 0 80 OAKSDALE SOUTH BASIN 0.80 AC SCALE r -' l -"--<lL ~ -"--<lL -"- i . j I I ~I f ,~ ,-~ , I -<lL ~ ..>lL -<lL ,\~ ! -"--"- -llL. -<lL ~ ~ -"-->IL -llL. -<lL ~ ~uu.- ~.... I ~----.i...iPl""'·LJ .. -.--~==~---.1 2707 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett, 1I'A 98201 • (425) 252-7700 100 50 0 100 200 FEET -"- ~ -"- -<lL ~ -"--<lL EXISTING STORMWATER FACILITY L _ --I !r-- t I' : iIi I' i I 11 \ I i \ , I _" I ! -, .~ __ I I' : f, ! ~:r>O ...;--~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ____ ._'\ll'_"_-='-'c.--..::o.~-----"-' ==\-=~!t'-...",-"'-- c;..-~--"-->.lL -"-~-~:---- ----- LEGEND WETlANDS CONTRIBUTING OFFSITE BASINS SHEET FLOW OR FLOW PATH ---I> SO PIPE - --f> FLOW CHANNEL TO'N' AHEAD OF THE CURVE Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.3 Existing Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I I x ~ / -, ~ I I ! J ! , I I ' -. -~_J_ f I --r--i- ~ .llL ~ ~ -"-.llL llllI<-~ -"-.llL .llL ~~ ~ -"-.llL I~,,\ \~i{:-'\ Perteet '~ Engineering, Inc. / ,. I / E,X1SliNG STQRMWATER FACILIlY I . \ , f I , I ' \ --~ ---.- : ! i I j / I I I I I I : i --'1' t BASIN NAME ,I \ AREA .~-. '" -; I SPRINGBROOK CREEK BASIN 4.86 AC TOTAL SCALE ~ •• ~.. I ~~.~~.y~~~.u~~ __ --~= ........ I ?:I07 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett. WA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 100 50 a 100 200 FEET : I ,. I j ! LEGEND 1.llL ~-~I WETLANDS rZ/1 CONTRIBUTING OFfSITE BASINS ~ SHEET FLOW OR FLOW PATH ---5> SD PIPE __ --t> FLOW CHANNEL :1 I, I' TO'N' Pul-1EAD OF THE CURVE Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.4 Existing Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I i ! ' .'~ / /. /., /' -- , ; - i (J , I c -----1 ;' i[ 'i 11 (----__ J : I , , I , " " ~~~~l Perteet I .\:~ Engineering, Inc. 2707 ColbY Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett. 1JA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 , II I ~ , " I :: " ~ , ~ I . i', , I Ii i /' " I " i ----c--_-~~-_~-=::----. ~---.=~-=---":'--=-- , .-..----' ! ___ L-. ___ ~-_. __ . __ ! BASIN NAME AREA UNO AVENUE BASIN 1.84 AC EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY BASIN 1.14 AC SCALE 1I11111J1·CI·IC·I;I·~;JI·····1 I ~. -lL-JIII ----100 50 0 100 200 FEET . I T -_____ L LEGEND I~~-:I EZ/1 j . WETLANDS CONTRIBUTING OFFSITE BASINS ~ SHEET FLOW OR FLOW PATH ---1> SO PIPE - ---f> FLOW CHANNEL _____ .--L __ .. _ 1 Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.6 Existing Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I ~-. '--.l ~' '~ ,', \ I ____ 1 ;- ';-~-- \_--'._4--- \! '~ l~ Perteet : -~, Engineering, Inc. ,----- ?:TO? Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett, 1i'A 98201 • (425) 252-7700 ') ~. ---- i I ------- I 11 Ii II !i " ii ,-U---~E~-- ~--- CALE ·~~·~~·~·~~·~~~~~~~~I I ~··lL·1IIII --- -~--. j " I , 50 25 0 50 100 FEET -'-_--,-Jl ) _._-I -~J ,-----1 ':;''.).111 ~q,': ; .~~;:. , , -i~ --.'...,. f·--- " i , Ii: !: i ' i 1;:\ i: -,,:,, , , ;; .' ':1 '('. ,37JJ36 ASPHALT (PGIS) CONCRETE (NPGIS) GRAVEL GRASS / SF -... -~---------~ -'-~---~., Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.l Existing Landcover Map I I I I I I I I I I I i x " u: I' '; I <c .. ---- -/. ,'--A-+-;7'~~*--, --_~ r-:i j i l f! . I:! I, ! ' F Ii j ! i ! i j--~ 'I, / i { , , 2707 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett. WA 96201 • (425) 252-7700 ~ -'-.. ~~. --------- SCALE III~J·-';;J·I;l·It~·~~······1 I .... -4" -JIll .---. 50 25 0 50 100 FEET .. c .. 125,764 SF ___ ~..: ___ ~ ___ -_'-__ -_-__ -_-_'-/"o:-_;.-.-,~---c-_~ ____ ...;...' '~-t - --.~---=---,":"~--'--'---t--t-~---- - ------- ----,""':---._ .. _. SPHAlT -(PGIS) ~~!~~R--:--E N T O~N ,~.tJI\",·, F~!!" "-<'~I~~~~1fi-~HE~ OF THE CURVE . CONCRETE (NPGIS) Strander Boulevartr FIGURE #X.2 Existing Landcover Map I I I I I I I I ~ . / . .. U a-__ ~ ~~~~ Perteet l!t"\ I • • I '~"> Englneenng, InC. 'in07 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett, \fA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 /1 _J'-- , .. '~ ":-~ ~-!-~ ; ·r ...... , -', MATCH LINE--'-E' SEE MATCH LINE 'F' SCALE ~ .... 50 100 FEET r<·.-: ::. I . . . . ~ . . ". ASPHALT (PGIS) CONCRETE (NPGIS) GRAVEL GRASS ~--- ~ 7---~- " , . !! ~ . -, -. -----' \, Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.3 Existing Landcover Map I I I I I I I I I I ---i :! -I J:: I ~ i "' i ~ I :. ~. I --- II "': I Pert~et. Inc. ~J Engmeenng, . ("'I ..... "" ~ tt 1rA 98201 SCALE ----I ~1;tIIil.·~·~~~~~1 100 ~·6 50 50 25 FEET • Suite 900 • Evere • 2707 Colby Avenue '., ~ '- ",-~- LEGEND I;~-i'~j-H;I ASPHALT (PGIS) ,{lfi'tf:. ( PGIS) I CONCRETE N I . IilHiil GRAVEL I I GRASS .. :I: ---. ----- , ------------. :....--:::::.::.:.e>. __ <_-_ lL.~, ..•. ;__ ~ , ';:-~ ... "." ......... :'9.1S' "~ 0 N i?,,:-~-0 .... '" ~~·>\\'VR NT I. ~ /!s,/. ' ~ '-I Gl ~~ E ~~--Jl --.~ $! ~ id~: j~<tl.. . .. ,' ..... ;. 'Cl1R'VE ~U). -~ ""C;". THE , ;'~\II:\ ' .... ', ....... #' HEAD OF J : 'I, ........ ,.,: .. :.: .. / . .: ," . A.. _ t :.\ ·'190S, ... ';:-" d ··"'-'~trander Boulevar FIGURE #X.4 de over Existing Lan Map I I I I I I I I I I I u: • • i ~ i :J: -' i ~ , i I • I L i; j! I', ' I , " ~' , I c· .. --.-------------- ~~'~\.' \c-' :-::-; Perteet \ "> Engineering, Inc. Z707 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett, 1rA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 ,.-. ~ "£~'". =_ . . -. -- -- -..... -:-.. -:. ---- SCALE ••••• i t-'JJ--.... L-f,. ..... LJ~~--~.---.1 50 25 0 50 100 FEET -"-~---, .:r 1 LEGEND t'~.'~I~1 ASPHALT (PGIS) , I CONCRETE (NPGIS) I ,~·;t il GRAVEL I I GRASS NTO"N' Strander Boulevard FIGURE #x.s Existing Landcover Map I I I I I I I I I I I u: I ~ ~ I :I: ~, i ~ ; i I ,I '.: -< ' UJ \&£J Perteet \..~_, Engineering, Inc. 'ln07 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett. 1rA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 I ! ,...----". , , _7--'- SCALE ~.~.. I . .~.~ 50 25 0 50 FEET 100 :';,."- LEGEND \.-<l ASPHALT (PGIS) I I I' I! I, I ; I, i! i i : \ I: i: I 1 CONCRETE (NPGIS) I , ~. ===~'=:n-GRAVEL I 1 GRASS " " : .: I I I , : : Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.6 Existing Landcover Map I I - I ; i I ! ': i I, I ~ ---I W - i , , ,I I w Z -I Z :::::i ::I: I ::I: () ~~ ~ I :E « :E w w I en, I ------ ::~-.~:':""" I I I u:: i ?:T07 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett. WA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 I , , I , I Ii I,) ,I " I i,i , , I I!! \:11 Ii ~ j ~ I i I' .1 I' , II Ii J' ,. I I ill .-'1' I ,L'----:--' -:-'-: ~ .... • .~.JII 50 25 0 ---:-----., -: SCALE I 50 100 FEET - , i ~~~~~~~~~~u=~~i~'C'~~~~~~~-~'~-~'~--~-~'~'~'~~~~~~~~~~;:~~.=.c::~~-~~~~·~~i:·:~'~~=~i,'ic~~~~~c~~~ .I.A.~ -~ --~~- LEGEND 1·~_j'~1 ASPHALT (PGIS) I I CONCRETE (NPGIS) I ;g--'-' ~.:..' "I .. ~~--Jf~-~~o_ GRAVEL I I GRASS ENTO'N'- AHEAD OF THE CURVE Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.7 Existing Landcover Map I I I I I I I I I I I ii: • ~ -~ • ~I i g , i I " .. i ~' -~/. ~ i,J W ~, < .;:.J Z, -; -.JJ: () t5~ ~::E ::Ew w (() ., .'f ~: '-'; c! "-' _ • , "'-t.-,.".-' '-{ . : I' , I r.lJ P t [§J E~~f~eering, Inc. Suite 900 • Everett 'IrA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 2707 Colby Avenue. • I, " : (\ ~: -"' i-I '\ ! / I i , , : I \. '\ , " LEGEND li~-lj:1 ASPHALT (PGIS) NT ON"- I I CONCRETE (NPGIS) II~t~1 GRAVEL r: I GRASS SCALE ....,~ -~·~·!iil·~~~IC::IiiIiiiiiiiiiI~1 P' .~ -~ II1II 50 25 0 50 100 FEET I I I I I I I I I I I u:: I -o - ~ Id~1 riA:' '~:'I Perteet ~ Engineering, Inc. 2707 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett. WA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 ---~----' -~ --\, ... -~ r.J' :n· -::RE""'"1..------- ~ .... • .~~JII 50 25 0 SCALE FEET ;-~. '--<. "': ..... " .. ' : ", .. 'r. .: ~.:::~ ~. ...:::-L. ~ .. ; ~f((~~"'~ I 50 100 I I Itt!li~1 II ASPHALT (PGIS) ~ ... ~--,,'" I ! I;: ~ .... , ~:,: CONCRETE (NPGIS) GRAVEL GRASS ~:: I f; I : ,,' I.! i, i! ~ .... 1 ,----, , ;\ \ ~ I I i i , . I I :~: r : , ~ i , i I I : j It , ' , I ,,1--! NT ON---- Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.8 Existing Landcover Map I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B-2 PROPOSED BASIN MAPS .. I"CI P erteet Engineering IncorDorated I I I I I I I I I I I \ ~~ .29. ~.L .~ ~ BASIN NAME BASIN #1 SCALE I'~'i Perteet ~;~:, Engineering Inc ,. ~~-~~·~·~~·~~~~~~51""""" ••• e. I 2707 Colby Avenue • Suite 900 • Everett 1i'A 98201 • (425) 252 7700 r-.., . - 1 00 50 0 1 00 200 FEET 27.5 27.4 AREA LEGEND 2.63 AC 23.3 23.2 23.3 23.1 23.2 • 24.1 23.8 27.0 • 25.0 25.2 26.7 WETLANDS OFFSITE BASINS SURFACE FLOW 24.4 25.1 24.9 ! 23.1 23.0 22.9 22.0 21. .0 23.6 23.2 23.9 3.7 25.9 24.3 25.0 248 Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.l Developed Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I I I z • Ii-" i I I I " • i e I ..... == 23.1 22,9 22,0 21. ;,6 23,2 23,9 3,7 25,9 25.1 24,3 22,6 24,8 • 24.4 24,5 22'6'~ 23.4 ??,~ • ~ Perteet ~ Engineering, Inc. SCALE ~ .... 'i!:107 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett. 'fA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 FEET 25.1 23,8 21.9 BASIN NAME AREA BASIN #2 3.48 AC I I 100 200 22,2 208 LEGEND I~ _L ~I rZ/1 ~ 21.9 WETLANDS OFFSITE BASINS SURFACE FLOW 20,5 20.4 Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.2 Developed Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I I I z i ~ J: -' • ~ • • ~ i LU.J 14,2 14,2 14.4 14.4 14.4 /\ i£J i~ ';1 Perteet ~ Engineering, Inc. '1:707 Colby Avenue' Suite 900 • Everett, 1fA 96201 • (425) 252-7700 V ,8 20,2 .4 137 14 13,7 13.7 13,7 13,7 13.7 ' 13,7 13,7 ' 13,7 SCALE ~.... I .. ~.~ 100 50 0 100 FEET 20, 13,7 13.7 137 13,7 13,7 137 13,7 < 13.7 13,7 BASIN NAME AREA BASIN #3 2.67 AC i 200 13, 12.4 6,5 12.4 1 .7 ,7 12.4 13 7,7 12.4 LEGEND \-ilL -"--ilL \ WETLANDS fZ21 OFFSITE BASINS ... SURFACE FLOW 12.4 12.4 12.4 Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.3 Developed Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I I I z I :i i I ~ • I 12,3 ====rJ .JJL 12.4 4 12.4 12.4 >10 12.4 SCALE I~'I I'\}, ~j Perteet ~~~ Engineering, Inc. ~. ~ .. 100 ?:I07 Colby Avenue' Suite 900 • Everett. 1iA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 FEET LEGEND I.JJL i .JJL I WETLANDS r721 OFFSITE BASINS .. SURFACE FLOW 200 20,6 0 ,20 Q22 -*--*-.JJL 128 BASIN NAME L--_~---,,;:I BASIN #4 -"-.JJL .JJL .JJL , AREA 2.23 AC -"-.JJL 18,3 L Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.4 Developed Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I I I z I ! i ~ 8. i -' • • i ~ i ?:T07 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett, 1fA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 LEGEND 1-ilL -"--ilL I WETLANDS rZ/I OFFSITE BASINS ~ SURFACE FLOW SCALE ~.... 1-----1 ~. er~.~ 100 50 0 100 200 FEET BASIN NAME AREA I : --~I BASIN #5 1.85 AC I i til BASIN #6 1.13 AC 18.7 18.5 Strander Boulevard FIGURE #x.s Developed Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ i I :I: -' ~ -~ i ~ i ~ \ e,.~/ Perteet '\, E' . In ' ,'':, nglneenng, C. Z707 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett, WA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 SCALE ~~~·~-~~·~-~~"""I I ,... .~~JIj ---. 100 50 0 FEET 100 200 LEGEND I,· . 1 ASPHALT (PGIS) I '. '.' '··1 CONCRETE (NPGIS) GRASS/LANDSCAPING Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.l Developed Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I I I ! If 11 t 1°, ~ :z: -' i ~ i !o ~ • ~ i -~\ ~'-~-. a;~·1 Perteet "'f_:~. Engineering, Inc. 2707 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett, 1I'A 98201 • (425) 252-7700 SCALE ~~J·IgI·~-~J·~JIII---1 I ~ ·lL~JII ---. 100 50 a 100 200 FEET LEGEND L.....-_......JI ASPHALT (PGIS) L..-_--.J-I CONCRETE (NPGIS) GRASS/LANDSCAPING Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.2 Developed Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ i :z: ~ ~ i !o ~ • ;; /\ ~,,,,. ~-\ , Perteet 7_'_' Engineering, Inc. ?:t07 Colby Avenue. SUite 900 • Everett. 1I'A 98201 • (425) 252-7700 v SCALE •• JI·~·JI·~·~---I I 1---pIlL-WI ----100 50 0 100 200 FEET LEGEND I: -I ASPHALT (PGIS) l-I CONCRETE (NPGIS) GRASS/LANDSCAPING Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.3 Developed Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I ~ i i I :r ~ • i '" i -0 ...... ~~ l'fi Perteet '\''-. . . ----"~.' Englneenng, Inc. r---jIL-Jiij 2707 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett. 1fA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 1 00 50 0 SCALE 1--.... 1 FEET 100 200 LEGEND I· f:: : I ASPHALT (PGIS) I; " ; I CONCRETE (NPGIS) GRASS/LANDSCAPING Strander Boulevard FIGURE #X.4 Developed Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I I Ii ! I ~ • -' • • '-; i ~ .. "" -~", :~" _:" Perteet 1'tJ Engineering, Inc. ~07 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 • Everett, 'fA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 SCALE ~ .~.JIIII ---.1 ·JII~·~-~l·Iil·~~~~~1 100 50 0 FEET 100 200 LEGEND I.". ASPHALT (PGIS) 1 . CONCRETE (NPGIS) GRASS/LANDSCAPING Strander Boulevard FIGURE #x.s Developed Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix C 30% PLANS C.l STAGE 1 30% DRAINAGE PLANS C.2 STAGE 2 CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE PLANS C.3 STAGE 3 CONCEPTUAL CONVEYANCE PLANS I~I P erteet Engineering Incorporated I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix C-J ' STAGE 1 30% DRAINAGE PLANS I~J P erteet Engineering Incorporated I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0: ~ ~ z I I i ~ en I I g ~ '" w 5 ~ I 'II 'E I NW CORNER CURR RETURN ELEVATIONS STATION ON ROADWAY TOC EL P 1 4 1 2 3 4 PT 6~ T a R a 35 i. = ~ 0 0 + ~ to N .« I- ~ en w z :::i ~ J: ~ « ~ ~ 25+00 ... ,;;#\~~ BEGIN PROJECT STA. 26+38.23 SW CORNER ICURB RETURN ELEVATIONS STATION ON ROADWAY TQIl.>'[L P 1 4 1 2 3 4 PT 6'= T = R =35 = 26+00 r-+-4-------------------------~--~~ Perteet 1-+-4-------------------------~--~ ~ Engineering, Inc. 27+00 No. Dote 8y "".,. 707 Colby Avenue· Suile 900 • Everell, fA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 STA. 131+82.83 END CURB. GUTTER AND SIDEWALK END PAVEMENT SE CORNER CURB RETURN ELEVATIONS STATION ON ROADWAY TOC a PC 1 4 1 2 3 4 PT 6= T = R =35 = 28+00 AHEAD OF THE CtJRVE [)taw" By <NI oe;qned BY ~p Checked By Q,lH Approved By 71 & IDc( CONSTRUCTION NOTES: I o NOTES NE CORNER CURB RETURN ELEVATIONS STATION ON ROADWAY PC I 1 4 I 1 2 t 3 4 I PT 6= : ~ : R = .1S , DELTA 128'31" 50'24'21" C3 49'02'09" C4 C5 10'21'05" C6 :11'30'01" 29+00 Do'e SCALE .2lliJa Horil i ~ 1-.20' V.,., .2Ll..1.SH-'-... 5' Project Humber 22044 TOe EL TANGENT RADIUS 68.36 1003.00 212.17 448.00 201.74 442.00 69.77 753.00 207.33 1997.00 LENGTH PI STA NORTHING 136.51 11+18.85 169857.46 396.30 27+42.39 169886.79 378.51 33+87.17 169374.06 38+99.59 169368.60 139.14 51+75.28 169333.18 413.17 54+61.25 169272,77 SCALE rt:···~ 20 10 0 20 FEET 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EASTIN 129160 129322 .1293663 1294200 1295476 1295756 40 CllY OF RENTON Orowin9 No. STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE RP1 25+00 TO 29+50 ROADWAY PLAN 'AND PROFILE 5C 9~ 6:< 9E 1E 1 C " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ 5: ;; ~ z I I ! ~ '" g I i ~ " w ~ u I t ILL CUT SWO CORNER SE CURB RETURN ELEVATIONS CURB RETURN ELEVATIONS STATION ON ROAOWAY TOe EL STATION ON ROAOWAY TOC EL PC PC r.~i JL4 1 4 .V· JL2 1 2 3 4 3 4 PT PT 6= r :: R a 35 6= T • R .35 i. = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 31+00 r-r-+-------------------------~~~~ Perteet t--+--t--------------------------l----t---t ~ Engineering, Inc. "p'. 07 Colby A.enue • Suile 900 • E.erell, IA 911201 • (425) 252-7700 I o o + 32+00 ". srA:. 141+29,57 BEGIN CURB. GUTTER AND SlD£WAU< BEGIN PAVEMENT .~HE.t\D OF TI:rn ctJRVE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ NUMBER Cl C2 C3 C4 -C5 C6 OrO'" Ely aKS DeSiqned By !if Checked By Q,jH Approved By CONSTRUCTION NOTES: @ NOTES DELTA TANGENT RADIUS I LENGTH PI STA NORTHING EASTING 728'31" 68.36 1003.00 1136.51 11+18.85 169857.46 1291604.50 50'24'21" 212.17 448.00 396.30 27+42.39 169886.79 1293227.99 49'02'09" 201.74 442.00 1378.51 33+87.17 169374.06 1293663.62 I 38+99.59 169368.60 1294200.98 10'21'05" 69.77 753.00 139.14 51 + 75.28 169333.18 1295476.18 11'30'01" 207.33 1997.00 1413.17 54+61.25 169272.77 1295756.10 I SCALE 11111-__ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11111_-- 20 10 o FEET 20 40 CllY OF RENTON Drawing No. Oo'e SCAlE ~ RP2 HOf'il STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE .2L21Ja 1~_20' . .,., 25+00 TO 33+00 .J.il..ia 1-.. 5' PrOjecl Number ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE 22044 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I· \c=~J~\ \ ---\' \\ ~\:::J~\ ~ 0 0 + ~ I"") I"") « ~ ~ U) w Z ..J ~ ~ O~"'---U----'-W-'~';R"'S:i - o _CUT FILL-- ____ -"------fill ) ~~~I . ... . ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .......... ... ___ ._-..-0<[' /" -. CONSTRucnONNOTES: @ NOTES NUM r~ DELTA TANGENT RADIUS LENGTH PI STA NORTHING EASTING Cl '28'31" 68.36 1003.00 136.51 11+18.85 169857.46 1291604.50 C2 50"24'21" 212.17 448.00 396.30 27+42.39 169886.79 1293227.99 C3 49"02'09" 201.74 442.00 378.51 33+87.17 169374.06 1293663.62 C4 38+99.59 169368.60 1294200.98 C5 10"21'05" 69.77 753.00 139.14 51 + 75.28 169333.18 1295476.18 C6 11"30'01" 207.33 1997.00 413.17 54+61.25 169272.77 1295756.10 35 -,- ~ ~ w z ~ I ~ TOC LEFT CL SCALE L-_____________________ ~ ______ ~-L~~~ __ ~~ ___ ~ ____ ~ _________ ~ _________________ ~ _______ ~ __ ~ ______ ~ ________________ ~TOC RIGHT 11111 _ ___ 11111_-- 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 33+00 34+00 35+00 37+00 20 10 0 FEET 20 40 r-r-T-------------------------~--r-;~ Perteet I--+--+--------------+---+---I~ Engineering, Inc. No. Oat. Revision By ...... 07 Colby Avenue· Suile 900 • Everell, IA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 ~ AHE.r,D OF nro C\..'RVE Oro.,. By Dot. kNI ..2£!L!a. Designed BY ~ Chec .... By ~ !l,!H ..2£!L!a. _ ..... By SCAt.!: . CllY OF RENTON Horil STRANDER BLVD '-.20' EXTENSION -STAGE ~ 33+00 TO 37+00 ,-.5' PrQject Number ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE ~ Drowing No. RP3 I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ 0 0 + ~ 'r--. 1"'1 « I- ~ (f) W Z ....J 11: ~ I ~ J ~ « I -.1JL ~ ~ ___ FilL -------FILL ------ SW CORNER IrURB RETURN ELEVATIONS STATION ON ROADWAY TOC EL PC 1 4 '1 2 3 4 PT -~-: .l5 ES T -L = I '" ~< ~ ~ i " w ~ 0 i 38+00 r-+-~------------------------~--~~ Perteet r-+-+--------------+--+--I~ Engineering, Inc. ~ .1 ~ .. ..... . -~ p (J) 39+00 No. Date: Revision By """,. 7 Colby A.enue • Suile 900 • EvereU, IA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 J> :/i /' /' 40+00 /' /' . i i /1 NE CORNER r.C"'U""'R""B""-;::R""E~T~U~RN~E;';L~EV;'-;A7-T;;:"IO""N""S"'" PC 1 4 1 2 3 4 PT STATION ON ROADWAY TOC EL --- CURB RETURN ELEVATIONS STATION ON ROADWAY TOC EL PC 174 NUMBER 1 2 Cl ,u4 PT • ';.;n t.':'~ ""7! C2 6= T = C3 R =35 L = C4 C5 C6 ---- Drown By Dote DELTA 728'31" 50'24'21" 49'02'09" 10'21'05" 11'30'01" TOC LEFT CL o..;;!B~~~'=oBY;::---~ i'hChecE!iPC ... =--eyo:---~ -~ ~ v." AHEAD OF TI-iE. CURVE ..!""o;~'~!=-ByO::--~ ,·.5' Pr'OJeet Numbef" _210+' CONSTRUCTION NOTES: o NOTES TANGENT RADIUS LENGTH 68.36 1003.00 136.51 212.17 448.00 396.30 201.74 442.00 378.51 69.77 753.00 139.14 207.33 1997.00 413.17 SCALE 111,.-__ 111"_-- 20 10 o FEET 20 40 PI STA NORTHING EASTING 11+18.85 169857.46 1291604.50 27+42.39 169886.79 1293227.99 33+87.17 169374.06 1293663.62 38+99.59 169368.60 1294200.98 51 + 75.28 169333.18 1295476.18 54+61.25 169272.77 1295756.10 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CI1Y OF RENTON RP4 STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 1 37+00 TO 41+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I if • §' I ~ • ~ I I I / __ -_0- DENSE TREES --.J!L 0 0 + ~ '" I"') ~ ~ en w z -J ~ :::c () I-« ~ ~ 41+00 r-r-~------------------------~--~~ Perteet r-r--t--------------------------+--l--I ~ Engineering, Inc. 43+00 ... Dote Revision By _. 07 Colby Avenue· Suile 900 • Eve",ll, YA 98201 • (425) 252-noo -* . ./ 1k * ~f -i't 1~ "'~ ""';~ y, 0 0 ..--. ."~ 0 'v l:J 44+00 Ai-lEAD OF 'THE CURVE \vl ~c?-W{ V"'-"'K 0 DeNSE TR 0 0 + ..- ........ v « I-en w Z :J :::c ~ « ~ TOC LEFT CL TOC RIGHT 45+00 0.""" By Dote SCAlE BKS l.QL.l&l Oesi9ned By HOI"iZ l.QL.l&l ,"·20' Checked By Vert .!!lLlLlI.l 1".~· Approved By Project Number 220 .. 4 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: @ NOTES SCALE 11111-__ 11111--- 20 .10 o FEET 20 40 CllY OF 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 41+00 TO 45+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE Drawing No. RP5 I I. I I I· I I I -------FILL ---,."..,,..,.,,...,.,c::. [ES I BruSh \hETLAND 27E I DEJJS[ TPEE.S TREES I I ~ 0 0 + I ~ f'.. I") « I- ~ Ul I W z ::J I ~ I ! ~ I ~ « --1!L ~ I f ;;: '" ~ i 11 g I '" I!: '" ~ u I f ~ Alrt:.AD 1."')f Th'"'E Ct.JRVE I No. Oot. Revision By Ap.'. 07 Colby Avenue· Suile 900 • Everell, 'A 98201 • (425) 252-7700 0 0 + TOC LEFT CL TOC RIGHT 49+00 Drown By Qote SCAlE ~~ed BY .!2L.llll.l. Horiz .!2L.llll.l. 1-"20' Checked BY Vert .!2illQJ. 1-.. 5' Approved By Project Number 22044 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: @ NOTES SCALE 11111-__ 11111_-- 20 10 o FEET 20 40 CITY OF 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 45+00 TO 49+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE Drawing No. RP6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \'v'ETLANO 27F h'-vsh DENSE TREE') ~ 0 0 + ~ " ...., « I- ~ en w z :::i ~ :::c ~ « ~ :::E 49+00 50+00 r-+-~------------------------~--~~ Perteet I--+-+-----------------+----+---I~ Engineering, Inc. -It) 8 + U; 51+00 No. Dale Revision -. 07 Colby A'enue • Suite 900 • E.erelL IA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 1 . 52+00 I / I I ! Dra.n By Dale sc.u: BKS ~ Designed BY Horiz 10(J/03 '-_20' Checked By Vert 101l10J ' .... r _dBy Project Nurn~ 220 •• CONSTRUCTION NOTES: @ NOTES SCALE 11111-__ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11111_-- 20 10 o FEET 20 40 CITY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 49+00 TO 52+50 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE Oro.;nq No. RP7 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :g • Ii I z I ~ ;;: U) I U) c 0 i ~ '" w I +:: 0 i E I I FLOW FROM DETENTION VAULT I.E. 15.1 LEVEL "4·', r~ CONCRETE OIL BAFFLE EL 14.1 ENERGY DISIPATION PAD. S' DEPTH 2'-4' ROCK W/GEOTEXTILE UNDERLAYER REMOVABLE 4'X6' VENTILATION GRATE. SPACE 13' OC. OVER ENTIRE LENGTH II II II ===============n p~ VIEW SAND FILTER DETAIL N.T.S. OUTLET I.E. 10.S r-+-1-------------------------~-+~~ Perteet 1--+--+---------------------------+---+----1 ~ Engineering, Inc, No. Dot. Revision ...,. 707 Colby Avenue' Suite 900 ' Ev .... ll. 'A 98201 • (425) 252-7700 OVERFLOW NOTCH ELEV. r- WSDOT RING '" COVER TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-25. LABELED "STORM" II---r----'++--S" SHEAR GATE OUTFALL PIPE RISER DIA. 01 SECTION '" LIFT HANDLE IN FROM VAULT/TANK WSDOT TYPE 2 CATCH BASIN SEE PLANS FOR DIA. NOTE: CONSTRUCT THE CONTROL STRUCTURE PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-3. CONTROL STRUCTURE N.T.S. STAGE 3 STAGE 1 IlEIBfllOH 11 12 I) CONTROL CONTROL STRUCTURE 1 STRUCTURE 2 LOCATION '01 (IN.) 4.55 NOTCH 16.15 ELEVATION NOTCH 0.22 WIDTH (FT.) OVERFLOW 17.0 ELEVATION RISER DIA. (IN.) IS" OUTLET PIPE 15.1' ELEVATION CENTER OF GRATE • AU.. DIMIEIERS NIE. TO 11£ 1/ff" N:REMENTS. (Hown By Dole "'Des;;';~"'~ed;;n;8Y;;--.1l1.LM.. "'Chec!!,!EW~~:ns:BY=---.1l1.LM.. DJH .1l1.LM.. Approved By f3 CONTROL STRUCTURE 3 2.S0 16.15 0.05 IS.0 IS~ 15.1 Hariz Vorl "LA NIA PrO;ee1 Number 22044 STAGE 2 14 CONTROL STRUCTURE 4 3.22 16.70 0.04 ·IS.5 IS" 15.1 15 CONTROL STRUCTURE 5 1.66 16.65 0.03 17.9 12" 15.1 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -PHASE 1 WATER QUALITY VAULT DETAIL Orowinlil No. DD1 I I I ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix C-2 STAGE 2 CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE PLANS 1~lperteet Engineering Incorporated I" 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I. I I I, ~ I :l; ~ z ! I t ~ U) I I " w ~ " ~ I ~ I SECTION 25~ TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. ..... -~ -.------.. -~ , ,IE: 10.60 "" , ~ 0 0 + ~ 0> ~ « I-- ~ CJ) W Z ....J ...JL'I c..> I--« --1.Q..... ~ I WULAND Z7i , ~ ~ ~ ..J...2-.. --.1Q....... TOC LEFT CL L-____ ~ ____ ~ ______ ~ ____ ~ ______ ~ ____ ~ ____________ ~ __________________ ~ ____________ ~ ____ ~ ______ ~ ____ ~ ____________ ~ ____ ~ ______ ~TOC RIGHT 49+00 50+00 51+00 52+00 53+00 r-+-~------------------------~--~~ Perteet t--+--+---------------+--+---I'=_ Engineering, Inc. ... Dote Revision By ....,. 07 Colby Avenue' Suite 900 • Everett. fA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 ... \HEAD OF TI·TE CURVE. Drown By Dote SCAt,E HK~ Designed 8y .!QLUQJ.. Horil .!2LUlU.. '-.20' Checked By ~ .!QLUQJ. Approved By ~ Projec:I' Number ~ CONSTRUCTION NOTES: @ NOTES SCALE 11111-__ 11111_-- 20 10 o FEET 20 40 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CllY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 49+00 TO 53+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE Otawinq No. RP3 I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I :l; ~ z 1-!l I t ~ ., ~ ~ I ., Ii: " w !;:: u i I E I ~\ ~)_.J /' / / ~ 0 0 + ~ I") 10 « t- ~ (/) W z :::J ~ I (,) t-« ~ ~ ~3 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. '-' ~ ~ ~ ~ :::J I -1L (,) t-« ~ -1Q...- I TOC LEFT! CL L-__________________________________________ ~ ______ ~ ____________________ ~ ______________ ~ ____ ~ ______________________ ~ ____ ~~ ____________ ~ ____ ~ TOC RIGHT 53+00 54+00 r-+-~--------------------------r_+_;~ Perteet t---t----t-------------------t----t--'---I ~ Engineering, Inc. 55+00 No. Dole Revision By App<. 7 Colby Avenue· Suile 900 • Everell. fA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 56+00 AHEAD C.f TIlE CV"RVE 57+00 Orown By Dol. SCALE ot!~~ed BY ~ -;. .1WLll,t ~ Checked BY V." ~ '''.S" Approved By firOJlltct Number ~ . CONSTRUC]ON NOTES: @ NOTES SCALE 11111-~ IIIII_~ 20 10 o FEET 20 40 CllY OF 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 53+00 TO 57+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE Oro.inC] No. RP4 I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I ~ • ~ I I ~ ~ '" ~ ~ I l: £ " w !;:: u I I E I ~ 0 0 + ~ '" L() « I- ~ Ul W z :J ~ :::r: u I-« ~ :?! .. -.-.---~-G _:..::.=:JI I . x _ .... _ ... - x --.-... --x "'--x ----x ----l -. __ 1. ____ x _\ __ .'. __ ------ '\ ----FILL ---_--,';J'"f!:. ,...---RLL_~-=--=----_ FI.b!--::_-_ ------- SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. ~-ma !RiJ.J.=::U'; ~ ,[ s::;.15.74 WErLAND 27, i ~~ ~:~~.~~ --------FILL ---;:, C!}===; I CEt 2899 : RI"h·~D.t;2 I :~ ~:: ;.~~ iRlM= ! iE N· -~--' - TOC LEFT'· CL L-__ ~ ___ ~ _______ ~ __ ~ ___ ~ ___ ~ ______ ~ _____ ~ ___ ~ ________ ~ _______________ ~ ____ ~ ___ ~ ____ ~TOC RIGHT CONSmUCTION NOTES: @ NOTES SCALE 11111-__ 11111_--57+00 58+00 59+00 60+00 61+00 20 10 o FEET 20 40 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION r-+-~------------------------~--r_;~ Perteet t--+--t----------------------------J--+---I ~ Engineering, Inc. No. Dot. Revision By Appr. 7 Colby Avenue· Suile 900 • Everell. fA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 AHEAD OF 11iE CURVE Dro.n By Dote .dD.9~s~~~ .. "..,.8,,---~ i'>Ch:;::oc"-...,,,,,,S,;---~ ~ Approved By SCAlE ' Vert ..i5' Project Number 22()44 CllY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 57+00 TO 61+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE Orawinq No. RP5 I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I if I :l; ~ z I I t ;! ., ~ ~ g I ., ~ w !;:: u ~ I f I d; I [~rl ! I ;:n,{",20 )9 E · .... '757 I 1 'i: $:111751 ~ '/ , ...J -"'_'- \ , fill.L-= o o ,.y/ '. + V r-t-;::~ 15:17 ' ~! ,....~ I j I tOo.. 1 Ii" 0:::: ' I i « '~'I' ii, : I! r-(!) 00 i / i I ! 62+00 (/) Z ' -----___ f -++ -f----'--t --+~""'4-0 ..... w .!= ':.()MH 2~28 ! ~ / ~ z « ~) cr.Q -0:::: OJ lao ~~ ~ " \!Ii () W ,-~ " -11*--------' r-en= '-n--' « ~ 30 o o + 25'~ -(0 ~ __ FILL __ -~_i'~iI~ --' -! 2~G7! ,22';6 l ;.01 i 61+00 I ,'" I I ~t ~ IH--I---87 ~ ---i-8--J--if--pq-. ii, 62+00 \, , , " '" ~ '>.." 63+00 ~+-+-------------------------~~~~ Perteet ~+-+-------------------------~~~'=-Engineering, Inc. SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , "',,"" ",,' / I" ", -_" _________ , __ " --I .~ ------------/ FILL -------flU ~,--, i CB H!57 ! ! ~~;~~6~:~ 64+00 AHEAD Of TIlE CURVE _, 07 Colby AYenue • Suile 900 • EYerett, WA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 No. Dale , ~ , Q",,==.-==-= CUT-- ,,30 10 65+00 Drown By Oat. seAl( e:K~ ~ Desiqned By Horiz .!!1LUll '-.20' Checked By Vert ~ ,"_5' Approved By Project Number 22044 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: @ NOTES SCALE 11111-__ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11111_-- 20 10 o FEET 20 40 CITY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 61 +00 TO 65+50 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE Orowinq No. RP6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 66+00 67+00 r-+-~------------------------~~~~ Perteet 1-+-+---------------+---+---1 ~ Engineering, Inc. SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. 68+00 AHEAD OF 111E C0RVE N •. Oole Revision By _. 07 Colby Avenue· Suite 900 • Everett. WA 98201 • (425) 252-nOO 69+00 Drawn By, a:K~ Designed BY Checked By Appnwed BY 001. SCALE J.Qfl1ll Hariz J.Qfl1ll 1-.20· V ... l J.Qfl1ll ~ Project Number 22""" CONSTRUCTION NOTES: o NOTES SCALE 111,.-__ 111,._-- 20 10 o FEET 20 40 CITY OF 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 65+50 TO 69+50 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE Orawinc;l No. RP7 I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I ~ J 1 I t ~ '" ~ ~ '8 g I ~ s. () ~ jj I 'E I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. u L1 ======-C-U-T __ SD_-_-_~_I~_,~_~_~_'G_--_S~C-:J~-------~---_"~_~ ___ '~-~~--~ C~T~J$~~==--=~~,;-~S~D;t;;;;;~~~~;;~~~~~~~l~==~V.~~~~=§~;===== 0 ll) +CO ------~--------------~------------~~----------_4----------------------~------------~----~~O o ~--------------------~r-----------~----------~----------------------~------------------~+ro '---. ......... ....-; .... "'.,..---1 I"") ...... 0> ...... CO 11. ' a:::: b.=====~7_====~~==r_=~====~t=====~=t==~~====~====~~~~==~=====t~~~ ----w------------W~,----------~-----~--------W--------N'~~r--'----W-----«(!) «(!) ~z 70+00 --,--------f ---- w3: z« -a:::: .-J 0 ' G :::r::w Uw I-(/) « ~ BP ----------SP 1----CUT----------+--------CUT IE: 18.50 70+00 71+00 " I-(/)Z , N 89"40'34-W 72+00 --sw -27TH sf. ---+-__ -_~~~~::::!!~O!:::!-0.6""" ====~= ~ ~ ~---so! so so-_ a:::: ~ .-Jo ==~=t=G_=======c====~~1=====~~==~~J:::r::w ~~~~====~~==~~~~~~~~UW ::II I-(/) « ---r~---=~~==~--~~--~~--~~~~ PU5r iNOI<:,t.TORI Go ;~2 VAL 'Fi RiLl:r19.20 -II=" N ... l':' ~I 72+00 73+00 r-+-~--------------------------~~~ Perteet t--+--i--------------t--+---I~ Engineering, Inc. AHEAO Of TIlE CURVE No, Oal. RlNision By Appt. 7 Colby Avenue· Suile 900 • Everett, IA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 Drown e" Oat. BKS l2LUlU. Designed By .lQilLQ,l. Checked By ~ Approved By SCAu: Horiz ,".20' Veri CONSTRUCTION NOTES: @ NOTES SCALE 11111-~ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION IIIII_~ 20 10 o FEET 20 40 CITY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 69+50 TO 73+00 's' Project Number ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE 22~4 OrawincJ No. RP8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :r I ~ • Ii z ! I t ~ '" g ~ I I '" Ii: ,. w ~ U D I f I ...JQ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ L.:.::..:.:::=.:..JI .. l/ .-----._ .. __ .. _____ .... _. ___ J .~ : ~i " --'-30-· S-D C._U_T ___ 5D ---J 9}MH '2~' CUT~ 9~:::?5 ---8P 5P 8~ .---__ fiP ______ ----------~ --- ._-----_ .. __ ...... _ ...... _--. [5 ~ ----.-8P -.---~- ~ Ult-====--:::-:::-~ CUT-_____ _ CB 1YPE 2 GE: IE: 13.25 0 0 + I") I"- « t-Ul w Z ...J I 0 t-« ~ 75+00 r-+-~------------------------~~+-4~ Perteet t-t---t--------------+--+---I'=_ Engineering, Inc. No. Dote Revision Ely ... ,. 7 Colby Avenue· Suite 900 • Everett. fA 9820\ • (425) 252-7700 0' ~t ...-'i'-------------- [----1 I I ; I l l r-- l .JL ~ _5_ _0_ -5 TOC LEFT CL 76+00 Orown By Dote SCAlE ~~;,.., BY J..QLUQ,l. -~ .!2LUQJ. 1~.20· Checked By Vert .J.QLUll '-... 5" ........ Ely Project Number .t\H:EAD OF 1HE aJRVE 22044 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: o NOTES SCALE 11111-__ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11111_-- 20 10 o FEET 20 40 CITY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 73+00 TO E.O.P ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE Dr~.in9 No. RP9 I I I I I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix C-3 STAGE 3 CONCEPTUAL CONVEYANCE PLANS I"CI P erteet Engineering Incorporated I I I I 'I I I I I I I I ii: a: ~ z I ~ I t i e 'i ~ e l\- I g i ! _5_ 0 I i i _0_ 1 I ~ ~ I I ! ~ ~ I i I No. Date . SEC. 25, T 23N, R 45E. W.M • !~----.- \ ~S~J.i S -~ \ .17~ ).. / --------rp ... ----- _--8f>-__ ~ L--' _ STRANOER BLVD. CONSTRUCTION NOTES: o NOTES -.1L a a + ~ Ol « I- (f) w _5_ z :J I _0_ U I-« ~ ~ TOC lEFT CL SCALE 11111-__ 40 11111_--~ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ~TOC RIGffi 20 10 20 o 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 FEET Revision CI1Y OF RENTON Drawing No. Onown By Oat. SCALE OKS ~ RP1 Designed By Hariz STRANOER BLVO EXTENSION RENTON .1QLUQ.l ,".20' Checked By Vorl B.O.P. TO STA 9+00 .1QLUQ.l ,._~' AFfE.-\n OF THE OJRVE Approved By Project Number ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE 22044 I~I Perteet ~ Engineering, Inc. t:l07 Colby Avenue· Suite 900 • Everett, 1IA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 By Appr. I I I I I I I I Ii I I I I I ~ '" J I I ~ ~ .< e i '" I x 1 0 I ~ ~ I I I ~ 2: '1! ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I " f E I No. Oote o o 35 + __ Ol « ~ U> 30 --w Z ....J ~I U ~ « ~:E 9+00 / ! J.. Revision 10+00 By Appr. R 45E, W.M. STRANDER BLVD. STA. 10+00.00= VAUEY HWY. STA. 120+00.0\> it i if J 1 \\,-)~ I , I .r~--\n tS -\ 11+00 12+00 I~I Perteet ~ Engineering, Inc. ?:707 Colby Avenue' Suit. 900 • Everett. 1IA 98Z01 • (4Z5) Z5Z-TIOO A.HE:\D OF TIm ct}RVE j ! --J-/ I ~ 0 0 + ~ ~ ~ « ~ U> ~ W Z ....J I ~ U ~ « :E ~ ~ TOC LEtT CL TOC RIGHT 13+00 Drown By Oote SCAlE BKS .!2L.UQJ. Des",""" By Hori, ~ 1-.20' Checked By vort ~ 1·-~' ........ By Project Number 22044 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: o NOTES LEGEND CURB RETURN DATA. SEE SHEET CR 1 FOR RETURN INFORMATION SCALE 20 10 0 FEET 20 CI1Y OF RENTON STRANOER BLVD EXTENSION 9+00 TO 13+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE Omwing No. RP2 I I I I I I I I I· I I I ~ 0: ~ z 1 ~ I ! 8. .l! ~ Q ~ Q. e I i e ~ Q #- I i i' ~ ! , II ~ ~ ~ I ~ .! il ~ ~ 0 0 + I"') .- « I-(/) w Z -J I 0 I-« ~ o ." SEC. 25, T 23N, R 45E, W.M. ---+---CUT--4-_V I: o o + '" 30 .--- « I- (/)~ W Z ;...J I~ o I-« ~~ . CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 0) NOTES SCALE 20 10 0 20 40 I "13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17 +00 FEET ir--.--~----------------------------------~-r--r--------------------------------'----------------------~----------r-----------r-----------r-----~----------------------------------_r,==~~ Drawing No. I~I Perteet I No. ~te R~,;on ~ ~P" ~~lb~~~~~~~r~~~~. ~~~o~ • (~) ~2-7700 CITY OF RENTON Drawn By Dote SCALE alSS ~ RP3 Oe8i9nttCI By Horiz STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION .!OLUQ.1. 1 .... Z0· Checked By Vert 13+00 TO 17+00 ..l.!ILJLlU. 1"-::1:' ~ ........ ~ Pro}ect Number ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE --22044-AHEAD OF TIlE ClJRVE _ .. ---- I I I I' 'I' I I I ,I, I I I I I·; I I J I I I No. Dot. ~ ~ ~ ~ ---1!L _ 5_ 0 0 + I""-..- « ~ (f) W Z --l I () ~ « ~ :f iHAiN ! I. ,,_ _ .-~~. ------26.1 x_ ..... __ ... \ 17+00 Revision SEC. 25, T 23N, R 45E, W.M. 18+00 19+00 I~I Perteet ~ Engineering, Inc. By Appr. 2707 Colby Avenue' Suite 900 • Everett. n 98201 • (425) 252-7700 CONSTRucnON NOTES: o NOTES CUT --7--:>-=_ .......... '--_-cur- ~ 0 0 + ..-~ N « ~ (f) ~ w Z --l I --1L () ~ « ~ ~ _5 _ Toe LEfT CL SCALE 20+00 Toe RIGHT 21+00 20 10 0 FEET 20 40 CITY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION Drawing No. RP4 17+00 TO 21+00 r\.HE.ID OF TIrE CURVE ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE 'I I I I ,I I I" I I I· :c a: ~ z I f ~ ~ a. e q. Ii 0 I I I ,~ ~ I I It ~ ~ I~ ! ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SEC. 25, T 23N, / __ -,L...---CUT; j --------:-CUT 7~ !-CUT ! --,,---! / "~-------------! ! FILL ! f I I ! I ! f 0 0 + ..- N « I-(J) w z .....J :c () l-« ~ R 45E, W.M. FILL c.:= __ ~2~3-----~ ~ 0 0 + LO ~ N « I- (J) ~ w " z ::J I ~ () I-« ~ ~ ~ TOC LEFT CL TOC RIGHT CONSTRUCTION NOTES: o NOTES r J I~ SCALE ~.::..~-~ 20 10 0 i i 20 40 25+00 FEET I ir-,-~ ________ 2_1_+_0_0 __________________ ~ __ r-22,+rO_0 _______________________ 2_3_+_0_01r------------------,--2-4+--00----~----------._--------1r----_r--------~~~~~~~------__ ~==~-; CITY OF RENTON OrawineJ No. I On>_ By Oat. SCAlE ilKS -LQL.l&l RP5 Designed BY Horiz STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION ~ 1-·20' Checked By v.rt 21+00 TO 25+00 Sh7, -1lILUQJ. , ... ~' Approved By Project Number ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE --22044-of Total I~I Perteet ~ Engineering, Inc. RENT~ No. Dote 2707 Colby Avenue· Suite 900 • Everett. 'fA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 AHE.-ill: Of THE ctJRVE. By Appr. ~~ __ ~ __________________________________ ~~~ __ L_ ____________________ L __ _ I CONSTRUCTION NOTES: I o NOTES I I' "-\ I' I 'I I' I I' I I ~ ~ 0 0 0 l{) I + + ~ l{) (J) 30 N N--- « « I l-I- ~ (/) (/) ~ W W Z Z I ....J ....J ~ I I~ () () l-I-« « I, ~ ~ ~---1L I TOC LEFT CL SCALE I I No. Dat. ~ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ~TOCRIGffi FEET 20 40 20 10 0 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 Revision By Appr. CITY OF RENTON Orowing No. Drawn By Dat. SCAlf aK~ .l.!lLUa RP6 Designed By Horiz STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION ~ 1".20' Checked By Vert 25+00 TO 29+50 iWLQJ. 1".S' Ap ...... -By Project Number ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE 22044 I~I Perteet ~ Engineering, Inc. AHE."I.DOf'THEC'tJRYE 27m Colby Avenue· Suite 900 • Everett, 1rA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 '---'--....... _-------------------------'----'--'--------------------------------'---------.. _-_.- ,I; I 1\ II I' .1 II' I ' .. I I I I t I' I 1\ I I I "- AppendixD I SOIL BORING LOGS FROM: Geotechnical Report for Conceptual Design- Strander Boulevard/27th Street Improvements, Renton and Tukwila, Washington, February 27, 2004 by Shannon and Wilson 1"(1 P erteet Engineering Incorporated ,I; , ) Ii J -: .. I: ! : ,I;; I: f i .1; 'I': \1 I: I I~ ,II; I- I t~ , 1\, I I I SHANNON & WILSON,INC. APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS 21-1-09369-002 ,I, i -; , I: , .' I ,' , . ,I' j' ,I :1' ,I I t , I I I; I I~ f I- t, SHANNON &WILSON.ING. APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A.I INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... A-I A.2 CURRENT SOIL BORINGS .......................................................................................... A-I A.2.1 Drilling Procedures ........................................................................................... A-2 A.2.2 '. Soil Sampling .................................................................................................... A-2 A.2.2.1 Thin-Walled Tube Samples .............................................................. A-3 A.2.2.2 Standard Penetration Test Samples ................................................... A-3 A.2.3 Soil Classification ............................................................................................. A-4 A.2.4 Monitoring Well Installation ....................................................................... : .... A-4 A.2.S Well Development ............................................................................................ A-5 A.2.6 Vibrating Wire Piezometer Installation ............................................................ A-S A.2.7 Groundwater Observations ............................................................................... A-S A.2.8 Boring Logs ...................................................................................................... A-S A.3 PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATIONS ............................................. , ............................. A-6 A.4 REFERENCE ................................................................................................................... A-6 TABLE Table No. A-I Previous Exploration Data 2\·\·09369-002-R \ Faa.doc/wp/eel 21-1-09369-002 A-i , , ; 1 I i " TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) . SHANNON &WILSON.INC. I ! { LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. I' A-I Soil Classification and Log Key (2 sheets) A-2 Log of Boring B-101 MW I' A-3 Log of Boring B-102 (2 sheets) A-4 Log of Boring B-103 (4 sheets) A-5 Log of Boring B-104 MW IVWP 1\ A-6 Log of Boring B-105 VWP (3 sheets) A-7 Log of Boring B-106 MW/VWP A-8 Log of Boring B-107 (3 sheets) I A-9 Log of Boring B-108 MW/VWP A-I0 Log of Boring B-109 (2 sheets) A-ll Log of Boring B-IlO MW 'I: A-12 Log of Boring B-l11 A-13 Log of Boring B-112 A-14 Log of Boring B-201 ,Ii A-15 Log of Boring B-202 A-16 Log of Boring B-203 A-17 Log of Boring B-204 I A-18 Log of Boring B-205 A-19 Log of Boring B-301 (2 sheets) 'I~ A-20 Log of Boring B-302 (2 sheets) A-21 Log of Boring B-303 A-22 Log of Boring B-304 I A-23 Log of Test Pit TP-30 1 A-24 Log of Test Pit TP-302 A-25 Log of Test Pit TP-303 A-26 Log of Boring B-305 (2 sheets) I; A-27 Log of Boring B-306 (2 sheets) A-28 Log of Boring B-307 I, A-29 Log of Boring B-308 A-30 Log of Boring B-309 A-31 Log of Boring B-31O I: A-32 Log of Boring B-311 A-33 Log of Boring B-312 A-34 Log of Boring B-313 I A-35 Log of Boring B-314 A-36 Log of Boring B-315 A-37 Log of Boring B-316 (2 sheets) 'I A-38 Log of Test Pit TP-304 A-39 Log of Test Pit TP-305 A-40 Log of Boring B-317 I A-41 Log of Test Pit TP-306 A-42 Log of Boring B-318 A-43 Log of Boring C-301 I .' 21-I-09369-002-R I Faa.doc/wp/ee! 21-1-09369-002 I A-ii ,I' I I, I> II I I: I; I' I I, , 1- I' I I" I, SHANNON &WILSON,INC. APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS A.I INTRODUCTION The current subsurface explor~tion program consisted of drilling 17 borings and installing 5 monitoring wells and 4 vibrating wire piezometers (VWPs) between the West Valley Highway and East Valley Road. The boring locations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, presented as Figure 2 in the main text of the report. The borings are designated B-lOl through B-112 (Segment 1 from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW) and B-201 through B-205 (Segment 2 from Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road). In addition, several previous explorations from other studies were used. The approximate locations of the previous explorations are shown on Figure 2 in the main text of the report. Perteet Engineering, Inc. surveyed the locations and elevations of our 100-series borings completed in Segment 1 after completion of drilling operations. Elevations are relative to the NA VD88 datum. The approximate locations of our Segment 2 borings were determined by measuring from existing site features located on the site plan. The approximate locations of previous explorations by others were determined from previous reports and by measuring from existing site features located on the site plan. Plotting the exploration location on a topographic map provided by Perteet Engineering, Inc. approximated the elevations of our Segment 2 borings and the previous explorations. A.2 CURRENT SOIL BORINGS The subsurface conditions along the proposed 6,000-foot-long alignment were explored with 5 deep and 12 relatively shallow soil borings. The five deep borings, designated B-102, B-I03, B-105 VWP, B-107, and B-I09, were drilled to depths ranging from 101.5 to 181.5 feet. The 12 shallow borings, designated B-lOl MW, B-104 MW/VWP, B-106 MWIVWP, B-108 MWNWP, B-110 MW through B-112, and B-201 through B-205, were drilled to depths ranging from 26.5 to 51.5 feet. The soil borings were accomplished between July 22 and August 6,2003. Three other borings were originally planned but were not completed during this phase of work, at the direction of Perteet Engineering, Inc. Two of the borings were to be along proposed railroad shooflies; however, it is not known if or where shooflies may be used for this project. The third boring was to be near Springbrook Creek along SW 2ih Street for a new creek overcrossing; however, at the time of drilling, Perteet determined that the existing box culvert would be used, and no new overcrossing would be considered. 21·1-09369-00!-R 1 Fa •. doc/wp/lkd 21-1-09369-002 A-I I I I I SHANNON &WILSON.INC. A.2.t Drilling Procedures Geo-Tech Explorations of Kent, Washington, drilled the soil borings under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson, Inc., using truck-mounted, drill rigs. The borings were drilled using open-hole mud-rotary methods. Mud rotary borings are advanced by circulating thick drilling mud from the rig down through standard 2%-inch outside-diameter (O.D.) rods to a 4Ys-inch or 6-inch-diameter tri-co~e bit at the bottom of the borehole. The larger tri-cone bit was used at monitoring well and VWP locations. The drilling mud is a mixture of bentonite powder and water. Cuttings are transported from the bottom of the borehole to the surface by drilling mud flowing between the drilling rods and the sides of the borehole. The cuttings are deposited in a settling tank at the ground surface and the mud is recirculated. Soil samples are taken from the bottom of the mud-filled open hole. For worker safety, field screening was performed to evaluate the potential for hydrocarbon contamination. Volatile screening techniques included the use of a photoionization detector (PID), which provides a qualitative measurement of the volatile organics in soil, as well as visual and olfactory observations on the soil samples obtained above and below the groundwater level, respectively. Based on the PID readings and visual/olfactory methods of observation, no signs of potential contamination were noted in any of the boreholes except boring B-203, sample S-3. In boring B-203, sample S-3, at a depth of ab?ut 7.5 feet below ground surface, an odor was detected using olfactory methods; an environmental sample was obtained and submitted for testing. The boring-B-203 soil cuttings and drilling mud were transferred into three drums by the drilling subcontractor and stored on City of Tukwila property until environmental analytical testing was complete. After completion of drilling and sampling, all borings except those with monitoring well or VWP installations were sealed with bentonite grout and chips. Borings with monitoring wells and VWPs have an "MW" and "VWP" after the boring number (for example, B-104 MW/VWP has both a monitoring well and a VWP installation). All cuttings and drilling mud were left on Cityof Renton or City of Tukwila property. We understand that Conoco-Phillips will take possession of the three drums containing potentially contaminated soils stored on City of Tukwila property. A.2.2 Soil Sampling During drilling along the proposed alignment, representative soil samples were obtained. In general, soil samples were collected at 2.5-foot intervals to a depth of 30 feet and at 5-foot 21·1·09369·00!·R I Faa.doc/wp/eet 21-1-09369-002 A-2 , . ; • , I; ,'. I, I' ,I I, I I, I I :1' I, ,I I' I I I 1-' SHANNON & WILSON. INC. intervals thereafter. Two types of soil samplers were used: thin-walled tubes and standard split spoons. Symbols used on the boring logs indicate which sampler was used at each depth interval. The sampler types are discussed ih the following sections. A.2.2.1 Thin-Walled Tube Samples Relatively undisturbed samples of cohesive soils were obtained using thin-walled ,(Shelby) tubes in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation: D 1587, Standard Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Geotechnical Sampling of Soils. This sampling method employs a 3-inc~h O.D. thin-walled, steel tube connected to a sampling head that is attached to the drill rods., The tube is slowly pushed by the hydraulic rams of the drill rig into the soil below the bottom of the drilled hole and then retracted to obtain a sample. The tube samples were classified in the field and recorded on the logs by our field representative. The tube samples were carefully sealed and transported upright to our laboratory for testing. A.2.2.2 Standard Penetration Test Samples To obtain disturbed soil samples from borings, Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were perfonned in general accordance with the ASTMDesignation: D 1586, Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. In the SPT, a 2-inch O.D., I.375-inch inside-diameter (LD.), split-spoon sampler is driven with a 140-pound ha!11'mer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to achieve each of three 6-inch increments 'of sampler penetration is recorded. The number of blows required to cause the last 12 inches of penetration is tenned the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value). The number of blows causing the last 12 inches of penetration is tenned the Standard Penetration Resistance or blow count, N. When penetration resistances exceed 50 blows for 6 inches or less of penetration, the test is tenninated and the number of blows recorded. The SPTs were recorded by our field representative and are plotted on the boring logs. These values are empirical parameters that provide a means of evaluating the relative density or compactness of cohesion less (granular) soils and the relative consistency (stiffness) of cohesive soils. The tenninology used to describe the relative density or consistency of the soil is presented on Figure A-I. The split-spoon sampler used during the penetration testing recovers a relatively disturbed sample of the soil, which is useful for identification and classification purposes. The 21·I·09369·002·R I Faa,doc/wp/eel 21-1-09369-002 A-3 I, I I' II I , I' I, I I SHANNON &WILSON.INC. samples were classified and recorded on field logs by our representative. The samples were sealed in jars and returned to our laboratory for testing. A.2.3 Soil Classification An engineer or field representative from Shannon & Wilson, Inc. was present throughout the drilling and sampling operations of the current borings. Our representative retrieved representative soil samples and prepared a descriptive field log of the explorations. Classification of the boring samples was based on ASTM Designation: D 2487-98, Standard Test Method for Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes, and ASTM Designation: D 2488-93, Standard Recommended Practice for Description of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), as described on Figure A-I of Appendix A, was used to classify the soils encountered in the soil borings. The boring logs in this report represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs. A.2.4 Monitoring 'Veil Installation As part of the investigation, five monitoring wells were installed to evaluate groundwater conditions that may be encountered during construction. Each of the five wells was slug tested to estimate hydraulic parameters, and a pressure transducer/datalogger system was installed in the well closest to the Green River (boring B-I0l MW) to monitor grouri~water level. fluctuations as compared to the Green River water level; the procedures and results of those slug tests and water level monitoring are described in Appendix C. Monitoring wells are designated with an "MW." Because the borings were drilled using a mud rotary drilling rig, the drilling mud was pumped from the hole prior to installation of the well screen and riser pipe. The monitoring wells were constructed of new, commercially fabricated, threaded, flush-jointed. 2-inch-diameter Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Well screen generally consisted of new, commercially fabricated, threaded, lO-foot-long. flush-jointed. 2-inch- diameter, O.OI-inch-wide, machine-slotted screen. A silica sand filter pack was poured in the annular space between the boring and the well screen to about 2 to 3 feet above the screen. A minimum 2-foot-thick bentonite seal was placed in the annulus above the filter pack to within 3 feet of the surface. The wells were completed slightly higher than the elevation of the surrounding grade by placing an 8-inch-diameter flush-mount steel monument over the top of the borehole. The monuments were set above the adjacent grade to reduce surface water inflow. The steel monuments were set in place with quickset concrete. 21·1·09369·002·R 1 Faa.doc/wp/eel 21-1-09369-002 A-4 , ; I ' Ii 'I, I: i I I, I I I I I I' '.' I I I I I 10 I: SHANNON &WILSON,ING. A.2.S 'Well Development Monitoring well development was performed to enhance the hydraulic connection between the screened portion of the monitoring well and the surrounding soil. The development procedure consisted of a combination of surging and pumping. The saturated, screened section of each observation well was surged and pumped simultaneously to remove water, drilling mud, and sediment from the bottom of the well. Development equipment consisted of a Waterra TM 2-inch-diameter, Acetyl surge block/check-valve combination attached to the bottom of a dedicated section of semi-rigid, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) tubing. The sediment load of the purged groundwater was measured periodically by filling a container and observing the amount of sediment that settled out. Wells were pumped until no further improvement in water quality was observed. A.2.6 Vibrating Wire Piezometer Installation As part of the investigation, four VWPs were installed to evaluate groundwater conditions that may be encountered during construction. VWPs were installed in four borings and are designated with a "VWP." The VWPs were calibrated and hung at the target installation depths. With the exception of boring B-105, the VWPs were surrounded with filter pack sand from abo!..., 2 feet below the VWP tip to about 2 feet above the VWP. Bent,onite chips were used to fill the annular space within the borehole except at well screen (see above) and VWP depths. Bentonite grout was used at boring B-105 to surround the VWP and fill the annular space within the borehole because of the difficulty placing the filter pack at the target installation depth. The VWP depths are shown on the boring logs. A.2.7 Groundwater Observations Where observed, groundwater was noted during drilling. Groundwater levels in the monitoring wells were also read after well development. Both the during-drilling and the most recent groundwater level measurements from monitoring wells and VWPs are noted on the boring logs. These measurements may not be representati ve of the highest potential groundwater levels. Groundwater monitoring procedures and results are provided in Appendix C. A.2.8 Boring Logs The current boring logs for the proposed alignment are presented in this appendix. A boring log is a written record of the subsurface conditions encountered. It graphically illustrates the geologic units (layers) encountered in the boring and the Unified Soil Classification System 21·I·09369·002·R I Faa,doc/wp/eel 21-1-09369-002 A-5 I I I I, I ,I I I I, I I, I SHANNON &WILSON.INC. (USCS) symbol of each geologic layer. It also includes the natural water content, blow count, and soil strength (where tested). Other information shown on the boring logs includes the groundwater level observations made during drilling, well and VWP construction information (if applicable), ground surface elevation, types and depths of sampling, and Atterberg Limits (where tested). A.3 PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATIONS Several previous subsurface explorations were also used in our study; the approximate locations of these explorations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2, in the main text of the report. The previous subsurface explorations include 18 soil borings, 6 test pits, and 1 Dutch cone penetration test (CPT), designated B-30 1 through B-318, TP-30 1 through TP-306, and C-301, respectively. Table A-I of this appendix summarizes the consultant, project name, completion date, designations, and other figure number for each of the previous explorations. The logs for these explorations are presented as Figures A-19 through A-43. The locations of the explorations were estimated from previous report site plans. A.4 REFERENCE American Society for Testing ,nd Materials (ASTM), 2003, 2003 Annual book of standards, Construction, v. 04.08, Soil and rock (I): D 420 - D 5779: West Consnohocken, Pa. 21·1·09369·002·R I Faa.doc/wp/eel 21-1-09369-002 A-6 , '~ ; . , j ; J I i I, I I, I I I I I I I' .' I ,' Consultant Rittenhouse-Zeman & Associates. Inc. GeoEngineers. Inc. Earth Consultants. Inc. Earth Consultants. Inc. HW A GeoSciences. Inc. Landau Associates. Inc. GeoEngineers. Inc. Environmental Associates. Inc. Earth Consultants. Inc. Notes: B = Boring C = Dutch Cone Penetration TP=Test Pit 21-1-09369-002-R 1 F-TA-l.~lslwp/eet SHANNON &WILSON,INC. TABLE A-I PREVIOUS EXPLORATION DATA Project Name Date Exploration Designation Figure Previous New Number Jack in the Box #8443 June-87 B-1 B-301 A-19 Boeing Longacres Site December-90 16 B-302 A-20 Proposed Warehouse on SW 27th Street July-87 B B-303 A-21 A B-304 A-22 SW 27th Street Warehouse August-94 TP-I TP-301 A-23 TP-13 TP-302 A-24 TP-2 TP-303 A-25 SW 27th Street Culvert Replacement October-98 8H-2 8-305 A-26 BH-I B-306 A-27 Conoco Phillips Tosco Renton Terminal November-02 LAI-15 8-307 A-28 LAI-12 8-308 A-29 LAI-II 8-309 A-30 LAl-1O 8-310 A-31 LAI-I B-311 A-32 LAI-2 B-312 A-33 LAI-3 B-313 A-34 LAI-16 B-314 A-35 Proposed Stores Building February-82 5 8-315 A-36 I 8-316 A-37 TP-7 TP-304 A-38 .TP-16 TP-305 A-39 Proposed Lind Avenue Warehouse August-94 B-1 8-317 A-40 TP-7 TP-306 A-41 Proposed Manufacturing Site January-85 I 8-318 A-42 P-I C-301 A-43 21-1-09369-002 , I , i j I' I; , . I' 1'1 I I Ii I I I- I - .. ~ ~ I-c C!l ~ z ~ UJ .., 0.. C!l en '" M en 9 N iii UJ < ..J 0 C!l z cc 0 co Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S& W), uses a soil classification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USeS). Elements of the USCS and other definitions are provided on this and the following page. Soil descriptions are based on visual-manual procedures (ASTM 02488-93) unless otherwise noted. ' S&W CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL CONSTITUENTS • MAJOR constituents compose more than 50 percent, by weight, of the soil. Major consituents are capitalized (Le., SA~D). • Minor constituents compose 12 to 50 percent of the soil and precede the major constituents (Le., silty SAND). Minor constituents preceded by ·slightly· compose 5 to 12 percent of the soil (Le., slightly silty SAND). • Trace constituents compose 0 to 5 percent of the soil (Le., slightly silty SAND, trace of gravel). MOISTURE CONTENT DEFINITIONS Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist Damp but no visible water Wet Visible free water, from' qelow water table " ABBREVIATIONS - ATD At Time of Drilling Elev. Elevation It feet FeO Iron Oxide ,- MgO Magnesium Oxide HSA Hollow Stem'Auger 10 Inside Diameter in inches Ibs pounds Mon. Monument cover N Blows for last two 6-inch increments NA Not applicable or not available NP Non plastic 00 Outside diameter OVA Organic vapor analyzer PID Photo-ionization detector ppm parts per million PVC Polyvinyl Chloride SS Split spoon sampler SPT Standard penetration test USC Unified soil classification WLI Water level indicator GRAIN SIZE DEFINITION DESCRIPTION SIEVE NUMBER ANDIOR SIZE FINES < #200 (0.08 mm) SAND' -Fine #200 to #40 (0.08 to 0.4 mm) -Medium #40 to #10 (0.4 to 2mm) -Coarse #10 to #4 (2 to 5 mm) GRAVEL' -Fine #4 to 3/4 inch (5 to 19 mm) -Coarse 3/4 to 3 inches (19 to 76 mm) COBBLES 3 to 12 inches (76 to 305 mm) BOULDERS > 12 inches (305 mm) • Unless otherwise noted, sand and gravel, when present, range from fine to coarse in grain size. RELATIVE DENSITY I CONSISTENCY COARSE-GRAINED SOILS FINE-GRAINED SOILS N,SPT, RELATIVE N, SPT, RELATIVE BLOWS/FT. DENSITY BLOWS/FT. CONSISTENCY 0-4 Very loose Under 2 Very soft 4 -10 Loose 2-4 Soft 10 -30 Medium dense 4-8 Medium stiff 30 -50 Dense 8 - 15 Stiff Over 50 Very dense 15 -30 Very stiff Over 30 Hard WELL AND OTHER SYMBOLS -Bent. Cement Grout .:"'~)i.r Surface Cement " -..... Seal ~ Bentonite Grout -Asphalt or Cap -Bentonite Chips ~~!j Slough D ....... :", Silica Sand '~ Bedrock rnJ ' , PVC Screen []J Vibrating Wire Strander Boulevard/SW 27th Street Improvements ' Renton and Tukwila, Washington SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND LOG KEY February 2004 21-1-09369-002 ~!!~h~~~2~E!r!!,I~~g~~It~C'1 FIG. A-1 Sheet 1 of 2 I I I I, I I I' I, I I I I' I ,I I ... ~ ~, l-e (!) I' ~ z :: CIl .., II. (!) ai I CD ., '" 9 N '" CIl CIl I :5 u (!) z a= 0 III I COARSE- GRAINED SOILS (more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve) FINE-GRAINED SOILS (50% oimore passes the No. 20e.;~~~e) ;" . HIGHLY- ORGANIC SOILS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFleATIO~ SYSTEM (USeS) ,~ , .. '" (From ASTM D 2487~98,~ ?18~-93) : :,'. , ,'-:~.;;,.,.' .:' MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC SYMBOL Io"~ GW •• :~ Clean Gravels ...... ' TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Well-graded gravels, gravels, gravel/sand rflixtures,llttle or no fines (less than 5% G P ~ ~ ~~ c:.' Gravels fines) h U Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand 1-', mixtures, little or no fines (more~an50% ~ __________ ~------~o~D __ ~----------~------------~ of coarse It I_ fraction retained •• ~. on NO.4 sieve) Gravels with GM j. ~_ Fines (more than 12% ~~ fines) GC ~~ Clean Sands (less than 5% fines) SW SP ~ Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures C;1.ayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines • Poorly graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines Sands (50% or more of 1-----------~------.J.:.::..,,: .. ,:;::::;::. .. ::+.:i_1::f_------------------------_I coarse fraction passes the NO.4 sieve) Silts and Clays (liquid limit less than 50) Silts and Clays (liquid limit 50 or more) Sands with Fines (more than 12% fines) Inorganic Organic Inorganic Organic Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT .0,.0. : .... :.: :' .0' • ••••• ,0 '0 -- Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Inorganic sills of low to medium plasficity, rock flour, sandy silts, gravelly silts, or clayey silts with slight plasticity Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays , - _ _ Organic silts and organic silty clays of _ -' low plasticity, , , Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silty soils, elastic silt Inorganic clays or medium to high plasficity, sandy fat clay, or gravelly fat clay Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts Peat, humus, swamp soils with high organic content (see ASTM D 4427) Strander BoulevardJSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington 1. Dual symbols {symbols separated by a hyphen, i. e., SP-SM, slightly silty fine SAND)are used for soils with between 5% and 12% fines or when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart. SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND LOG KEY 2. Borderline symbols (symbols separated by a slash, i.e" CUML, silty CLA Ylclayey SIL T; GW/SW, sandy GRAVEUgravelly SAND) indicate that the soil may fall into one of two possible basic groups, February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmenlal ConsultanlS FIG. A-1 Sheet 2 of 2 I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 30.1 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Medium dense, gray, silty, clayey, fine gravelly SAND; moist; scattered organics; (Hf) SM_ u: .c i5.. CI) o I-----------------~ 4.5 Loose to medium dense, brown to dark gray, trace to slightly clayey, slightly silty to silty, fine SAND; moist to wet; trace of organics; scattered iron oxide staining between 12.5 and 14 feet below ground surface (bgs); (HaD) SP-SM. I-""V"-e-ry-s-o-:-ft-to-so-=ft:-,-d:-a-rk=--g-ra-y-, "-tr-a-ce-to-s-=l:-ig-:-h-=tI'-y--I 14.5 fine sandy, clayey SILT and silty CLAY with numerous layers of loose, silty, fine sand; wet; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; scattered iron oxide staining between 15 and 16.5 feet bgs; (HeD with thin Hp layers) MUCL. I--'-M-e-d-i-u-m-d-e-n-s-e-t-o-d-e-n-s-e-, -d-a-:rk-gr-a-y-, -tr-a-c-e-t-o--l 29.5 slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered organics; trace of gravel in sample S-15; (HaD) SP-SM. NOTE: Sulphur odor noted during well development "0 E .c c. E c. $~ o '.',' 0 ..... o " , -,'. 0 -.. .... o o -, . ..... . .... -. - '-. -.. ' .. -.. --. -.. ' .. ' .. If) CI) 0.. E co C/) 'I 21 31 41 51 i i 8I~; :~ i '"0 ... c CI) ::1-o co (53: u: .c i5.. CI) o 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) A Blows per foot 20 40 60 '.:.: . I i ! ! . ! A i 5 1 ______ ""'--+---, --------,.--------------I . ; . ! ; -I· I i-I 10 ---0-------.---1------1 ! . I I ! • I I 151-1~+-----+1---------~~-. -. -,---, -, -I I I. I. I ! ! -. . . ~61 20 f--J~-----+-----------+------T ~_ i,. i !. i I • f. -.! ! 25 I-I~'-,-.----i-I-_----,-,---, --r-. --1~._"-_-. - i i ~-II' I 30 :-:~ ------0--;-------1 1x . i . 1 -I i --i --! ,-~--+;----------~ i -; I' . . . ! 'II. . . f'" ! -_ .. 35 I • 40 1---'----+-~-IIt-,-----I i I , ! , : I i -I -i 451--------J--------.1-~ i : : : i : : : ! -, , I , ! 501------+------, I ----!----------I , ' I !~-----------------------J---~-L~L---L-------~--,---,-,-:-:-,-,-I~,-:, _: ____ -_:~l_:_,_-_-_,_,_-_,~ 1-----=B-=o-=n=O:::::-:--c:Mc-::O=-=F::-cB::cO::cR=:I-:-:N-=G------I 51.5 COMPLETED 7/2212003 ' .. , I -, , • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test II Thin Wall Sample LEGEND CEJ ~ !8[]lI ~ "¥ ~ Piezometer Screen and Sand Riter Bentonite-Cement Grout Bentonite Chips/Pellets Bentonite Grout Ground Water Level ATD Ground Water Level in Well o 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-101 MW February 2004 21-1-09369-002 60 I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 27.3 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Loose. brOWn. silty. fine SAND; moist; scattered organics; (HaD) SM. u:: ..c C. Ql 0 I-------------------j 5.0 Soft. brown. slightly fine sandy. clayey r. SILT; moist; iron-oxide staining; scattered r I \oroanics; (HeD) ML. ~~oose. dark gray. silty. fine SAND; wet; r iron-oxide staining; scattered organics; HaD) SP-SM. Very soft to to medium stiff. trace to slightly fine sandy. clayey SILT and silty CLAY with several layers of very loose to loose. silty. fine sand; wet; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; scattered iron oxide staining between 10 and 11.5 feet below ground surface (bgs); layers of peat between 25 and 27 feet bgs; (HeD with thin Hp layers) MUCUOL. 7.0 9.5 I--=D-e-ns-e-.-,d,....a~rk-g-r-a-y.-t-ra-c-e-to-s:-:-lig--,h-tl,....y-s"""ilt-y-. f:-:-in-e--l 33.0 to medium SAND; wet; scattered organics and wood fragments; scattered silty clay lenses; (HaD) SP-SM. LEGEND (5 E (I) .c a. ~ E a. 0. E >. ci rJ) ctI 0: rJ) o II o 21 o 31 o 41 o :~ 7I aI 9I "~ 11 12I ..... ' .. 13I ' .. ' .. 141 ' .. ' .. ' .. lsI ' .. lsI • Sample Not Recovered I Siandard Penetration Test II Thin Wall Sample 5l Ground Water Level ATD 'Sl- co . S ~ c co c ·c " c "0 .... C Q) :J-o ctI ,,3: u:: Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight. 30-inch drop) .s:::. C. A. Blows per foot Q) 0 0 20 40 60 ; ,. i ·1 5 -0 .-.---.-----~--·--__t_·O----- I • i I . 10 I J ~~--.: ~·~-~·-r~+--~-~-+:-~----~-··-.. ,1 . "i:' . .: 15 -~~---~-~---+Ii ____ o---:!'!!'-+; ----.--- i 20~···j .. , .. · .~. -----+--------f---O-- ! . . 1 . . ! i .. 4 IOC ~~ . I I 25-:--.. ~~--t--.. '-.. -.-~-~-r-~~-.. ~~t • ! "I i . I I 30 -----__ ;;-------~I---'-~ ••.. ----I ! o ·1 20 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila. Washington LOG OF BORING B-102 60 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 , . I I I I' I I I' I I I I I I I I I I· I I·; ~ ... SOIL DESCRIPTION u: .c a. Surface Elevation: 27.3 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Q) 0 I--::S-ti"'ttC-t-o -v-e-ry-s-o-:ft-, -g-ra-y-, -s7:"lig-:h'-'t:-ly-:f::-in-e-s-a-n-d=--y-t-o--! 78.0 fine sandy, slightly clayey to clayey SILT and silty CLAY with trace of fine sand; wet; layers of silty, fine sand; numerous organics; (HeD) MUCL ~I------=--:-=~,---:--:-=-=---------l 101.5 BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 7/23/2003 LEGEND (5 E en Q) .0 c. E c. >. Q C/) Cl. c.. E ctI C/) '.' 17~ ' .. ' .. .... .... .... ..... .... ' .. .... .... .... ' .. ..... ,211 Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test IT Thin Wall Sample 'Sl Ground Water Level ATO "0 .... C Q) :J-o ctI (53: u: Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) .r:: C. Q) ~ Blows per foot 0 0 20 4a.. 60 ,.. i i 60 --... -.. .-... -~---.--.• -I 1 _____ . ____ _ 65·,-,-, .. --. j ! I i I .. .L_ . .:..~_:._. . '-oJ 1 i I :1 i ! 70 ·-~·--~:·~~-:--t-:--~ ~ II:; . ! 75 f---~'--'-----l-'--:.~-"W-li------- ! l i ! ! ! 80---'·-.. -.-.. -;··-··---0------1 il· i " I ' ! '\ 85 ---·····-·-·-l--~·-.·t------·- 90 -_.-. -......... :---.--...... ;.------- 95 , j \1 ! .: ___ .. _._ -+--__ -.,-+1 ______ - I I Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-102 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I ~ ... SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 25.9 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Interbedded, loose, brown, silty, fine SAND and medium stiff to soft, fine sandy, clayey SILT; moist to wet; scattered organics; iron-oxide staining between 5 and 6.5 feet below ground surface (bgs); (HaD) SM/ML. u: ..r:: a. Q) 0 t-~----'f:----:ft-:---:c-----'-"'-:--"'----l 7.0 Very so t to so ,dark gray, slightly to fine sandy, clayey SILT and silty CLAY with several layers of very loose, silty, fine sand; wet; scattered iron-oxide staining; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; layers of dark brown peat encountered between 22.5 and 24 feet bgs; (HeD with Hp layers) MH/CH/OH. t---;-M-=-e-d::-iu-m-d=-e-n-se---:-to--=-de-n-s-e-, "":d:-a""7rk-g-r-a-y-, t:-ra-c-e--:-to--l 26.0 slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered to numerous wood fragments between 27.5 and 29 ft bgs; (HaD) SP-SM. (5 E en Q) .c c. a. E c. E >-cl en I1l a. en 03 II : 0.3 21 0.3 31 0.5 41 0.6 51 0.3 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 "C ... u: Standard Penetration Resistance c: Q) (140 lb. weight, 3D-inch drop) :1-..r:: o I1l a. (53: ... Blows per foot Q) 0 0 20 40 60 'SJ. 0> ~ ~ 0> c: 10 .c: " 0 4 104 35 - . ·1 . . . . . I , 45 I I I I I I -! -~ ~t-____________ ~c~0~N~r~IN~u~ED~NEX~T~S~H~E~8~ ______ -L ____ ~~ __ L-__ -L __________ L-________ ~ ______ ~~-L __________ ~ • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test ]I Thin Wali Sample LEGEND !l Ground Water Level ATD 0 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-103 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 60 I I I I· I I I I I I I I I· SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 25.9 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Medium dense, dark gray, trace to slightly clayey, fine sandy SILT; wet; scattered organics and wood fragments; (HeO) ML. it ..c 0. OJ 0 66.5 I---:-M-=-e-d"'"iu-m-s-:-tiff=O-to-ve-ry-s-o-:-ft-, -g-ra-y-, -s~lig-'h-t-Iy------l 73.0 clayey to clayey SILT and silty CLAY with layers of medium dense, Silty, fine sand; wet; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; (HeC) MUCL. t---:-V:-e-ry-so-'ft::-'-to-m-e-:-di:-u-'-m-s-t7:iff-=-,-g-ra-y-,-s-:::(j-g:-ht::"ly----1 93.0 clayey to clayey SILT and silty CLAY with layers of medium dense, silty, fine sand; wet; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; (HeO) MUCL. ::; ~1--------------------Il08.0 -0 .0 E >-U) '. '. ..... ..... '. '. '. E III OJ a. c. a. ci a:: E It! U) 171.. 201 221 .24TT 251 -0 ... c: OJ :l-o It! c'3 ~. u:: ..c- 0. OJ 0 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) & Blows per foot 20 _ 40 i 60 ..I 60 -.. --------;j--.---i-.. l,------.- i 'I . i . . . • I"~'! . . .. . I 65 -----·-+--e--i----·--·-· : I ".: I .... '1 . . : ., .. ' : 70 ::r4f<i O o l ,:' :':' __ '. . .' .'. ... !.. ~ - 75 .--. ----.'-! ---- . .. i" .. '.1.' i i I' i "I 80 ------+----~·-----·I 11: .:. iii '1' .. II .. "1 85 j I I 0---····-K 1,1:' ::., .:' I::~ '1 90--.;t 95~i· 100 II •• 0 105 . i I . 01 .1 ·1 •.. : : : : I ::: .'-:f----.- A~""""I"""'" ::.:.:.:.-·.:.: .. :.II'·:···~ -:::::1:::: .. : ~.-____________ ~C~O~NT~I~NU~E~D~N~E~X~T~S~H~EE~T~ ______ -L ____ ~·~L--L __ ~~---------L0-----~----2~0----------~40----------6-10 LEGEND • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test II Thin Wall Sample 'Sl. Ground Water Level ATD • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-103 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 25.9 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Very dense, dark gray, trace to slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL; wet; cobbles are potentially present; (Hag) GW-GM. NOTE: 1. Difficult drilling. 2. Broken pieces of rock may have increased blow counts. Stiff, dark gray, silty CLAY with trace fine sand; wet; scattered organics; (HeC) CL. Very dense to dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine and fine to medium SAND; wet; trace fine organics; scattered silt lenses; (HaC) SP-SM. . Very dense, gray, slightly sandy to sandy GRAVEL, trace of silt and clay; wet; scattered layers of medium dense, slightly silty to silty, slightly fine gravelly, fine sand; (Hag) GP. NOTE: Lost drilling mud from about 140 to 165 feet -making drilling difficult. u: (5 E .e .0 a. E a. c.. >. cl Q) Cf) 0 a:: 10 · ~ .. ~ • ~ .. 10 • ~ .. ~ • t l~O~ 127.0 .. ' .. ' .. ..... '. · . ..... ' .. 138.0 ' .. en "0 ... Q) a. c: Q) ::::l-E o co co (53: Cf) ,"'~ 30::r:: 36= 37= 3SI u: .e c.. Q) 0 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 3D-inch drop) ... Blows per foot _ 20 40 .60 -i ! OU/4 i .' I . ! ! , I I j 120 --·o--I--'------~-·,--~ I I ! i j i I , '·1 .. ! . 125 1----~-1'!=--------.--'---. ,------ i I' . i I I i 130 ,-----~--.-----I_ i i I ! • j ! ! i 135 ______ ;-. ____ 0 ___ .2.., -----+----- I ! i ! , , I i 1401-------+:-r-=---------0--,--- ••• ~ 145 1--0---+: ----50~~-I I I I 150 ·-0 ---+--------;----50/3"-, I I :: : I I , I I 155 ~-, -, -, -~~-, -, r~:~:--:--:-~':1'-,---5(J16~ ,. 'II, . ! . , " 1 I i I 160 -0----+-----,·----'------1 39 " ,! I ,67 i~------------~C~O~N~T~IN~U~ED~N~E~X~T~S~H~EIT~------~----~~~L---~---------L---~_-----L'I----------~I--:~~~:-:-'--:,-:_t, --20 40 60 • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test IT Thin Wall Sample LEGEND ~ Ground Water Level ATD o • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-103 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 I I' I I I I I I I I I I I' SOIL DESCRIPTION u:: .c: E. Q) Surface Elevation: 25.9 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 0 I--:-:---:-----:--:----::--:--.-::c--::---:---i 169.0 Very dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, trace of coarse sand and fine gravel; wet; grades to gravelly in sample S-43; (Ova) SP-SM. 1-----:s::-:o::-:n=O""'M-:-::Oc::F:-:S::-:O""'R::":I:-:N-=G-----i 180.9 COMPLETED 7/24/2003 "0 .0 E >-(J) ' .. ' .. . ... .... ' .. ..... ..... E Ul Q) a. c.. a. E 0" III a:: (J) 4O~ 42::J:: "'0,-c: Q) :l-o III <B~ u:: .c: E. Q) 0 170 o Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) A Blows per foot -20 40 60 i ~ I t~ -- --::-: --~.~~-!~-~-:-~-. -, -r'-~-~-~-~68- Ii.' ! I 175 ---0 ---'---------+,--·--·50/5"- I i ! , . ! 180 ·-----e-: -·-·---+----·--50/5" II.' I ,I ! i 185 -_. ____ ---' ___ . ____ L _____ _ j i ! Ii. I 190 .------+--------'--,---.--I f I . i I . I . ' 1 195 --------~-------I·-------- ; ! i i , ! ! i 1 i 200 ·------·1 [.-------- I i ! l ! I 205 --':"""---''''''i ------II------- i ! I 210 . ___ . ___ -il ________ ~------- I I : I I 215 .. -----+--------+------. ~ : I I j~-------------------------------------L----~~--L---_L __________ L_ ________ ~I __________ _Ll ________ ~ • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test ]I Thin Wall Sample LEGEND ~ Ground Water Level ATD o 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • f Uquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-103 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 25.8 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Very soft, brown mottled, clayey SILT; moist to wet; layers of silty, fine sand; scattered to numerous organics; iron oxide staining; (HeD) ML. Very loose to loose, dark gray, silty, fine SAND; wet; occasional organics; (HaD) SP-SM. Very soft to soft, gray, clayey SILT with trace fine sand and silty CLAY; wet; scattered organics and wood fragments; (HeD) MUCL. Loose to very dense, dark gray, silty grading to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered organics; layers of fine to coarse sand with trace of silt; (HaD) SP-SM/SM. u: (5 .0 .r; E Q. >. Q) U) 0 E !II Q) C. a. c. E 6 co a:: U) II 21 31 s_ ~ 41 ~ 51 ~ 61 ~ 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 -0 ... c Q) :J-o co (53: ~ . 5l ., 0 0 Sl ~ '" u:: Standard Penetration Resistance .r; (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) g. A Blows per foot 0 0 20 40 60 i 1 i i I j , • • j ! i 5 --:-~-----' -' L----.-~~.-J~ •. ~~ ~-~ I.. I ! I I ; .; I ! 10 --f-----t-.. --···. -----·-i-------·----··-.~. i . I .1 4 i ! 15 1-/1,-' .-----~-. -.---~-. -' -I . -'-' -:. ~ i i ,:,,: I I • 2011-------;.-j---------+---e--- ·0.· .. ··.·.:.·. i .1 . I ! i i ! 25 ~---I---+-----------.----- • . . 30 I-----~-.-! o • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test LEGEND [BJ ~ !lD8J ~ Piezometer Screen and Sand Filter Bentonite-Cement Grout • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 5l X NOTES Sf. Bentonite Chips/Pellets Bentonite Grout Ground Water Level ATD Ground Water Level in Well Ground Water Level in VWP 1. The boring was performed using Mud Rotary drilling methods. 2. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. 3. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials. 4. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-104 MWNWF February 2004 21-1-09369-002 a: 5. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes and definitions. I ~ 6. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. ~!!,e.~ic~2~En~~~~~~It~C, FIG. A-5 ~L-__________________________________________ ~ ____________________ ~ ________ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 26.5 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Loose, brown, slightly fine sandy SILT; moist; scattered organics; (Hf) ML. u: .L:. a. OJ 0 1------:,----:-------,-,--S:::.,.,.-=T------1 4.0 Very soft to soft, brown, clayey IL, trace fine sand; wet below 7 feet; scattered iron oxide staining; scattered organics; layer of silty, fine sand in sample S-2; (He D) ML. I-"'-V'-e-ry-Io-o-s-e-, b:-r-o-w-n-,-s""'ilt-y-, f""in-e-::-S""A:-CN:-::D:-a-n-d~fin-e---l10.2 sandy SILT; wet; (HaD) SM/ML. "0 '" .0 .!!1 E a. E >. CJ) ell CJ) 11 21 3][ .. 41 •. .. .. •. .. 51 .. •. .. .. 61 "0 ... u: Standard Penetration Resistance c: OJ (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) :J-.L:.-o ell c.. ... Blows per foot (5~ OJ 0 0 20 40 60 ~~. ~~ I 5 -~-: -··f··-·-·--~· :-~:---.. -.. i ~ ·1 HI. -~ '-II-I i j ~I 1°~-1-·-:: i ----... -- ~~i····i. ·1 • _._ .. I-:-:----:----:----:::S~:--::-:--:---:-f 7.f ---j 16.0 Very soft, gray, clayey ILT with trace 0 ine sand and silty CLAY with numerous layers of 7][ II :~--l_~~_J-f-i ---4 t7 loose, fine sandy silt and silty, fine sand; wet; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; scattered iron oxide staining; peat layers between 22.5 and 28 feet bgs; (HeD with layers of Hp) MUCUOL. I-:-:-....".....-.,..--.,--~---:--:-----,---:----l 30.5 Medium dense to dense, dark gray, trace to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; layers of fine to coarse sand; scattered organics; (HaD) SP-SM. .. .. ... .. .. ... : .. . .. .. ... ... .. .. ... ... .. ... ... : .. ... ~ II-..! .1.;1 " I 25.! I I ~ 1 -:--.~-i 35 .. .. ... ..1 .... - j I : I .. : .. 8][ 91 10][ 11][ 12][ 131 • II ~'~iIi •••• ~ 45.--.• ---·~ __ -1. ______ • ~ ... .. I····~ ... I .... I I 14][ 15][ ... . . . I·· ··1 ~ -.:' ....... I .. ...... . t.l :-: . . . ! ·1 i~----------~C~O~N~TI~NU~E~D~NE~X~T~SH~E~g~--------L---~::~.'~:Ll_6][ __ L-~II~ ___ 5°~L-~·. ·_.-_-_.-_:-_.-_.-_. __ IL,·_.~ .:~.:~.: :_: :_._. :_: _IL-_:_ ... _: :_: _. _._:~ • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test TI Thin Wall Sample LEGEND [BJ Piezometer Screen and Sand Filter ~ Bentonite·Cement Grout E8D8l Bentonite Chips/Pellets ffJ:2l Bentonite Grout Ground Water Level ATD Ground Water Level in Well Ground Water Level in VWP o 20 40 60 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-105 VWP February 2004 21-1-09369-002 6 1 2 3 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 26.5 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Soft to very soft, dark gray, slightly fine sandy to fine sandy, slightly clayey to clayey SILT and silty CLAY; wet; layers of medium dense, silty, fine to medium sand; scattered organics; (He D) MUCL. u: .I::. 0.. (]) 0 70.5 I-----d----k---'-f----d-----l 88.0 Medium eilse, dar gray, ine to me ium SAND, trace silt; wet; scattered organics; trace shell fragments; (HaC) SP. I-~V.,..e-ry-s-o--:ft:-t-o-v-e-ry-s-t:-:ciff:--, -:-~a-r~k-g-ra-y-,-s-:-:lig....,h:-:t-:-ly--:f;:-in-e----1 94.0 sandy to fine sandy, slightly clayey to clayey SILT and silty CLAY; wet; scattered organics; (HeC) MUCL. (5 UJ (]) .c c.. E >. E en m en 17 '.' " " '.' " .' '.' '. .' lsI '.' : '. " '.' " " '.' " .. .' 191 '.' .' '.' '.' .. .. '.' " 201 22 ]1 ...... : r:;:;241 26lT 271 "0 '-c (]) :J ro e 3: C) u: .I::. c.. (]) o 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) .... Blows per foot 20 40 60 .1 , 60 .. -____ .l-_._._---"~ ... --- ·1 65 1------e-.-+------· I , · I II I . . ! 70 I----/--+--e--L: ----- ! . ! i . i I , ; . ! 75 I_-I-____ -+i __ . __ .-o ~C..L! ______ 1 i i' .. 1- · i i _______ 1 __ ~I ____ ·~I-a.~ __ ~ i .1 · ; · ! 90 1------4Ia------'~------ ~~---------------------~ 108.0 I .. g~-----------~C~O~N~TI~N~UE~D~N~E~X~T~S~H~EET~----------L---~~LL--~L-~~ ____ ~ __ ~ ___ ·~I_-____ ~~----~ • Sample Not Recovered I Siandard Penetration Test n Thin Wall Sample LEGEND [EJ ~ ~ ~ 5l ~ NOTES ~ Piezometer Screen and Sand Filter Bentonite-Cement Grout Bentonite Chips/Pellets Bentonite Grout Ground Water Level ATD Ground Water Level in Well Ground Water Level in VWP 1. The boring was performed using Mud Rotary drilling methods. 2. The stratilication lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. 3. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials. . § 4. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. o 20 60 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-105 VWP February 2004 21-1-09369-002 II: 5. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes and definitions. ~ SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG A-6 ~ 6. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Shee~ 2 of 3 ~L_ __________________________________________ ~ ____________________ ~~~~~~ , -; i i I: I I I I I I I I I I I I I· SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 26.5 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Very dense, gray, trace to slightly silty, sandy, GRAVEL; wet; layers of slightly silty, gravelly sand; (Hag) GW~GM. Interbedded, very soft, gray, silty CLAY and medium stiff, clayey, sandy SILT; wet; (HeC) CUML Medium dense, gray, slightly silty to silty, fine SAND; wet; layers of fine sandy silt; scattered organics; (HaC) SP-SM. u: .c: a. (J) 0 (5 .c E >-U) • ... "0" '0 .' en (J) c.. E III U) .'. I .:: '. 33 '0° '0 ... • 0° •• .' '0° '0 :.:': 34I :.: .: '.' .' "0 ... c: (J) ::l-o III (5~ u: Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) .c: a. Blows per foot A (J) 0 0 20 40 60 I i · I ' . . . ! ! · i Ii j I I 115 .. ---.-------;----------, ----50/4's"- . . . . . 1 . ! ~ i. ·1 _ · i-.. I · ·1· I' 120 ------.---'-----+- : I : 70 : I : : 125~-----~---~----I : i:: .\"" I' .1 130 '----r~,. __ ---'-_L ___ ...:.._ , I . ' . . . . I . " ·1 I · . I I ----r---------- 1 135 · . I ·1 140 ---.·--4' -----+----:----::-:::-1 · I . . . 1---------------------------l139.5 '.' Very dense, gray, slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL, trace of clay; wet; layers of silty, fine sand and silty, gravelly sand; scattered organics; cobbles are potentially present; (Hag) GW-GM. , · . I ! '1'" I 145 --G--+-----+----.:: . ... I .. 1. '. : : : I : I : . . . . ! .j 1501---~---+--------+_--~ I BOTTOM OF BORING ' , : I COMPLETED 7/25/2003 ,I NOTE: Lost large amounts of drilling mud 155-·----,-.-+1-----. +1--' --- (starting at about 151.5 feet). Driling . : : 'I : .. : I': very difficult. Could not advance , . I boring beyond 152 feet below ground 160 I-____ --!I~----!_I __ _ ~ ~:.~::~;;~;.:~dv;~::,:::;; at ' . . . . . . . . .1 ••••.•• -- ~~------b-ott-o-m--o-fb-o-r-in-g-.--------------~----L--L--_L ________ ~ ________ ~ ___ ._._._._.~I_._._._._ .. __ ~ 20 40 60 o • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test II Thin Wall Sample LEGEND [EJ Piezometer Screen and S'and Filter 1SiJSl Bentonite-Cement Grout laJ8l Bentonite Chips/Pellets I:2IJ2l Bentonite Grout Sl Ground Water Level ATD .:r: Ground Water Level in Well NOTES ~ Ground Water Level in VWP 1. The boring was performed using Mud Rotary drilling methods. 2. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. 3. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials. 4. Groundwater level, if indicated above. is for the date specified and may vary. • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevarcllSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-105 VWP February 2004 21-1-09369-002 a: 5. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes and definitions. /!! SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG A-6 ~ 6. uses designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Shee; 3 of 3 ~L-____________________________________ ~ ________ ~ ________________ ~ ____ ~~~~~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 23.9 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Loose, brown, trace to slightly clayey, silty, fine SAND and fine sandy SILT; moist to wet; scattered iron oxide staining; scattered organics; (HeD) MUSM. 1------,----,-,--:---:------,,--::------1 7.0 Loose, dark gray, slightly silty to silty, fine SAND; wet; scattered iron oxide staining; scattered organics; (HaD) SP-SMISM. t·· t·· 1--:-:----:----:--:--:-----::-----:--1 12.0 I···· Very soft to soft, dark gray, trace fine sandy to fine sandy, slightly clayey to clayey SILT and siJty CLAY; wet; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; scattered shell fragments in sample S-10; layers of dark brown peat between 22.5 and 26.5 feet below ground surface (bgs); burnt wood fragments encountered at about 26.3 feet bgs; (He D) MUCUOL. Medium dense to dense, dark gray, slightly silty to silty, fine to medium SAND, trace of clay; wet; layers of fine to coarse sand; scattered silt seams; scattered shell fragments encountered about 50 feet bgs; (HaD) SP-SMISM. LEGEND 26.5 t·, : .. ' ".' ".' I'·· I'" I'" F·· I',·' i'·· r·· r·· II ~ u 21 3I 'l 4I c 5I 6I JI 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 "C .... C Q) ::1-o ra e;!: u: ..c li Q) o 10 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 Ib, weight, 30-inch drop) .... Blows per foot ~ 0 ~o 60 ••• It· ! 51~"-.-.-•.. ---. -.i-----.-., ___ L_ •...•• ; .---...... . •••• ~ 10 I·· ....... --.. --.-f-------.• _ ;---'---.. - , ~. i IF ... ....••..•• ~ 15~-------_4-·--~--~-~·-~;.---- ~. : ... :: .: :e"' 20 ,62 1\· 'U14(' I~ _NP I 1-251-----~~.~ .. -.. -.-.-~.-.----.-.-.. ~----,-.~~~I ~ l 301-------~.-----·~--------1 ...•••. ~ •.. 351-----.-.-:-. 4-.: •• -.-.-•• ~~-.-.+-.-.. ---.... -.-:1 . , 401 .. --~----~-~-... ----~~~------1 ... : -: It ..... ' .. : 451----·-------jl,.-.----,--+---------I ..... i~·0·::·· ... . .:... ... . . .... -'" 50~·--.. -··---.-.-.+.~~ .. -.~~a .. -.-.-.f ------.. --.-.-1 o 20 40 • Sample Not Recovered I' Standard Penetration Test [8J Piezometer Screen and Sand Filter !;S[JSj Bentonite-Cement Grout • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content !8IJ8l Bentonite Chips/Pellets ffl2I Bentonite Grout Sl. Ground Water Level ATD ~ Ground Water Level in Well NOTES:t Ground Water Level in VWP 1. The boring was performed using Mud Rotary drilling methods. 2. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. 3. The discussion in the tex1 of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials. 4. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 5. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes and definitions. 6. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-1 06 MWNWP February 2004 21-1-09369-002 f" " I I I I I I I I, I~ I 1,- I SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 24.1 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Medium stiff, brown and light brown mottled, clayey SILT and loose, silty, fine to medium SAND; moist to wet; scattered organics; numerous iron oxide stains between 5 and 6.5 feet below ground I\.surface (bgs); (HeD) MUSM. Very loose to loose, dark gray, slightly silty to silty, fine SAND; wet; trace of clay; (HaD) SP-SM/SM. u:: ,r:- C. Q) 0 r 7.0 I--V-e-ry-so-f-t -to-m-e-d-iu-m-st-iff.,-,-g-ra-y-,-s-li-g-ht-Iy-----l 14.5 clayey to clayey SILT and silty CLAY; wet; scattered to numerous organics; (He D) MUCL. I--M-e-d-i-u-m-d-:-e-n-s-e-t-o-d-e-n-s-e-, -d-a-rk-g-ra-y-,-tr-a-c-e-t-o---1 22.5 slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered layers of soft, silty clay and silty, fine sand; scattered organics; (HaD) SP-SM. LEGEND 0 E en Q) .!J a. a. E a. E >. ci en ttl 0::: en 0.1 II o 2I '.' 0.2 3I 4I .... 0.1 ' .. ' ..... sI· o sI 7I aI 'l 10 ..... ' .. ' .. 11I 12I ' .. ' .. 13I ' .. ' .. 14I ' .. ' .. lsI ' .. lsI • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test 1I Thin Wall Sample 5l Ground Water Level ATD "¥ <> ~ :5 <> c: ·c :::I a "0 .... c:: Q) :::l-o III C5~ u:: ,r: 0.. Q) 0 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) A 20 Blows per foot 40 I .. j 60 I 5 ------.------1----.-+1 ---'-1 ~.SlI--h---... ! I. ; ! i 10 --------~-------.-I;_---------- \ ! j I-15 __ . _____ :.1 ______ -+-1 -___ 1--- ! I· .~ i i I I • --~-----~------~:------~...:.. 20 l I- l i i : 25 ----___ L ____ ~._-_L _____ _ ! ! 1 • 30-----------r-. o 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-107 60 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 24.1 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Medium dense to dense, dark gray, trace to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; layers of soft, silty clay and silty fine sand; scattered organics; (HaC) SP-SM. LEGEND en CD 0.. E «I CIJ 171. • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test II Thin Wall Sample ~ Ground Water Level ATD "0 ... t: CD ::l-o «I O~ u: .s:::. ii CD 0 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) • Blows per foot 20_ 40 ,- ; 60 60 ______ +1 .~-L-' ._. __ .~ i i ; I : I 65 .------------~----.------- I I i I 70 ---: :-'-'--ff-:-' ~-: -: ~ ____ -:-' "--- ! I . I I 75 --~--__:_~---:-I---. ~-:·~-""';I-.-----·---- ; I II 80 ~~~~-~~t -----. ------ ! I I : I 85 1--------+--.--__ I ---------. I . j i i i ! I 90 -~·--r --. I 95 !I: • -\\---'-1-. ::.-..: .---- I 100 o 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander Boulevard/SW'27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-107 60 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 1-7 ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I,·· SOIL DESCRIPTION u:: .e 0. Q) Surface Elevation: 24.1 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 0 , I-~.....,--__:__---:---------___l 117.0 Medium dense to dense, gray, trace to slightly fine gravelly, fine sandy SILT grading to slightly fine sandy, silty CLAY below about 127 feet; wet; layers of silty, fine sand; scattered organics; (HeC) MUCL. LEGEND (5 E III Q) .c a. 0.. E a. E >-0" en to ii en 28.1 • Sample Not Recovered' I Standard Penetration Test II Thin Wall Sample .'il Ground Water Level A TO '0,-C Q) :::l-o to ~~ u:: .e 0. Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 3D-inch drop) Blows per foot 40 Q) 0 0 .. 20 60 -115-0-J-•.• ~ ! . . .. I ...... --- ! ! I . . ' I.r. . . i 120 ~---------:-O·---·--C5f.-----.- I' .. ·1 ," . I . I 90 I I 50t4~ I I ! I ! I SO/5- o 20 40 60 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander Boulevard/SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-107 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 23.2 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Soft, brown to dark brown and gray, slightly clayey to clayey SILT and loose, silty, fine SAND; moist to wet; scattered organics and numerous iron oxide staining; mottling in sample S-1 ; (HeD) MUSM. u:: .I:: a. OJ 0 (5 E .0 a. E a. >. ci (/) a.. o o Ul -c OJ Qi a. c: ::J-E o ro .... ~ ro <!J (/) ~ . II 21 o 31~ I------------:-f --:oS~=-----l 10.0 Very loose, dark gray, silty, ine AND, ~trace of clay; wet; (HaD) SM.· /"" Very soft to soft, dark gray and green-gray, clayey SILT and silty CLAY; wet; scattered to numerous· organics; (HeD) MUCl. 12.0 I-~--:--':"----'---:-------I:':-:--:---l 19.0 Medium dense, dark gray, trace to sightly h silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered r 21.3 I \oraanics: (HaD) SP-SM. Very soft, dark brown, silty PEAT and peaty t-\ SILT; wet; partings of silty, fine sand; (HeD r 25.0 I \and Hp) PT/Ol. Very loose, dark gray, slightly silty, fine SAND and very soft, slightly fine sandy \ SILT, interlayered; wet; scattered organics; r 30.0 . \(HaD) SM/ML. Medium dense to dense, dark gray, clean to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; trace of coarse sand; occasional organics; (HaD) SP-SM. LEGEND ..... ... ... ..... ... I: .. . .. . ... ' .. ' .. 41 ... 0 0 Sl o 51 ~ o o :~ 81 0> .. :a' 91 'C o· 0> c: . c: " 101 0 " CD ~ CD 111 "' .0 0 CD § 121 z 131 c • 141 151 • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test II Thin Wall Sample [8J Piezometer Screen and Sand Filter ~ Bentonite-Cement Grout Il8IJ8l Bentonite Chips/Pellets ~ Bentonite Grout ~ Ground Water Level in Well ~ Ground Water Level in VWP 51. ... 0 0 Sl ~ u:: .I:: Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) a. OJ A Blows per foot , .. 0 0 5 .... 20 40 60 I • . . . I .... I' .... 0' ••••• ~._. _.~._ ._ •• __ • __ • __ ~. ___ ~; _________ _ I i • • I 10. _ .. _~~~i!! ______ -'-_______ _ ! .~! . . . . . . I • ~ I ------f~-----~~ I. :. 25 .~. , I i i· . . ... ~ . .. . ... ~-------i ----• ! i 301~ I.. -_+-1 _____ _ I I o j I 20 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington 66 LOG OF BORING B-1 08 MWNWF February 2004 21-1-09369-002 r I { .... I I I I I I I I I' 1 I I I 1·_· ti (!) Q. ~ W ... ..., Q. (!) ai <0 M 9 C;; SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 23.3 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Medium stiff, brown, clayey SILT; moist to wet; scattered organics; scattered iron oxide staining; (HeD) ML. u:: £: a. Q) 0 1-------------------l5.0 Loose to very loose, brown to dark gray, silty, fine SAND; moist to wet; layers of clayey silt and fine sandy silt; scattered organics; scattered iron oxide staining; (HaD) SM. I-~v,----::ft----:d------:I-----I 12.0 ery so ,gray an gray-green, c ayey SILT; wet; layers of loose, slightly silty to silty, fine to medium sand; scattered organics and peat lenses; (HeD) ML. I--:-M-:-e-d-:-iu-m-s""'tif:-:f-:, b-:r-o-w-n-a-n-d:-g-r-a-y-, s....,i:-lty--,::Pc::E:-:Ac::T:----I 18.9 and clayey SILT; wet; partings of silty, fine ,sand; (HeD and Hp) PT/ML. Loose, dark gray to slightly green-gray, silty, fine $AND and soft, clayey SILT; wet; scattered organics; (HeD) MUSM. J 22.0 I--:-M-:-e-d-:-iu-m-d:-e-n-se--:-to---:d-en-s-'-e-, -d:-a-:rk-gr-a-y-, -s::-lig-:h-:U:-y--I 27.0 silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered layers of organics; (HaD) SP-SM. LEGEND (5 E .c a. E a. >-ci en ii • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test IT Thin Wall Sample 5Z Ground Water Level ATD en Q) C. E It! en \J .... c: Q) ::J-.0 It! 5~ u:: Standard Penetration Resistance £: (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) a. ... Blows per foot Q) 0 0 20 i j. 40 . .. ! i • ~ i ! 60 5 ·~·~-~-:-~-~-t~-:-:.~-I~--· ~.:-.~.--~~ J f ___ ~:I: .~:~---Il-. I. .i ... H ... '! .•. · . I· ... I 15 -----, , , ... ·1· . . ... j '-0--· · . ,,1· . I . . . . i i · ... j • i ~62 ! ! ·129 20 ---·---+,------t-------4 ~ · I ! I. '. ! · ! ! '. ! i 25 ----'--+1-.--.-.---1-:-:-:.:-.-.-.-.' ·1 • i .. 30 40 · j I i -----i;--:""cO---" t-. ----.----i · 1 . ,I,' . o · . . . I . 20 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 60 Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-109 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 I I ,I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 23.3 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Dense tovery dense, dark gray, clean to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, trace of gravel; wet; scattered organics; scattered shell fragments in sample S-24; (HaC) SP-SM/SP. Flakes of ash. Flakes of ash. LEGEND <n OJ 0.. E III CIl 171- 19II 201 • Sample Not Recovered Sl Ground Water Level ATD I Standard Penetration Test II Thin Wall Sample "0 .... C OJ :l-o III (53: .c c.. OJ o 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) & Blows per foot 20 .to .~. 60 60---'" -----l-------o--i-----··-· -------- i i i i ; ! 65 --------.----···--·--r-----.--------.-- I • :J~ I j i ...... I .. . .. !..... 70 -:-~--:-:-:-. -.. -. ~~~~~:-:-~~--.--- I i 75 --------+:-----'------.----- I 80 ------~.---~-------i i .1 .,1 i I l 851------+--0-----f--j ! ; i 1 90 -------+o---+-- .1 1 ! ; o I 20 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-1 09 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 ,. I I I I " I I I I I I I SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 23.2 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Very loose to loose, brown, slightly clayey to clayey, fine sandy SILT; moist; scattered organics; scattered iron oxide staining between 5 and 6.5 feet below ground surface (bgs); scattered dark gray fine sand lenses; (HeD) ML. Very loose, dark gray, slightly silty to silty, slightly clayey, fine SAND and fine sandy SILT; we!; (HeD) SP-SM/ML. Very soft to soft, gray, slightly clayey, fine sandy SILT and silty CLAY with layers of slightly silty, fine sand; wet; layers of silty, clayey peat between 17.5 and 19 feet bgs; scattered to numerous organics; (He D) MUCUOL Medium dense to dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, trace of coarse sand and fine gravel; wet; scattered lenses of slightly clayey silt; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; (HaD) SP-SM. Dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, trace of coarse sand; wet; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; scattered shell fragments between 50 and 51.5 feet bgs; (HaC) u: .c: e. Q) 0 8.0 16.5 24.7 43.0 "0 .c E >. en '. '. , ' .. '. , ' .. '. .... '. " '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. .... '. E a. a. c:i a:: 0 0 0 0 0 Ul ~ Co E III en 'I 2I ~ 3I~ ~ 4II1 :l 71 81 ,:~ "0 .... c: Q) ::l-o III O~ bi >. u: Standard Penetration Resistance ..c: (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) g. A Blows per foot o 0 20 40 60 • l ! ! i' i 5 --.-.. -.... -;-----.'-------. i I ,e I " I"" . i,,······ 10 ·---------·-1 +-.~---... . . I ..... " I· I" " ! I :: I." 1~l-------+-------+-~------'\ . I" .. I , i "1:' 20' : •. ----.~ I·e:· .. I" l i' .. '" .1. I • 251---:-**':--+1-::-: r-: :-: :---' iii •• 1 30 ·--------i--+e--;-----. I .. ~ ..... I ........ . . : : I: .. \ -: : ! iL 35~------··~I-·--·~ .. -·--·-,~i ------ f. ! i .. "I ~ .. I 40 :: I": I: " 45 .. ~.-' '-'-' .-. ' __ 1 . "-' -' •. +-! --' -' '-__ • . ." . . . ! . . ':1':'''-\+'''1: 50 .. '. . i' -----I ~ BOTTOM OF BORING ...... : : : I : : : . : . : III .. . -='00. COMPLETED 8/4/2003 . . . .. 1 .... : :. . I • : : SP-SM. .. a: '. 51.5 ~~----------------------------------~----~-L~L-__ ~ ________ _L __________ ·Li_·_·_· ______ _L! ---------1 o 20 40 • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test TI Thin Wall Sample LEGEND [8J Piezometer Screen and Sand Filter ~ Beritonite-Cement Grout ~ Bentonite Chips/Pellets ~ Bentonite Grout 51-Ground Water Level ATD y. Ground Water Level in Well • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-110 MW February 2004 21-1-09369-002 60 11 i i ;1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOIL DESCRIPTION u::: "0 E .0 a. .e. E a. a. ci >-CD (/) Surface Elevation: 22.4 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 0 a: Loose, brown, fine sandy, slightly clayey to clayey SILT, trace of coarse sand; moist; scattered organics; scattered iron oxide 0 ,",staininq; (HeD) ML. r 4.5 Loose to very loose, gray, slightly silty to ..... 0 silty, fine SAND and fine sandy, clayey ' .. SILT; moist to wet; scattered iron oxide 0 ' .. staining between 5 and 9 feet below ground surface (bgs); scattered organics; (HeD) .... 0 !\SP-SM/SM/ML. f 12.0 Loose to medium dense, dark gray, slightly ' .. 0 silty, fine SAND; wet; (HaD) SP-SM. ~ ..... 0 ' .. ' .. Loose to medium dense, dark gray, slightly 19.5 silty to silty, fine SAND; wet; scattered ..... seams and layers of clayey silt; scattered to ' .. numerous organics and wood fragments; ..... approximately 5-to 7 -inch-diameter logs ' .. between 22.5 and 26.5 feet bgs; trace of ' .. coarse sand between 30 and 31.5 feet bgs; ' .. (HaD) SP-SM/SM. '. .. BOTTOM OF BORING 31.5 COMPLETED 8/4/2003 UI "0 .... CD 0.. C CD :I-E o til .... 3= til (!) en II 21 'Sj. 31 0 ~ 'E 0 41 0 c: -c: ~ 0 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 u::: Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) .e. a. Blows per foot ... (I) 0 0 20 40 60 e: -~ ! i 5 -~ -~-: ---------.+----~-+_----~---:-~ i el , i 10 I -I --------f.-----i--o----------- . - i I _e I 15 -.----------------i-----e---+,--------- I -I j _e_--i -~ -ii 20 .. __ " __ ~I ~~ __ ! _______ ~i _______ ~ •. _." __ l ! 25 ---- I ! -. -, 30 -----·-----~-------,!-------e- i ! I ! I 35 ------------'--------"--------------------; I I j I . 1 ! ' j 40 i j -i-I . ! : I : I 45 -------------~f----------i-' ---------I I -1 I : I -I 50 -------------~-r--_ _ : I ~ -. .: I ----, go ! --. -! ~------------------------------~---L~--L---L-------~0---------2LO--------~40---------160 LEGEND • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test 5l Ground Water Level A TO • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-111 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 ~~' . : II , I : II I I I I I' SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 23.3 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Loose. brown. slightly clayey. fine sandy SILT; moist; trace of fine gravel; scattered organiCS; scattered iron oxide staining; soil description based on soil cuttings; (HeD) ML. u: .e: a. Q) 0 1--:-ln-te-r-:-b-e-'dd"7e-d-:-.-s-Of:-t.-g-r-ay-.-c"7la-y-e-y-:S~1L=-=T=--an-d-:---1 7.0 very loose. silty. fine SAND; moist to wet; scattered organics; scattered iron oxide r-s=-:t=ai:.:-:n""in:.;:u..;q; (,,-IH:.::.e.::.D,-)M=U,-=Sc:..:M~' ______ ---1 12.0 Very soft to medium stiff. gray. clayey SILT; wet; trace of fine sand; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; layers of silty clay; layers of peat between 17.5 and 21.5 feet below ground surface (bgs); grading to clayey. fine sandy silt below about 22 feet; (HeD) MUOL. I--:-M-:-e-d:-:-iu-m-d:-e-n-se-.-d-:-a-r-k-g-ra-y-,-s"'"'il-ty-. -:Ofin-e--=S--:A-N-:-:D::-;-~ 24.5 1\ wet; scattered lenses of clayey silt; (HaD) r I \SM. 26.5 BonOM OF BORING COMPLETED 8/5/2003 -0 .0 -~ en E Ul Q) a. C. a. E c:l til 0::: en II- 21- 0 31 Yl-co a 41 ~ 0 co c: '10 ~ sI c 0 0 61 71 81 91 101 "0 ... c: Q) ::I-o CIl a~ u: Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight. 30-inch drop) .e: C. Q) A Blows per foot 0 0 20 40 60 I . 1 I 5 {-.----------J---.---J------. ----, , . ': . I 'I . :.' I • 1._ i . I 10· ; ---0 r-' . .... -.-- ... I. . I ·1·1 . ., ,'1" .. i •. . I "I .\ 15 ... ---,----+--. I • 1---'-- .1:: "'1 · I· "... i . : : ~ 82 I· . , 20·_· ----i-------+--------..... -_ . i . : I i ..... " .! I . ! 25------~+__1 ;:---.-~; -.-_ ... __ . __ _ ·I~···!··· . I' : . : : . : I ' , .. .. \! 30 .. ---------: ;j--. ----.----4j-,-----.-.-.-.-- II 35 ---------+, -----r-··-··~ .. -·-.. I' . . I . I . -'" I I· . I . j. · '1' .' . ·1 40 -----'----+------+---.-.. --.---I ' " .! I' . '., I· I' .. "I I" i 45 --'--.---+------+-------.. ----i . i : : I : . '1 50 ----.-----l------l---.---.. --.. - 117 81 I·" "1:,,, .. i~-----------------------L--~L-L--L------~ __ ·-·-'-·:~I-,-·-:-:·--:~:I-:--··---4 e ... ~ b C!l 0-~ W I--, 0-C!l en '" .., en 9 N • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test LEGEND 'Sl. Ground Water Level ATD o 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila. Washington LOG OF BORING B-112 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 60 I I I I I I I i' I I I I I I I t I I SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 19.0 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Stiff to soft, brown-gray, trace to slightly sandy, clayey SILT and silty CLAY; moist; layers of medium dense, slightly silty, gravelly sand between 3.8 and 5 feet; scattered to numerous organics and wood 1\ fragments; scattered iron oxide staining; r I \~(IH~e~D~)M~U~C=L~. ________________ ~ Very soft to medium stiff, gray, clayey SILT; moist to wet; trace of fine sand; scattered ~;enses of clayey peat; scattered to r numerous organics and wood fragments; ~H~e~D~)M~~~O~H~. ________________ ~ Very loose to medium dense, dark gray, trace to slightly silty, fine SAND; wet; h scattered lenses of clayey siit; scattered I ~~o~rg~ia~ni~cs~;~(H~a~D~»)~S~P~/S~P_-~S~M~. ____ · ____ ~J' Medium dense to dense, dark gray, fine to medium SAND; wet; trace of silt; grades to trace of coarse sand with depth; (HaD) SP. u: .e: C. QI 0 7.0 12.0 19.5 I-------=B:::O:::TT=O~M:-::-::O:-:::F:-:B:::-::O:::-::R:::-::I-:-:N:-:::G-----; 26.5 COMPLETED 8/5/2003 LEGEND "0 E Ul Q) .0 a. Ci E a. c:i E >-(J) ttl c::: U) 0 tI 0 21 0 31 0 41 ' . .. 51' ..... :.::: ..... :.: :: 61 0 ..... "0' :: .. ..... 71 ,,0 :; .. ~ ..... 81 _,0 :: .. ..... :-: :: 91 ..... "0' :: .. ..... 101 ',' :: ,:...:.-. • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test 'Sl Ground Water Level ATD g '" ~ '" c '" c:: .c:: " 0 "0 .... c: Q) ::J-o ttl .... :s: (!) u: .e: E. Q) 0 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) ... Blows per foot 20 40 · ! · ! .. ' i I 60 5· ..... ····-·l-·---·-·-i-i+-·--·--- \ ... ! ! 10 · l ! i -II,: ___ .. ___ l ______ I-____ .... S4 · f 1 i · I · ! ..... : i II .. 15-----' -! ---e--·!!--------- i . -. -I ! . I ••• i ., i · ! ______ I!--______ ._ ·1 I · ! 20 -------.-1 -- I •• I 25 -----.--,---. . I -- -i ---' -------- '1 . ! · . ! ·1 ... i 30 ------.------;!------f--! ------i I 0 · j I i 20 Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-201 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 ,. 1,1 '1'\ -.: {" I',: , , , I I I ,I I 1- ,t- 1--' SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 20.0 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Very dense, brown and gray, slightly silty to silty, gravelly SAND; moist to wet; scattered iron oxide staining; (HI) SM. u:: sf C. Q) 0 I--::-:~f----::---::---:::-:-LA-:-:-:,--------j 7.0 Stil to soft, gray, silty C Y; wet; numerous lenses of peat; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; (He D) CUOL. I--::M-:-e-d""i-um-d"-e-n-s-e-to--:d-e-ns-e-,-d:-a--:rk-g-ra-y-, -'----1 17.0 tracesilty to silty, fine to medium $AND; wet; layers of fine sandy silt; grades to fine to coarse sand with depth; (HaD) SP/SM. (5 .0 E >. C/) ..... :.: :: ..... :.:-": ..... :-: :: ..... :.: .. : i------:=-::::c=:::-:--:-=-=-:::==-:-:--:-::-----i 26.5 C BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 8/5/2003 LEGEND E a. a. ci ii: o o Ul Q) 0. E III C/) 3I·~ 'C 4I·~ -" sI c5 6I 7I 8I gI 10I • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test ~ Ground Water Level ATD "0 .... C Q) :J-o III 5~ u:: Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) .s:: 0. .A. Blows per foot Q) 0 0 20 40 60 • l I i ! -I 90/11" ~ 5 ---~---~·-~~-t-----~-~-:---~---i-:-- 10 --- I i I i I ! i , ! 1 :1 I -' --I I ~ i 15 _\-____ -+-i _______ !-____ _ I I ~. I ~ ~ i -·---r-------I j 20 --------;----I 1 'e -I . i ___ ~ ___ i ______ _ 25 --------+-. - i i ! I.; II 30 -----------t-, ------j--------I i ! I I I ! 35 ---------T-------T:------~ ! i I i _, !I! 401--------!-i--------:--------I i I __ -+1 __ ' ___ 45----------,---I I I 50 --------+------i---'----I I o 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit 1 .• .1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-202 60 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 73 72 'I I I I I I -.; I I I : I, I I I I I I ~ ... i>. '" 1'0 ~ G ;: III It ~ ~ ... SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 21.0 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Very dense, brown, silty, gravelly SAND; moist; scattered iron oxide staining; (Hf) SM. u: .c a. CIl 0 ~------------------------~4.5 Very dense to medium dense, brown-gray, slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL; moist to wet; scattered iron oxide staining; petroleum odor in sample S-3; (Hf) GW-GM. 1-=~::":"":::::::":'=:"'="..:::.L.l.!...!.:.L...:::.:":":"''''::::'':':'::'''' ___ ---; 9.5 Medium stiff to soft, brown-gray, slightly clayey to clayey, silty PEAT and slightly clayey, fine sandy SILT; moist to wet; (Hp i----.....::a:.:..:n~d....:.H.:.::e:.=D)~P..:.T.:..:./M:..:.:L:::.. _____ · ____ ~..--14.5 Medium dense, gray, slightly clayey, fine sandy SILT; wet;· scattered org'anics and ~wood fraQmehts' (HeD ML. Medium dense to dense, dark gray, slightly silty to silly, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered lenses of slightly clayey silt; scattered organics; lense approximately 4-inch-thick of coarse sand and fine gravel at about 25.9 feet· (HaD) SP-SMISM. BonOM OF BORING COMPLETED 8/6/2003 " LEGEND "0 E f/l CIl .c a. C. E a. E >. ci en III a: en o 11 21 3Ie o • ~ .. 10 28.5 o 41 o ~I 61 71 81 gI' 101 • Sample Not Recovered 'SI. Ground Water Level ATD E Environmental Sample Obtained I Standard Penetration Test 5l. co ~ ·c 0 co c ·c . " 0 "0 .... c CIl ::J-o III (;~ , u: Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) ..c: C. "-Blows per foot , QI 0 0 20 40 60 j ! i ! • I ' \ i .. ! ',-.. i . . . i . 5 . -.---...• --+--.-------~------------- I ! • i ! 10 ._____ _ I ! ____ ' ___ ~ ~ 141 I I· ..• 85 15 .---.--. ~-~--.-.• ~~--.-----I , , ' i i •. ' i i I 20 ~~--~.-.-.-.-:.--~-.-. -. -. ---+~-~'--~-.-. , I .. I ! I i . I ! 25--:-. -. -. .,1 :, ~ . .x.'j---" ---- I I ·1· ! 'I 30 -.. ---, .. ----; ---------·-i··--·--·-·--- I I ! ! I i 35 _ --.------.;,-------,,;-------I i I I : 40--.--'----;...1-----1 .. -------- " ' I ·1 I 45 ... ---... ---, +.,' -----f-----'- I I'. I .. i 50· -.. ---'---+1---·----+------- .. I I · ... o 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Conlent Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-203 60 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 , ' i : I: " r 'I;·' II 'II I, , 1 1- SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 19,0 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Very loose, gray, slightly gravelly, clayey, sandy SIL T;wet; (Hf) ML. Medium stiff, brown, slightly clayey, silty PEAT, very soft, clayey, fine sandy SILT and loose, sandy SILT; moist; numerous 1\ organics and wood fragments; (Hp and, J I \HeDl PT/ML. .' Medium dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered layers of clayey silt; scattered organics; (HaD) SP-SM. u: ..c 0. Q) 0 Medium dense, dark gray, fine sandy SILT and silty, fine SAND; wet; scattered lenses of slightly clayey silt; numerous organics; (HeDl MUSM. f--.l!..!.=~~=-----------I24.5 Medium dense, dark gray, slightly silty to t-\.silty. fine SAND; wet; (HaD) SP-SM/SP. BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 8/6/2003 LEGEND r 26.5 (5 E III OJ Ll a. Q. E a. E >-ci en I1l a:: en 11 21 31 :~ 61 71 aI 91 " . 101 • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test IT Thin Wall Sample ~ Ground Water level ATD 5l. co :E 'E 0 '" e: 'e: " 0 1:) .... c OJ ::l-o I1l (53: u: ..c 0. Q) 0 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 Ib, weight, 30-inch drop) • Blows per foot 20 40 1\ 8/ 60 ! ! 5 ---.-.--.•. -----+---.-.---.... -,.--- ! . ; ! I: I I 10 1 . , • i,' .' , I i, i 151----\---+_' ----0-----·-:'N,::~·I,I'" . : : :, :~ , 20~---~~----~-------,,/,i',i' i ,i : .JJ' : :-: I,' , • I ., ! " .... i ' , 251----\_ i .--4-----.~. '1' ! ,1, i ·1· .'. 1. 1 ; '\ 30~-----i-----·----~--·------ ·1 i i I 'i .. ! I i 35~-----~-----~-----·--- ·1 1 ·1 .. i i I . 11 11 40 ---------+' ---------1--------! I I I· I I' 45 -------+--.,----.--+--------- . I ~143 I: .. 11:: 501------·~1------+1--'------. I 0 I 1 1 ! 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-204 60 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 I I I I I I I, I I I I , u: "0 E en -0 .... u: Standard Penetration Resistance <II .0 a. C. c: CD (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) .c E a. :J-.c C. 6 E o I'll C. Blows per foot >-c'3~ ... CD (J) I'll CD 0 a: (J) 0 0 20 40 60 SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 17.0 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 i · . . . .. . ~ . . I Loose, brown-gray, silty, gravelly SAND; moist; numerous organics; broken concrete; (Hf) SM. Soft to medium stiff, brown, slightly silty, slightly clayey PEAT, trace of sand and silty CLAY; moist to wet; (Hp and HeD) PT/CUOL. 5,5 0 II 0 :l 0 'Sl. CI .5 5 -·-·P<-f--~I~--·---,::: ... I' ! . : . I ! 10 '.f . . i I----~~--;....I-.-.-.-. -i".~~9 Soft, gray, clayey SILT; wet; numerous organics; (HeD) MUOL. 10.9 I---:-L-o-os-e-to-d-:-e-n-s-e-, -:d-ar-:-k-g-r-a-y,-s-'-l:-ig-:-h---Uy-sl:-:-'lt-y-to---I 15.3 silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered seams and lenses of clayey silt; scattered I\oraanics' (HaD) SP-SM/SM. . Medium stiff to very soft, gray, slightly fine sandy, slightly clayey to clayey SILT and silty CLAY, trace of fine sand; wet; scattered organics; (HeD) MUCL. ./ 19.5 I---L-o-os-e-to-m-e-d-iu-m-:-' -de-n-s-e-, -g-ra-y-,-s-il-ty-S-A-N~D-; --I 26.5 wet; scattered seams of clayey silt; shell fragments in samples S-12 and S-13; h broken rock at depth of 31.5 feet; (HaD and r 31.5 1 \Hb) SM. BODOM OF BORING COMPLETED 8/6/2003 0 ' .. ' .. :~ 71 al 91 101 111 121 131 ~ 0 01 c: 'J: " 0 .. ····iit I~ . . . ! .! .' .... · . . . .. .. I .. . I 15 -------;-i -------e·-·----·--.... I. . i ! . ! · . . . .. I I 201£--. -. = .. ---. -=:"';1 1 -,-, -----te ---- i ~: : : .. -: : I .. i . :- 25 .-------'-' --'---'--) '-e-'-'-i .. 1. . . ~R::··I::.i '1" .1 · . . . I : 30 -!--O--·-----f--·------· .. .. I I · . .. .. ! 1 .. i . ~ 351-----:-! ------.----- · ..... ! ! I 40 I _______ ._;. ______ • · . . . . .. I ! j . 1 · ...... I . ! 45 . I ! · . . . I i I .. ---.---·--:·T------ . I · ...... I i · ...... i·· ·1 · ...... I I 501----------.-_· __ ·_··_L. _____ I j i . ! . . 1 ~ ........ !... 1 .., ........ I . . . I , I I !~-----------------~--~-L~~-~----~-·-·-·-'-·-·-·-·L!-·-.-.---~.!-.-.-.-'--.-i. • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test e II Thin Wall Sample en LEGEND 'Sl. Ground Water Level ATD o 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-205 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 60 ! ., : II , \ Ii , , 'I' I; 'I': .' i i I! ,I' I \ . I' I,j l I: I' ~ : C 0 , = ~ I ~ 0 ~ . ' .... ~ N 0 ,I' B ftI 0 01 :t "0 I .; 01 c: .c: .' 0 III N 0 q '" I~ co .., '" q ";" ~ N 1-0 q '" co .., '" ~ 'I· ~ 01 ~ I!! 0 :::: I' .!! u: ~ RITTENHOUSE-ZEl\ r,~ & ASSOC., INC. E5 Geotec""ical / llyn ,lDvieal Consulta"ts BORING NUM";~...!::.L-W.O. all::.;-S",,26g.;3L-__ PROJECT NAME TuJrwl1J1 .brk in thl! "R~~ ~ , .. ". SOIL DESCRIPTION Ground Surlace Elevation . Faet Hedlum dense. dry. gray-brown. silty. gravelly SMO ---------Very loose to loose. moist. dark-brown. fine SAND with trace of sl1 t Interbedded soft. wet; brown-gray SILT with trace of fine sand to sandy at 5.5-6 feet. 8-8.5 feet. 1--- --------- --Interbedded Very loose, saturated, gray. silty fine SAND and soft. gray fine sandy SILT; lntennixed fibrous organics noted from 15-19 feet, and from 22.5-24 feet. --------- Medium dense to dense. saturated. dark gray fine to coarse SAND (continued) SAMPLING I 't 00 SPUT SPOON SAMPU: n ~ 00 SHELBY SAMPLE ~ 2.5' 10 RING SAI.fl.E p W ~ j: II. w a 5 10 ~15 -20 1-30 r35 140 . . ,~ .. '"-- III t-III I!! III j I I I 11& I I I I I I I I " ,'. -'--''':'".. .' . STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE ... BLOWS PER FOOT (140 lb. hammar, 30 Inch drop) o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 eo G'O 100 1--1-· " .. -t····~· .. ::... '.-L.:: 1- _.. -'--' -. I···· -... + l{ ... -I· --; ~ .. "r 1- --'-' .-. _ ........ t-~ .. _- 1-·+---11--1--4---1--1---·1--4·--·1·- '-1":'" .. -. _. -... -. -_. -..... 1-' . .. ._ . ... ··1-·1-· 2., 1_ ~-.. . --,-I··· -'-.. - -. .. ' .. " I··· ... . _. 1·_· 1 "Z.-•.. '-~" . ~ 1·-_. .. _.--. .-'--'-' 1-' .... ---. . -. 1--- -~ -.--.. ... , .--. .... .... -.. '" , .. -._., . ....... .- - "- '-. '-. .. I······ ... ,._-. .. I···· -.. -. :-r'--.-~.-._-I~·· .. 1-· ". .. _-'-. ._---'-' -.. '" •. -• "'0 .. -.. -1,,-, 1·--· I·· "" 1- 1\ --~ .. _'. '.' ... '---" . ~~.-~-'" . LABORA TORY TESTS • " WATER CONTENT NP NON PLASTIC . l' }K SAMPLE GROUND WATE~ SEAL CATE WATER LEVEL AT T1ME OF OR1LLING ATO OBSERVATION , • ,-LIOUID LIMIT ! ~NAnJRALWATER .' CONTENT PlASTIC LIMIT . ._.MPLE NOT RECOVERED WELL TIP Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-301 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A-19 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 1 of 2 I I I' I I I, I' II I I' I· I! I I' I I' II I I ----------------------------------------------------------------------,; ~ , I / ~ L: 0 :5 .l ~ 0 ~ 'ot ~ N 0 .l!i III e '" ~ .; '" c: "t: 0 III N 0 9 0> co .., 0> 9 ... . ~ N 0 9 0> co .., 0> ~ ~ '" c: = I!! e :::: ~ u. ~ RITTENHOUSE-ZEMAN &-ASSOC., INC. ~ Geotec/II/icnl / lIydrogeologicnl COlIsIIUnllts BORING NUMBEEI B-1 (continued) W.O. W-5263 PROJECT NAME Tukwila Jack In the Box g '.' :! C!J STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE en z 0a: j: ~ :; ~~ A BLOWS PER FOOT A-(140 lb. hammer. 30 .Inch drop) A-lii, ::E w :5 < :;~ Feet a CD 0 10 20 30' 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 40 SOIL DESCRIPTION Medium dense to dense. saturated. dark gray. fine' to coarse SAND . ---~ _.-.... _. --.--..... Total Depth 44 feet COmpleted 22 June 1907 SAMPLING I or 00 SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE II Y 00 SHELBY SAMPLE ~ 2.5' D RING SAM'LE 8 BULK SAMPlE * SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED I 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 80 1-·--_. __ _ 1--+--+~-+-+--t--,f.-:-4--I-.-- -_. -... ---!----J!--+---..,.j. 1----1--+- .------. -' .. 1--.' _. -.. -.---.... --. . --.. --~.-------.. - --4--1--1--1--+-------. "r :-I LABORA TORY TESTS • " WATER CONTENT NP NON PLASTIC GROUND WA TE~ SEAL DATE WATER LEVEL AT Tlt.£ OF CflIU.INO .. D OBSERV ATION I • 1-LIOUID LIMIT !. ~NAlU'IAL WATER CONTENT PlASTIC LIMIT WELL TIP Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-301 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. 1 FslhGeeotA20-f129 Geotechnical and Envirnnmental Consultants I-~ 'I: .. , '1-, " I' 1- 1.1 I I .; g> "t: o III N ~ m (0) CI> 9 ..-, !i N ~ '" :il ~ !i '" lEST DATA BORING· 16 • .... • • UJ :J • • JC .... • .... ..... ....-'oJ .... DESCRlPllON .... . .,-)C ~ Group .D "'C-2'CO OJ Surface Elc:vatio~ (rL): ~. z3 • ODX Q~~ .... D .:; Sytnbol ~ nJ-DIU o,-------------r-----~c.rrrnn~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~o : :: .' I MJ../ IAlertlcdclc4 fUle &lady 1111 &ad .~ry IUle Wld Wl'b rool£ ("'It. , :: -:. SM ' loocc, Dloisl) , 5- 10- .... 15 - w W II. Z MD .. MD :x: .... e.. ~ 2D- 25 - 30 - MD 35 - 40- 33 78 3 2 61 3 29 101 31 ........ ... ' ::::; ML Gny.ill wilh rUle uod (""'Y ..,n,o "'h, """) -s • -11 • -I! I---.n G . . ..... ny Sli ...... h lenses or pea. (sor., -.:.) • r-2C • Gnda 10 .. ith lellSU or line pnd f-25 SP Bl~cI: lioe 10 medium pod (medium ~en •• , _I) -3D f-3S NOle: See FiC"R A-l rDr C%pl.n~lion or symboll ~~. Geo~~ Engineers Log of Boring Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-302 ~ I!! 21-1-09369-002 February 2004 ~ SHANNON & WILSON, INC. ,~ FIG. A-20 ji Geolachnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 1 of 2 ~~ ________________________________________________ ~ ____________ ~ ________ -L __ ~~~~~ I TEST DATA BORlNG 16 I • (Continued) ... , • u.o :J • • :lC .. • I-... ... ~ ' .. ... DESCR.lPT10N .... ('~~ :lC a. Group .D "'c~ D:l E • ODX ,U "'0 • Symbol .J J:U-oc~ IIIU " I I 40 iIi;: 4 14 0 45 --4. ;,/.-' .: SP -0"'1 fUle sand "';Ib lill Ind I troce of o'i"nic IIIIlIer (medium I • .' SM . dCDIC, weI) 11 ' . . ' ," ~ .... \ 50 -'.' -51 ....... ....... I ........ Me 23 101 20. • ........ '.' .' ' . . . I I-SS -":." . -S5 III .. III .' IL I, Z .' '. Grid .. 10 sand "';Ib Ihen r ... ""enll .. \2 . ~, : '. r .. ' I-" ., a. " ~ 60-.' ,'.: MI.! Gny line undy sill 10 IiiI)' flllc sand (medium SlUf, loose. -,) -60 ,:.: SM I · ' · ' 6 • '. : · . · . · . · . I' , ~:. 6S 6S -'SM G ... y sill)' Ii?e und (medium densc, wet) :' :~::: : I u 22 • -.::-:.: . \:~: ~ .' , 70 --70 .,~ .. . SP-o ... y fUl~ sand "';Ih sill (den"" wcl) :SM « en .. I L: 0 ~ ~ J9 • .' '. :...:....: Borine completed II n.s fccl On 12/6190 7S - around ""Ier cncountered It Ipproximately 6 fcct durin, drilli., r-7S I 0 '1' V ~ 0 .!! I' as 0 01 ~ SO -/ ..... SO Note.: Sec F1eurc A·2 for "planllion of symbols .. I 01 C "C 0 !XI N 0 q 0> <D ~"" Log of Boring Geo~~ Engineers l'igure A-35 I '" 0> ~ ~ Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street N 0 I q 0> <D '" 0> ~ ~ I CI ~ I! ~ .!! I u: Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-302 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC • I FIG. A-20 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 20f2 I . . t--1 .i I; ,- I~ Ii 1\ I: I·; I· I" I: . u < I Ul L: 0 :5 ::I < I' ~ 0 N · .... N · N 0 ill 1-Oi 0 '" ~ I .. '" C "C 0 ID N 0 9 I 0> CD '" 0> 9 -· ;3i N I 0 9 0> CD '" 0> ~ I; ;3i '" c: it! I! 9 " I: a; iL Graph BORING NO. __ B~ LotVedBy~ Date '7-8-87 ELEV. _ ... ...;s_·_! __ _ us cs row- Sat ,oh Soil Descrip·tion 1/2" sod Depth (ft.) Tan gravelly silty SAND with scattered cobbles, dry ... 5 Hoist below 1'. gray below 2.5' Brownish-gray organic SILT, moist. IllediWII stiff ~ 10 Interbedded with peat 11' to 14' " . ~ 15 lZ 1Ill-Interbedded gray clayey SILT and black .. _ 20 -.. SID silty SAND. Yet, IllediUlll dense ---------------IIll Gray SILT, non-plastic. dense, wet, 3" layer clayey SILT', 28.5' 5111 Grayish-blACk ailty fine to lDedium SAND, wet. mediWII dense With shell tragtolo!nts below 37.5 I ~ 25 ... 30 ~ 35 f-40 Sample I 'I I ][ ][ I I I I I T CN) Blows Ft. 38 6 3 PUSIl IpU~H 16 16 .. 5 12· 17 21 , Boring terminated at 44· feet below existing grade ::Groundwater encour.tered at 17 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cut:tings • w (") 9 18 " qu-l.Otsf 85 LL-68 48 PI-6 123 252 42 ,I' .' 29 - 28 34 ·23 24 ....... ';>2./ .. ..;;, ) 21 ; ............. ~.....,..,...... __ ........................... fII ... .........,. ...... --..,~ ...................... .... ,......,........T .......... ........., ... , ....... " .... __ ....... ___ .............................. ., ... _ ............................ ~w.. BORING LOG PROPOSED WAREHOUSE RENTOti, WASHING1'()tI GEOTECHNICAL EHG',..EEIt,,..c; • GEOLOGY Proj. No. 3453 r Date July' 87 Piau 5 Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-303 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-21 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants I, ,I I G !Y- I :~ I I I I I I I u < (/) I L; 0 :; ~ ~ I 0 rt .... rt N 0 J!i III I 0 OJ ~ .; OJ I c "C 0 ID N 0 9 en CD I .., en ~ ~ N 0 I 9 en CD .., en ~ ~ I OJ .S = e ~ I ~ raph ~ ::-~ ~ I'Y' BORING NO. A Logged By ...s.I:L.- pat. 7-7-87 ElEV. -S'~ • US Depth (N) W Soil Description Sam,,1e Blows CS ' (ft.) Ft. (%, 112M top::oil SW-Gray gravelly SAND with scattered I 48 :, SH cobbles. mo!st, dense (flll) f-5 I 26 14 f-lO'S2 -I PUSiI 122,5 .. 1111 Brownish-gray clayey SILT with scattered :IT: PUSH IllS organic matter. lIIOiat, aof~ LL-46 :IT: PUSH 54 PI-8 Gray sandy SILT"Wet, loose I-15 . I 23 13 ;,- 12t : .. B1.4~f1n4a ~ ve.to., ~ dense f-20 ; ,-~' "tra1ISJi=brovn-'"Iray interlayered _~ls~fei. I 8 53 qu-O.25tsf 1-l-.s..!~~~!:ia;:!...c_s..!_t " und, Wet, very i-2-5 Sill _SlD S1II B!ack tine, to IllediUIII SAND, We~, JllCcSium I 20 28 dense I-30 I 3 24 I_C!:l!Y~c1:~!Y. SA!!D..l Wet, very soft, with -scatt~red grav~l ~l} Gray silty SAND with shell fraqments. I 14 21 wet, JDediua dense I-40 T 16 22 -,- Boring terminated at 44 feet below existing grads. Groundwater encountered,-at' 9.S feet during drilling. I" PVC standpiPf! ine::ealled to bot~ of boring. -Lower 10 feet slotted. Boring backfilled with' cuttings. Water level on 7-9-S7 WAI 6.8 feet. • Vertical 1!ae\CI unltnow:"l. Eleva-~ion. dett"rlII~ned with re!lpect to • telllporary .bench ma::lt, the top ot the n:.rth side of Southwese 27th Street, et an assumed elev.~ior. ~: C.O feet. ...................... :---.................................... ....-, ............ ., .......... -...,.... ... ,.....,.... ,...,. .. ,.~...-.-.. .. --............. ----...... ~ ........................... ---.. ~ .. -'. . -,'" .. Eart:h~ Coasu1taDts ID4.. ~ BORING LOG PROPOSED WAREnOUS& JtENTON, WASH1NCT01'I GCOT£CHNIC"'~ CI'tGIHItFcfING a Gito\.OOY ProJ. No. 3453 IOn. July'S7 PI.,. 4 Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-304 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A-22 Geotechnical and Envitonmental Conaultanls r -} r e'l ; 1 Ii r"{ 11 ,. } 1\ Ii i II r i I Ii I , I,; Ii " I· I I ~ I I/) c 0 :5 ~ I g 0 "'t 'It "'t N 0 .!! .. I a 0> ~ ~ I a. '1ii .. l- N 0 9 en I·: co .., en 9 ... , ~ 5 N I 0 9 en co .., en ~ 5 0> I' c:: it: .:'~' I! ~ I, je u: 'It 0-" 0-... Test Pit Log Project Name: S.W. 27TH Street Warehouse of 1 I Jab Nc. r Legged by: 3453-4 DSL Test Pit Nc.: TP-1 excavation Contactcr: Ground Surface Elevation: Evans Brothers Construction ± Notes: w (%1 4.4 lS.5 91.1 46.1 , ... ", ... , ~ ... - 11-- en,o u.o ene ;::':JI II) SM Surfac. Conditions: Grass .f!lJ,; Brown silty fine to COalse SAND with gravel, medium denu, moist 2 f--SP·SM .Ell!; Brown poorly graded medium to coarse SAND wilh silt and gravel, medium dense I-- 3 I-- r-- 4 I-- I-- 5 r-- I-- 6 I-- r-- 7 r--- FllL: Gray poorly graded medium to coarl'! SAND wilh silt ·slight caving 8r--ro.:,~ __ ~~=·~~m~in~o~r~se~e~p=ag~e~~ ______ ~~ __ ~~~~ __ ~~~~ ________ -; _ PEAT 0ar1c brown fibrous PEAT interbedded wilh organic silt. solt to medium stiff, wet to - saturated 9- - 10 f-- - 11 ML GIay SILT, soft to medium stiff, saturated - 12 -- 13 - - 14~~---+~T~.~st-P~it7w-rm~i~na~t-ed~U~174~~~et~~-I~ow--e~~·s~ti~ng--gr-ad~e-.~V~e~--m7in-o-rg-ro-u-n~dw-a~te-r-se-.-pa-g-.----; encountered at 81eet during excavaUcn. ~r-------~----~--~~--~--~------------~--------------------------------------~ Test Pit Log S.W.27TH Street Warehouse Renton, Washington ~ Prof. Nc, 3453-4 1 lMn. GLS Date AuQ'94 Qleclced DSL Oat. 8/17/941 Plate A2 Subsurface conditiON depicted repre .. nt cur obaoorlta!lon. at !he 11m. and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering testa, analysis and Judgment. They are not necessarllv representative of ether times and Iocatlolla. We cannot aooapt responsibUity fer th. use or Interpretatlon by others of Informal/on presented en this log. Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF TEST PIT TP-301 February 2004 21·1·09369·002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG A 23 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants .- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g o N ;; ~ en ~ ;; CD ~ I!! of 0-, 0-... . Test Pit Log Project Name: S.W. 27TH Street Warehouse Job No. I Logged by: 3453-4 DSL Excavation ContadOr: Evans Brothers Construct/on Notes: w (".(o) - eno ULI ene :::l::Jt UJ SM Test Pit No.: TP~13 Ground Surface Elevation: ± Surface Conditions: Grass .f!!!; Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, damp of 1 1~~~~~~~----~--~~~~~--~--~~--~--~--------~ _ SP-8M .f!!!; Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, damp 3.9 10.1 45.8 ,~\ 102.3 ,~\ 43.3 qu = 1.25-1.5Isf 48.5 qU<.5tsf :2- - 3-- 4- '- 5- - 6--7-- B -'--\J PEAT 9-- 10 - """""- 11 MH ~ 12 -- 13 l- I- 14 -becomes wat .f!b!.; Gray poorly graded SAND with silt "\. -minor seepage 8<own fibrousfwoody PEAT inlerbedded with organi~ silt, very soft to soft, saturated atay elastic SILT, soft to medium stiff, saturated Tost pit terminated at 141eet below existing grade. Minor groundwater seepage oncounter.d at 8.5 '.at during excavation. r ~r-------~--~--~~--~--~----------,-------------------------------------; . ,.; ~ Earth Consultants 1119. ~_"'-~~.t __ Test Pit Log S.W. 27TH Street Warehouse Renton, Washington ~ Prof. No. 3453-4 I Own. . GLS Date Aug'94 Checked DSL Calli 8/17/94 I Plate A 14 Subsurface oondltlons depicted represent our observations at the Urne and location of this exploratory hole. modilled by engineering tam, analysis and ludgmenL Theyata not necessarily rapresentaUve of other tlmos and locations. W. cannot accept responsibiUty for the use or interpretation by others of Information presented on this log. . Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF TEST PIT TP-302 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 CD Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants i ,r i , , ; , { ! , i i i i ! : ~ SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-24 ~L-____________________________________________ ~ ____________________ ~ __________ ~ Ii II 1\ Ii ! 11 i -1 Ii Ii I) I I.; .' 1-: I I I I .. : I': ., CD l- N o 9 01 '" .., 01 f !ii ! '" :il ~ ~ ~ I!! _ Test Pit Log Project Name: S.W. 21TH Street Warehouse ,of 1 " Job No. I logged by: , 3453-4 DSL Test Pit No.: Tp·2 -t ~ 0-... excavation Conlactor: Evans Brothers Construction Notes: W (%) 4.7 13.6 108.2 51.2 w , , ,II, , "8 ~ ,~ , ~ t!! ,~ t!! t!! • ,I ~' eno u.c ens ::IJ1 (/l SP·SM r---- n-- r-- 2 r-- r-- 3 r---- r---- 4 r---- r-- 5 r-- r-- 6 r-- r-- 7 r-- r-- 8 PEAT r-- ,9 r-- r-- 10 r--- r--- 11 r---- ~ 12-ML r---- 13 r----- 14 -- 15 Ground Surface Sevatlon: ± Surface Conditions: Grass F1I.l: Brown poorly graded medium to coarse SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, moist " " ,,' " :, -minor seepage Dark brown fibrous PEAT Interbedded with organic silt. soft 10 medium stiff, weI \0 saturated Gray SILT, soft 10 medium smf, saluraled Test pit terminated at 15 feel below existing grada. Minor groundwater seepage encountered al 7.5 feel during excavation. ' ~r-------~--~--~~--~--L-----------~----------------------------------~ ~i ,_~~.Co~!!!:-Test Pit Log S.W.21TH Street Warehouse Renton, Washington ~ Prof· No. 3453-4 I DIm. GLS Date Aug'94 Clecked DSL Data 8/17/94" I Plata A:J Subsurface conditlons deplctad represent our observation. at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, anaIysI. and JudgmenL n,ey are not necessarily representative of other limes and locations. We cannot accept ,esponslbility for thli use Of Interpretation by othe,s of Information presented on this log. . .., " " ' ' , Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF TEST PIT TP-303 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 ~ SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-25 iii Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants ~L-__________________________________________ ~~ ____________________________ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I 0 « fJ) I L: 0 :; ~ ~ I 0 ~ • ~ 0 ~ I 0 l ui CI I c: "C 0 III N 0 'i' '" U) I .., '" ~ ~ N 0 I 'i' '" U) .., '" ~ ~ I CI .5 0= I! ~ ~ I u. 'r ~ r-----------------------~----------------------------------------~ • /DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene DRILLING METHOD: HSA, split spoon sampler SURFACE ELEVATION: 20 :t Feet .. ~ J: t w C a- 5~ 10- 15- 20- en en <I: ... U ... .... i5 0 en III :E :E .... > en en <I: ., SM .. / OH r{f/ rf~ /f /j} rf~ /f /j} rjf-: /f f/} ., SM DESCRIPTION Loose to medium dense, dark yellowish brown, sfoghtly gravelly, silty SAND, moist. Fine to coarse sand. Fine'to coarse subrounded gravel. Trace organics, grass, roots. IFIU) Medium stiff, very dark brown, ORGANIC SILT, moist. Contains organics, peat. reeds, leaves. Loose to medium dense, dark grayish brown. silty SAND, moist to wet. Fine to medium sand, Trace organics. grass. IAUUVIUMI ."." . c:: IU W ~ .. III en w :E < .. I>. .... '" .... > ::» ~.5 en I-Z IU W w ffi!? .... ... .... a: .. a: I>. I>. . ~ IU :E :E Zo J: <I: « ~a .... en en 0 7·7·7 ~S.2 3-4-5 ~S.3 1·2·3 ~ S-4 2·2·4 LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 4127/98 LOGGED BY: MB c:: w .... <I: ;: 0 z :l 0 a: Cl " ! ~ Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight. 30· drop) .. A Blows per foot ~ J: t w 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 i-"'--;"';-""'-":""'....,...."":"":'--.,...-"":'--..,.."';' .-0 .: ~ ~ ~.:::::. . ! ! Water Content 1%) Plastic Umit I • I Uquid Umit Natural Water Content NOTE:. This log 01 subsurface conditions applies only at the specilied location and on the date indicated '-end therefore may not necessarily be indicetive of other times end/or locations. SW 27th Street Culvert Replacement Renton, Washington ~ HWAGEOSaENCES INC. BORING: BH-2 PAGE: 1 of 2 Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-305 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 FIG. A-26 Sheet 1 of2 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants ,. : i ! i r • ·/DRILUNG COMPANY: Holocene DRILLING METHOD: HSA. split spoon sampler SURFACE ELEVATION: 20 ~ Feet :z: Ii: w .0 .... 0 '" ~ > VI VI VI < .... u .... 0 VI ~ I-VI < DESCRIPTION 40-~~~----------------------------~ JJ 45- .:. :. sp .... .... .... .... " " 50-' '.: .. .... .... .... 55-.. ': .... .... e: w w !i .. '" w ::E <OJ ... 1-'<: > ::I ~.5 I-Z w w VI", ~ ~ w_ e: .. . ~ ~ ::E Zo < < w-VI VI ... :!1. ~S-10 12·12·16 ~S'11 15·23·29 L.;::..,:..;: • .I-....L _________________ ..J ~S-12 9·15·20 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- End of borehole at 59.0 feet. Groundwater seepage encountered at 17.5 feet at time of boring. VI I-VI w I-e: w :z: I-0 LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 4127/98 LOGGED BY: MB e: w Standard Penetration Resistance I-< ~ (140 lb. weight. 30· drop) 0 A. Blows per foot Z ::I 0 a: C) 0 10 20 30 40 -50 -65 -70 f-75 L--'"---'------'------'---'---"--'--'-....L......J '-80 20 40 60 80 100 o Water Content (%) Plastic Umit 1---*---1 Liquid Urnit Natural Water Content NOTE: This log 01 subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated , and therefore may not necesSlrily be indicative of ather times and lor IDeations. D\!i; SW 27th Street Culvert Replacement HWAGEOSCIENCESlNC. Renton, Washington BORING: BH-2 PAGE: 2 of 2 Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-305 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. A-26 Sheet 2 of2 I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I L: 0 :6 ::> < ;g I 0 '1' ..,. ~ 0 ~ I a CI ~ .; CI I c "C 0 III N 0 q 0> co I .., 0> q ';" ~ N 0 I q 0> co .., 0> ~ ~ I CI ~ I!! ~ .!! I u:: ·r·~ r-----------------------------------------------------------------~l I'ORILUNG COMPANY: Holocene DRILUNG METHOD: HSA, split spoon sampler SURFACE ELEVAT10N: 21:1: Feet -;:: .. ;; ~ 0 :x: CD t ~ w >-0 en 0- : 5-.. II) II) < ~ u -J 0 tlI ~ ~ II) < SM DESCRIPTION 7· asphalt concrete. Medium dense to very dense, dark yellowish brown, slightly gravelly, silty SAND, moist. Fine to coarse sand. Fine to coarse, angular to subrounded gravel. IFILU a: w w u_ CD Zoo w ~ <" e.. ~..:: >-:> eng ~ z iii; w w ~ ~ w_ e.. e.. a: .. ~ ~ . ~ Zo < < ~a en en ~ 5·1 16·28·28 10- Dark brown silt containing organic matter in ~*;::;;;+-t;::h:;e::-s_:am=p::_'e_::;r_::ti:::p:_;. =::-:=--;::;=~;;-;::-=~ __ .,...,.---l ~ S-2 13·17·6 ~} OH Sot!, very dark borwn, ORGANIC SILT, moist. /// Contains organiCs, wood, leaves, reeds. 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- jf~ jj /f/ ff~ jj /j} jf1 jf SM Loose to medium dense, dark grayish brown to very dark brown, silty SAND, wet. Fine to medium sand. (ALLUVIUM) ~ S-3 1·1·2 ~ S-4 2·7·10 ~ S·5 2-5·5. : .. SM liose-t; de~s~,-v;rY da;k-9~av, -;;ity-SANO,-- -f\i1 S-7 wet. Fine to coarse sand. Contains silty ~ 4-4-3 layers. ~ S-8 3·8·10 40-~~~------------------------- tlI ~ II) w ~ a: w :x: ~ 0 %F LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 4127/98 LOGGED BY: MB a: w l-< ;: 0 z :> 0 a: I!l Standard Penetration Resistance 1140 lb. weight, 30· drop) .. .A Blows pet foot ~ 0 Water Content 1%) Plastic Urnit I • I Uquid Urnit Natural Water Content NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions appfies only at the specified location and on the date indicated " and therefore may nat necessarily be indicative of ather times andlor locations. IJ~ HWAGEOSaENCES INC. SW 27th Street Culvert Replacement Renton, Washington BORING: . BH-1 PAGE: 1 of 2 Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-306 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I Geotechnlc:aJ and Environmental Consultants FIG. A-27 Sheet 1 of2 I r i I I· { , , ! .. 1- "1 I I I f I j I I , ,. i I ,j I I I IJ i j Ii I ; : , -' I I' 11._ 1:··-> ! .; CI -e .B N o q ~ q .... . ;; N ~ 0> CD .., 0> ~ ;; CI IORILLING COMPANY: Holocene DRILLING METHOD: HSA, split spoon sampler SURFACE ELEVATION: 21 t Feet J: t '" e ...l o m ::E >-II) III III c:( ...l U ...l o III ::E ~ III < DESCRIPTION 40-~.:.-:-~.:-rS=p~~M~e~di~u-m-d7e-n-s-e~to~d-en-s-e-.~d-ar7k-g-ra-y-.~f~ln-e~to------' medium SAND. 45- 50- 55- :": . :": . .... " .. " " .... .'. " .. ',': ", .. .... Encountered some shells. a: w w u_ m Z .. w ::E <" CL ... ..: >-:::I IIlg ~ Z ;:;;; w w ..J ..J w_ CL CL a: .. . ~ ::E ::E z 0' c:( « UJ j5 " II) II) CL_ : ~ 5-9 11-11-13 ~5-10 8-11·tl ~5-ll 10-18-20 L,,'-,,:,' 1--L __________________________________ ...J ~S-12 6·7·5 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- End of borehole at 59.0 feet. Groundwater seepage observed at 17.5 feet at time of boring. II) ... II) w ... a: w J:. ~ 0 " " .',' .GS .. LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 4n7/98 LOGGED BY: MB a: w ~ < == e z :::I ,.~ c Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30' dropl .. . A. ~Iows per foot ~ J: t w 30 40 50 e ,---;--;-......,."""7""-,--:-..,... ........ ...., -40 o 10 20 ~;. "i:':.~.' I I \ \.1 I \ I \ I --I--I--h-+H+~-~'O ~ I I ~ i ! ! '. ! r-70 ····:·t· .... ·I .... ··t .. · .. ·I· .. ···t··· .. ·I· .. · .. t--.. I···· .. t· .. ··· r-75 I ! I ! 1III1 0~~~2~0~-4~0~~6~0--~B~0~-1~0080 Water Content '%1 " Plastic Umit I • r Uq~id Umit Natural Water Content NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated' '-end therefore may not necessarily be indicative gf other times Indlor locations . IJ~ SW 27th Street Culvert Replacement liWAGEOSCIENCESlNC. Renton, Washington BORING: BH-1 PAGE: 2 of 2' Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-306 ~ ~ 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-27 February 2004 ~~ ________________________________________________________________ .J ___ G_~ ____ ni_cd __ an_d_Emri ___ ron __ me_n_~ __ Co_n_~_I_w_n_m __ ~ __ ~S~h~e~e~t~2~0;f~2~..J I I I I I I I I I I I u c( rJ) I,; I 0 = ::J c( ~ 0 I ~ ~ N 0 ]!I .. I c l ... CI c: i I "C 0 m N 0 9 '" CD .., I '" 9 ~ . 5 N 0 I 9 '" CD .., '" ~ 5 CI I c: iE I!! ~ .5! I u:: £: .: 'lit a I-a hZ "4 f-e ·1 SAMPLE DATA .. I .! • § ~ 1C I z:. ., '" r.i I .If oS I ! 9 r:;;; Do --.. .. . . .. .. '., : I , ' .. .t a .. '." ' .. n' 10M; CompCalad al~ TotAl Depth d 8ariQa M 11.5 ft. LAI-15 SOIL PROFIU! Drinng Method: HoII-.stem Aug.,. f Ground Elevation (fI)' '" .~ Drilled By: Cascade O,iWng Inc. &PI LIgIIt -. tine 111_ :wro ,.;III $" tRee sa \IOa1 •• weI) Ino _. no ahMn) - ij~ f--i.Wn:~:-~i"~.;.g.fttC,j~-·--- liIr.moiIQ GROUNDWATER I J • I · · - · - ~ ATO · - - - - ConocoPhmips _ Renton Figura I A. I.ANoAu Terminal Log of Boring LAI-15 A 21 ~ ~ocucrcs~ ____ R_e_n_to_n_,~ __ ~ __ in_g_~_n ____ L-______________________________ L-_-__ __ Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-307 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG A-28 Geotachnlcal and Environmental Consultants • ; i J .. j j [ f -I rh I r '\ : ! I] SAMPLE DATA , I i I , I I • ~ g '~-~ ~ !j t J: I ~ ~ • iii rn~ en Ii -0 'i -z I j Ii ! i I) I; I' " -I IJ .. j ;:: I,i , Z .t 4 I" -: CJ ~ I , L; 0 :S ::> < IJ ~ 0 ~ -or ~ 0 IJ 19 01 0 01 ~ I· oj 01 " "I: 0 III N 0 'i' I·; a> CD '" a> 'i' ~ . 'lA~ctAnS ~ N I·; 0 'i' a> CD '" a> ~ I.: ~ 01 ~ e 0 :::: I·~ .iii u: '[ e 0 ii: II " II LAJ-12 " SOIL PRoFIle ' GROUNDWATER '8 I t en u Qtound ElaV.lIon (!Il-~--" '_"' ___ _ I ... • u 0 ! DrIlled, By: Cascade Drtl6nq Inc. .... ~ .. .. , . '. · . , · '. · .. : · .. • 0" I : .-.. ConacoPhilJlps • Renton TermInal Renton, washington .- ., .' < " log of Boring LAI·12 - - - -- . -----:! - '. - -L ______ --________ -L __________________________ -L ____ ~ Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-308 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG A 29 Geotechnical and Environmenlal Conaultanls .- I I I I I I I I I I 8 ... j I 0 I ;:; ,E I.: I 0 ~ :; ::> IE < I ~ ~ 0 I ~ I ..,. ~ 0 j .. .. I I 0 iii CI .. .;; '~ I ui CI I c: -c: 0 III '" 0 'i' 0> '" I .., 0> 'i' ';" ~ '" 0 I 'i' 0> '" .., 0> ~ ~ I CI c: iE e ~ .l!i I u: 1-1 1-10 SAMPLE DATA i 15 ;01 , a o i 1 .. ' . " &anft; Cemp!_ otf.nm TDtII DepUlIII BOlIng • 11.511: . SOIL PROFILE f DrtIIlng Ndhod:' HollcnMtem Aum Ii Gnlund elevation (ft): _____ ---'-__ ~ '" ::J 8111 Orlh4 By: Cascacle OriP!!1IlnC, AT\) GROUNDWATER .~_~Ier, Sc!ocdIAe '0, PYC ....... (D.DIo.lndI SlDI "I - - - . - - ! .: - conocoPhtlllps _ Renton Figure IA I.ANDAIJ Terminal Log of LAI-11 A-1.7. ... AssOOAnS p..l.. ____ R_enta_"_, _Wa_shing_' _tcn __ ...J.-____ -:..--~-------1L..----' Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-309 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG A 30 Geotechnical.and Environmental Consultants .- t ,- ., [- i i. I I, ! .. , Ii I; I: I' I' I I~ I ; , , I I: , I- I; Ij I~ t .. g' "C o CD N o ,. 0> :!l q ~ . ~ N ~ :!l ~ - g .e f D -0 -2 ~4 f-& 1-. 8 -' ~ :-10 .. . ~ -12 .. ! l s i --1. I' N & i ~ SAMPLE DATA .. I 11 t E :I ~ i I ii .. J,l t a t o· .-~ enod iii ii: " : : -I ., Z4 .. Z 81 • . , hm.e C .... ' ... d D1nWJ" 1_ Dcph tlllIaIfnV -",5 II. - LAI-10 SOIL PROFILE DrillIng Methad-Hallaw-shm A~ ! Ground s.vallon (ft). ,. , cd Drilled By: Casad. DciIi!li Inc. u fI.I :::l 1M Grwr, .~.,. r ... 1a _ SAND wRII anoeI tlNdlum -. WIQ (110 ocI;r, .... !IIleen) iie -lMr\Sii.T,;,v._"ioiidMd~---'- (""',-~ GROUNDWATER ~1aiI "i • ~ 'w ~ ..... -.r--' .~ '. -~': 4. ' .: -PnIIa:1he wtA ~. t """,..."."a_ _lUI ~ .......... .,.. ~ '-~-. -_4Q,P'IIC-". casing . ... - : ,'. . .... " ' '. ~ .. = . . .. e· ..... •... ...... : = .... . ::':. :::::! '0-:. ;::.~'. == ':"'," ::::: ...... ...... .: ~ ... ~ -.:.~.~: ~ Am .... ~ ~ :.:-.: ~ sz: ~ .. ' !',' ~ .'. '.' ~::·f~ F ::.' ~ :.~ -101211 11n4 ,. .... I~:~~\ ~ ~ -',;. . :::~ ~ .:".:' 4-4nc:II di:I __ .... . SclwdoAo ~ PVC '. ::::: -" (lI.01C).lnc11 slot l: '~.: ~ 11111) , ., ~ • '0 ~ .: ... ~ '.~ :'0;; ::::: -E: .. ' :::::; ..... ::=:::: .... ": ':. ::::: ....... == .... ::.' . , ~\~ ~ ,'''. g ".:. ~'.:. ;, ',,," ;;;;;;0 . ',;. '-:;:-'"reeiMd End_p ," , - .' ," 0'0:"-',:.: .. "' ': .. .... " - Figure lA~ ConocoPhlDips -Renton Terminal Renton. Washington Log of LA.1-10 A-16 -L ______________ -L ______________________ ~~~ __ ~ Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington i LOG OF BORING 8-310 " = I!! February 2004 21-1-09369-002 ~ iii SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A-31 ~~ ________________________________________________________ J-_G~~~~~n~~~~:E~~~8:~~Coo~~:~:n:m~~ ____________ ~ I I I I I I I I I I 8 .. i I ~ u I i'i r: L; ~ I 0 = ~ I ~ ~ 0 I ~ I "" ~ N 0 61 l!i • III I I c 01 I ~ .; 01 I c: 'I: 0 III N ~ '" ro I .., '" 9 ... , E N 0 I 9 '" ro .., '" ~ E I 01 ~ e ~ :?i I u. g ~ tIJ 1-0 '.~' . 1-2 f-. f-5 . 1-1 I-'D 1-14 SAMPLECATA i I e -" ~ .1 ~l I g-f .-• CoO" en • < -I a2 ,. ;; .. ~ ..... I g 11.. '0 ! .' . , . '. '. .' '. " ..... . ... ,! :'. iii' J 4 .. .. '. : .. U 22 a .... . . ' .. . . .:: -;t 24 D Baring ea ... .,.d 01/Q:stOl ToIIII C'" allIamg • 1D.' I\. ML LAI·1 SOIL PROJ!ILE \.lgIII1IIv-. R,.. ... 1I\..tl .... SANe .... Itl _ arM PDClIC. moiol) (00 ClCior, ... ~ G"'1 • ...,..II> INdium iW/D .411 ;tW. (Ioau IOIIWdMII _. ~ tve'Y Iffsl/l1 ___ -. no I/Inn) .,c 1JaII' __ SILT WIllI ~ (atill. -I) tno edar. no IhooetI) c !lOIn: 1. !hfGlw\l/llo:..-<tII _ Hnd lin IIoId ll*iF*-& __ ...."IIL , , Z. 11 .. _ ....... «IID,.".., lallC<ZAalJlWa ,...porund~ oI~~ J. ,, __ "Sal CIa*"'" s-r-.... Ket" .................. oflF"l'ft/<allll'l.,....... GROUNDWATER '. ". ~:. ..... .' Detal +iIH:II GWno1er, ScIIcdute 40. I'\I'C ......... CD.a'G4ncll1IDI .... , - - - - - - ConocoPhil6ps _ Renton Figure I A. lAADAu Terminal LOg of LAI-1 A 7 ~ AsSOCIAnS -'-__ Ren_lDn_,_Wash ___ In_g_ton_--L ___________ -J..---.j Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-311 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG A 32 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants .- " i " .J ,1 (') II I r I ! , 1 I I } I.) ! " . I , J I , I I , " I : _i i ~ 1 IJ Ul L: 0 :5 :::J c( I 1 ~ IJ 0 rot ... rot N 0 I .! I 01 0 CI ~ 1··- iii CI c: "c: 0 III N 0 q I·: '" CD .., '" q ... . ~ N I,· 0 q '" CD .., '" ~ 1-; ~ CI ~ I! ~ I, .!i u: LAl·2 ~------.---------.----------------------------~r---------~~--------.- -4 f-e r t-II SAMPU!DATA ~ '81. • ~ ~ ~ ;z-a ii I E 1= .-• !l 14"" 14 \Q 112 ,. Z lIZ 15 I .e. ~ :17.' 1;1 "Ei i .Y ! a ":-. · .' · . '" :. : · .' .:: .. .' .' ... .' " .. i 1ft .b: ;:) ~! SM ) lIZ 30 a .• ':'::": ~p • 5 lIZ SQIr I;." . ~ 28 D D . ", ', .. . ". . :. ::: .. : : .. ':', .' ..... llaMa eo ..... ", OlJll:I/D:I Total DojI!IIoI ~ :a ,0.' /I. SOIL PROFILE Drilling Met/lod: HDIIOW-sIem Auger C3J0und EIemIoII (It)I_' ________ _ DrRI.t By: Cascade DrHllnS.1ne. ~ ~LT .. roots (Very~. mabO (_ odor."" aile",,! '.-. '., :-.0 GROUHDWATER 0.1111 - - - - - - ConocoPhillips • Renton Figure IA l..ANDAu .... Tenrinal Log of LAI-2 A-8 ~ ~ocucrcS-L ___ '_R_en_l~ ___ ~ __ sh_ln_gW __ n __ ~ ______________________________ ~ _____ ~ Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B·312 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A.33 Geatechnlcal and Environmental Consultants I I I I I I I I I I I u :i L.: I 0 :S '" < ~ 0 I C'f ... C'f .... 0 s .. I 0 I oj 01 C I "C 0 III .... 0 9 01 CD .., I en 9 ... . ~ .... 0 9 I en CD .., en ~ ~ 01 I ,5 .. I!! ~ ~ I g i 'Q -0 "z i"'- -I s' oI ... jr-tG i 1-14 I 2 ... I SAMPLE DATA Ii !. ~ I I enod II - 2 2 • 112 24 '," . 5 '112 2C I .so '~ • I ,.. 10 ,:if II. I! a " '. " " .... " ' '. ~ . · '., ;. . ,,' ..... , , " -a I ,.. rn IQ U g Sf'I 3l1li '0 '::. Q o '. " " . , ' , ' '0' " SI' · ~ : · .... " ." : '. ',' "0 .:: .... : I ML LAI-3 SOIL PROFILl! DI!IIIn; MeIhDd' HoIIcnt-,!e/n ~r Groulld Elevation (ft), Drilled By: CUcacle DrIlling Inc. IIaI1I111~GllOW2 Tolol De,1h of hftftt. 10.' I\. AsSOCIATES Conoc:aPhilJlps • Renton Terminal Renton, Washington GROUNDWATER Detaa - " " : .. :':: : : " '. -" - -; ..: - F"l9ure Log of LAI-3 A-9 " lANDAU' ~----------------~--------------------------~----~ Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-313 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC, FIG A 34 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants .- Ii , I) Ii Ii II 1 I I, , -' I I-- It ~ 1-, 1,,-, ~ o ':I ~ N o .! .. c i ., '" c ·c o CD ~ co ..., ~ '" c e 9 CD g i c! -a 1-% 1-1 SAMPLE DATA a; i ! "8 'I . z~ ... . j i~ i e ~~ .a Q ID D- 14 a 2 .1 4 0 SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Dn1l!n1l Melhod' HoUow-stem Auger Ground Erav2lion (ft)·_~ ____ . __ Drllied By; , ClDcade DrlUlng Inc. "::. - . ":. : : . .. ' : .. " -... ..... . Sl. ATO .' " - :.'~ . . ' " ~ -~sn. 'f-wlii ;;aMI oii.I-,;,p;.:.--. -_. -en-s .... 1Il.~l) ConocoPhftlips -Renton Terminal 00" ...... w..~hlnato" - - - Figure Log of Boring lAl-16 A-22 TnTOI 0 4~ Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-314 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. A-35 ~L-________________________________________________ ~ ______________________ ~ __________ ~ I ,I I I I I I I I I I u c( CI) I c 0 :5 :::J c( g 0 I ~ ~ 0 1!! CD I 0 CI ~ '0 .; CI I c "t: 0 III N 0 c;> a> <0 I .., a> c;> .... . ~ N 0 I c;> a> <0 .., a> ~ ~ I <:II ~ e 0 ::::: .!! I u:: PLATE 9 BORING NO.-5 -ELEVATION: 16: fEET *CUPHIC -nsT DATA LOr. DESCRIPTION o ~--~~~~-,~~--------------~~~~~~-------------- s - ti t! 10 - :z: ... 15 _ 20 _ 2S _ 30 _ 3S _ ItO _ 6lt.O\ 29.5\ 37.1\ 21.7\ SH SP 7 91. 6 83. BROWNISH GRAY Sl.LTY SAND ",lTH GRAVEL AND " CONCRETE RUBBLE (LOOSE TO'KE~IUK DENSE, OAMP)(FILL) BROWNISH SILTY PEAT (SOFT, PAHP) BROWNISH GRAY SILT WITH ORGANIC HATTER (SOFT, DAMP) i DARK GRAY FINE SAND WITH A TRACE OF-SILT (LqOSE, WET) LENS OF SILT AT 121 fEET - OCCASIONAL WOOD FRACMENTS AT 18 FEET ,- LAYERS OF SOFT SILT AT 221 FEET ,', .. t,' :.. r .V -.... '. :;'>i " --'\ ".-, ,', , ,', 1 SH GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUH SAND WITH SHELL • FRAGMENTS (LOOSE, WET) cc : 6 IDS. 7 BORING COMPLETED AT A DEPTH OF 39 FEET ON • 2-6-82 STABILIZED GROUND WATER LEVEL NOT OBSERVED PRIOR TO BACKFILLINC BOREHOLE .-.:" . *5[% Xrt FOR EX?t.A!IATIOH OF sreBOLS I GeoEngineers Inc. LOr. OT EXI'LOUn rei '-'" -----' Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-315 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG A-3S Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants • f ... ·1 ! I ! I i ; I i ,- II , I r~'l I ! -, I : I ' , I 1- ! ! i .. 1 • c .. i ! l.J r I II - I! f " , ' Ij .] .: t t! :z: • 'j ... i= Do I>l Q Ii , I; I ! , ? II J , ! , ~ 1·1 en L: 0 :; :> < I ! ~ 0 :.-.. ~ .., ~ N 0 ; s 11 .. c ! I .. 0> C ·c 0 IX! N 0 q I, 0> U) '" 0> q '"" . !; I·: N q 0> U) '" 0> ~ I) !; .. 'J 0> C i2 I!! I~: ~ .9! u: PI.J\TE 1 . , BORING NO.1 ELEVATION: 17: FEET ~UPRIC *TEST DATA LOr. DESCRIPTION O:r--~--~--~r-~----------------~~~~---------------- 5- 10- 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- 1+0- 1t6.7\ 75 1+5.3\ 75 6 • 6 • I) • 8 • 2 SH t--ML I"-!;H i--- ~ i'lL '-- SP 31t.6\ 85 8t-- BROWN SILTY SAND WITH bRAVEL AND CONCRETE RUBBLE (LOOSE, D~P)(FILL) LIGHT GRAY SANDY SILT WiTH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (SOFT, l)AMP)(FILL) .. GRAY SILTY SANOY G~AVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP)(FILL) BROWN SILTY PEAT ~SOFT, DAMP) BROWNISH GRAY TO GRAY SILT WITH ORGANIC HATTER (SOFT, iDAMP) DARK GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH LENSES OF SILT (LOOSE, WET) BRm;NISH GRAY TO GRAY SILT WITH A TRACE OF ORGANIC HATTER AND LENSES OF SANe (SOFT, DAMP) SMGRAY SILTY SAND WITH SHELL FRAGMENTS (LOOSE, WET) 2 23. 9\ 102. 6 .~ ,.. GeoEngineers Inc. I *$Et: leU FOR EXPU.:1ATION or snc!tlLS . Lor. OF EXPLORATlrei Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-316 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-37 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 1 of 2 'I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I ? , ~ L; 0 :5 ~ " C!i 0 ~ ~ , N 0 S III 0 i .. CD C "C 0 III N 0 9 en CD M en 9 ";' !ii N ~ en CD M en ~ ... ~ CD ~ I!! ~ .!! u: PtATE to r---------------~--------------~----~-----~------------~~~ BORING NO. 1 (CONTINUED) *CIW'HIC *n:ST DATA L«. DESCRIPTION ~OJr--~-------r~r---------------~~~~-------------- '+5 - t; t! SO - :z -~ 0. 10.1 Q SS _ GO - Z2 21t.5\ 100. 26.1\ 97 20 181 28 • 17 ~ SP -, GRAY FlNE TO MEDIUM SAND WJTH OCCASJONAL SHELL FRAGMENTS '(MEDIUM DENSE, WET) . . ,BORING COMPLETED AT A DEPTH OF 59 FEET ON 2-G-82 STABILIZED GROUND WATER LEVEL NOT OBSERVED PRIOR TO BACKFILLING BOREHOLE *$I:E \Co FOR EXPU:1ATION OF SYMBOLS GeoEnggneers Inc. I Lor. OF o:rLORATtO:1 ."-'. .,.. .. ... ' ... -. Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-316 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-37 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 2 of 2 , , ; i \ ~ i l. 1 i .. f' , I) I'; fO'! II !--;. .; : , 'Il; .' ,I I -i \ : I'i " IJ I,J} .' " I'," r Ii 1,1 " 11 I I' If I I .!i ii: ~ '" o :i: :!l ~ ... , ij m ~ ~ ~ i2 I!! TEST PIT SEVEN ELEVATION: 17~ FEET o -Bls SI-! PT lOls -11~ ML/OL GeoEngineers Inc. GRAYISH BROWN SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, CONCRETE RUBBLE, POCKETS OF SILT AND OTHER DEBRIS (LOOSE TO ~EnJU~ DENSE weT TO DAHP)(FILL) GRADES TO VERY WET AND SOFT AT It FEET DARK BROWN SILTY PEAT WITH ROOTS AtlO WOOD (SOFT, DAMP) GRAYISH BROWN SILT WITH OR~ANIC MATTER (SOFT, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETEO AT 11 FEET ON 10/8/81 NO GROUND WATER SEEPA~E:OBSERV~ DISTURBED SAMPLES-OBTAINED AT ., ~ . ' :5 "9AN.O,, 11: ,FEET -.. '. -:-:--. . ; -:::, .~ .~-- I TEST PIT LOGS Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street. Improvements Renton and Tukwila. Washington LOG OF TEST PIT TP-304 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 ~ • .9l_. SHANNON & WILSON. INC. I FIG A 38 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants .-~~------------________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ __________ .J I I I I I I I I I I - I '! u c:i L.: I 0 ~ < (!; 0 I "t v "t N 0 .! ca c I 01 ~ S il: I 0; G l- N 0 <;' '" <0 .., I '" <;' ~ . ~ N 0 <;' I '" <0 .., '" ~ ~ 01 I .s 0= I!! ~ .!! u: I TEST PIT SIXTEEN ELEVATION: 16~ FEET o -8 - 8 -9! 9; -llJ -- II; -12; ~:: . GM --- PT ML Sf' 8ROWNVERY SILTY GRAVEL WITH ORGANIC MATTE~ AND SOXE SAND (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP) (FILL) - ABUNDANT WOOD AT 3; FEET 9ROWN SILTY PEAT (SOFT, DAMP) GRAY SILT WITH ORGANIC MATTER (SOFT, DAMP) DARK GRAY FINE SAND WITH A TRACE OF SILT (LOOSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 12i FEET ON 2/3182 GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 12 FEET DISTURBED SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 2~, 8;, 10 AHo 12 FEET ~----------------------------~-----.--------------~ I TES':'_P~T LOGS GeoEngine~rs Inc. Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF TEST PIT TP-305 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG A 39 Geotechnical and Environmental Consullants .- t -t ! 1 ! \ : r \ - , /... Hole No. B-1 DESCRIPTION PROJECT; Lind Avenue Warehouse DRILL RIG; Truck-mounted HOLE 01 A; 8 In. INITIAL WATER DEPTH: 20.0 It. FINAL WATER DEPTH: 20.0 It. SOIL GllAPHlC TYPE LOG II> '" uATE DRILLED; 1/20/94 LOGGED BY; Hark Dodds, P.E. SAMPLER: SPT HOLE ELEV; 1 Road S.W. 29th Street TOTAL DEPTH: 39 It. E BLOWS ~ 1Ft. REHARKS II> =-~~~----~---'~' ----~----------~~~~----~~~r__r,_O_r--------r_----~------------------SUllaee -Brown Grassel and weeds. Brown gravely silty Sand with FiU 't "t salle CODDles. line grained.moisl. loose 10 mediUm-aense. IFill ' 'i ' r- Gray s~ly Sana. meaiulll-gra':'ed •• ery mDisl.loose. IFill 'l 'i "i 'i5. Dark Drown tibrous olganie Sill. wet. sott. Blown S.ly Sana ano S~I. lme 10 neooUID Graonea. wei. soli. Gray SIlly Sano. line to medOUlll Gralnea. wei. loose. 514 . -15 Gray 5111. wei. SOli. ML :Gr~a-y-.~an-.-y~S.~'I-.s-a~lw--al-e~ •• -~--a'-UlD---o-en-.-e-.--------------------~~M~L~~r+~20 t-25 Becomes SOli. -30 SOlIe shel I,agmen". '~J:' ENVIRONMENTAL I ~'_ .usOCUn:S',11C. .... 35 1011 01 BOI"'9 l G'oundwaler al '20.0 leel on 7120/8~. Ii 3 Moisture cDnlenl • 82.4% L.L. a 64.4% P.l. • 14.4% Moisture content· 32.5% o Moisture cantent a 31.1% 3 14 2 5 o Moisture content. 53.3% PUling No. 200 • 98.5% Groundwater s~epage. Moistule content· 34.0% Passing No. 2?0 • 68.2% .'" .. Moisture content a 35.2% _, Passing No. 200 a 52.9% j' Moisture content· 24.1% Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-317 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG A-40 Geotechnical and Environmental Consullants • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I u C'i L: 0 :; il (!; 0 ~ ~ ~ N 0 .s to 0 l ~ iii .. ..... N :i;l m CD .., " m q -, ~ N 0 q m CD .., m ~ ~ 01 ~ e ~ ~ J---------··-'-------T-E-S1-~'-I-T-7-------I -~ 0 -z -.&:. ~ UJ Q. ~ :;; .. tJ .. "0 UJ UJ C X ;) Fill . OL I 6.5-7.0 83.4% HH 2 .,8.5-9.0085.6% SP 8- I 10- 12- 14- DESCRIPTION Sur lace -Weeds DATE EXCAVATED: 1121/94 EXCAVATION METHOD: RuDDer-llred Backhoe LOGGED BY: Uoy<J J. RellI, E.LT ••. ,- SURFACE ELEVATION: I S.W. 29th 51. -.. TiIIl 'ilty gravelly Sand. fine grained, dry, medium dense. Becomes Dlue to gray in color, moist. . .,-' Becomes wei, loose. Dark brown sandy organic Sill with rools, very moist. soIl. (old topsoil) Brown sandy Sill with some organics, very mOist. solt. Black sand with Irace s~I, line grained, very lIIoist, loose. Slopped al 12.0 leet. Caving al 4·106 leet. Groundwater al 6 feel during elcav.allon. Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF TEST PIT TP-306 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-41 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants " 1 " ! '! [.Of 1 ~ 1 I' r'~y I J ,. j'r. , I Ii ~ ~"i Graph I:) "~ Ii, .. .) : :\ 1.1 , . , ': I I·! I~) I I ,.i , i , I i f f u 1,)\ ;:j c 0 :; ::I « IJ g <-t ..,. <-t N 0 I p, ~ C 0> ~ I .. 0> C "C 0 III N 0 ,. '" I CD .., " '" ,. ';' .. ;; , l iJ N 0 I,'" ,. '" CD .., '" ~ Ii ,: ;; ~+j 0> C .. e ~ I~· J2 u: BCJt-l1 N G NO. _____.1_ LoggedBy~ Date 1/10(85 us CS , Soil Description gray silty SAND, fine grained, with greenish sandy silt layers i moist, urn dense (FILL) silty SAND, wet, clayey SILT with silty sand lenses, , soft, moderate plasticity ." .. ~ . sil ty :;i\ND wi til clay and shells; ve:y loose 'De'Ct:lllIl1rlC" dense @ 42' 30 Sample · .. ··I .. I I I I '. (N) Blows " 21 10 .13. 12 "I 9 .. 'I .9 I '0 I 3' ;)51 w (%) . 27 25 Ci..=1.5 tX=57 PI=23 c=.2 t:sf Boring ten.linated at 44' beloW' existing grad~: " Ground\1ater"observation well installed to 19'. . ~ I Earth \' Consultants Inc.' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 6 GEOLOGY . ; BORING LOG PROPOSED· .tANUFACTURING SITE REN'l'OU, Wl\SUIlIGTOtl Proj. No. 2533 Date Jan.'SS Plate 4 Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-318 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG A-42 Geotechnical and Environmenlal Consultants • :1 :1 , I I I I I I - I I I ~ L.: I 0 :5 .l (!; 0 I ~ ..,. ~ '" 0 .!i III I 0 I .,; a> C I "C 0 III '" 0 <;> en U> .., I en <;> ~ I ;; '" 0 <;> I en U> .., en ~ ;; a> I ~ I!! ~ OJ if I ",' " i r--" , Duh .. O Cone ' ~~g P-1 16: E:lev, " , , r-. ...... ,....... II.ft4"."". ',oCt .... ~ -..... ,14-,~-.......... ,.. " .. r • 10 -Ito .... _ ..... -. . ~ ---.... w.,,,., ....... .. • I" , .. I •• , .!!ZI I ar.. dlty SAND, dense to lIIediua , ,,' .... " . 1-dena. • I , , I -5 rIl. I ., I t-. bec~in9 ~ery laos. ' I ", , IIIh elayey SILT, aoft to medium >'1 pt stiff w/pos"sibleorqanic layer 'I I-I -10 at' 10' ,1II04tJrate' to'hi9hplastici y , . I ," : '. .' : ,;'. , -I!:I dlty SAND, loose ~ ~: < . ", , . 4-: ; ~~ . • . , 1'1.:.. ...L -• i 1 -. IIIl olayey SILT,;very :S6tt"'u, ,of~ ".;-. I .. ...L e- ~ ... " f-Sill ailty SAND, loo,e to Jle4i UIII I . f-dense >,'-' ~: ,; . ~-~ 1-~ :"', -" --vI clayey silt layer,lI:t 23' -"' ' p- ~ I ... t-~ .- !Ill. clayey SILT, very loft 1--10 w/po5llible organic layer at 31' --=-10-" = ."' , '"' :~.-.''i",~ / . ~r= -35 alii silty SAND w:f.th sandy silt a-layera, ~dium dense -::: -, -----40 -- ~- f--411 IC-f- f-BOP Probe terMinated at 46' beleN f-the existing 9round surface. It_r • ..... IIO~ DUTCH COta: LOG ~~~ PROPOSED IWfUFACTURING SITE • ~ : I , Earth !I, :.q~" :J RENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants Inc.' ' 4 CEOTECHNICAL ENCINEERIN!; .. !;EOI.OaV Pro). No. 253310att Jan. '851 Plate Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila. Washington LOG OF BORING C-301 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG A-43 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants • !!-~1 i , ~. ) , j . , ! ,> \ \; f ri' }; : ' .. ; r' ,J " \ : i .-..i F : 1 u j ! ! ! :; i. :., l; ; i ~ 1'1 Ij Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii II Ii Ii I] Ii I) I I I I I I-z 0 L.: i ~ ~ 0 j CII 0 i s-a ~ II) e N .;, u: N 0 ~ CD .., (J) 'i' ";" ~ 8. CD a: .., 'i' N ~ CD .., ~ ... ;i I e ~ ~ LL ... -" 8-100 ~ 8~200 ~ 8-300 • TP-300 • C-300 0 AL \ -\ \h \' ~, I \~\ .'"-.. i \ \\ \. ~,-I \ ~\ \ S\ i'l I \ II i I : '. '-4\ .,n\· ----II·j --- ... ,., >,' .~. aI' i " ~: , ..c: • ". ; 01>-'-- LEGEND Current Boring Designation and Location Surveyed by Perteet (Shannon & Wilson,lnc.) Current Boring Designation and Approximate Location (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.) , .. '-..... --l,-"":i: ' '~!:F~:::j --... :; Boring Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by other.;) Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by other.;) Cone PenetratiOn Test Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Generalized Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate Location (See Figure 3) 01 l\ I r I\.. Irq \,------ \\ \\ • 8-301 o I ' , I!r ~ f! ., LL I ---.--~ I \ !' 60 120 ~ I I Scale in Feet ' -' i ....... '._il--, I, ·11" :1r 'Jf Ll .~ I '_. Sheet Key Plan i)'-'..ISh 'J , ErU5~:J <:::eq . ~ , , . I~ I :>0:--- 1 \ I I I I I A j' f I i < } , 0 , = \ ; . , :~ \ "j, . I / ... ../ u... I I '1"'''1, iJ.; i '=\ I :!, , , i ' : I I I :=; ~ ; II \ 1\ \ ( I :1 I ~ I I ! I ] I: ' \\', p.('.tSt. " I III I -'. 1) I ci I I .-•. -·~-t i I \, , I I . i :U!-:IATlor~ I ---1-+--< .""" we.",,,,,, J \ , h0:...-.--=---==~) I ~·'''t i \ I , I ! j / / / ,I .' ',' .... -.:.;.::;; -:.--~.----------- ' .. '. ~, . -. ..,... ..... . .)' ..... . ~.r... . ~ ':. ~, City-of Tu~ila Property ! : ~! !. ~) I- I I· \ \ , '. ... iry!:" '. '. ."" ......... Sound Transit Property ,-,-. :. .~. .--~'-- / / i .I ~:-.A--·---'-r __ J " ;---_...,r---... I _'_-.L--~ ,-"\. ,---+-'~t-~ 1 I / "tum .~~ !.-J I ~"J '\ \ \ NOTES , I ! ! 1. This figure is based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROW.dwg, dated 7-9-03. 2. Survey performed by Perteet. 3. Elevation datum is NA V08S. Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC, FIG. 2 . GaotachnicaJ and Environmental Consultants Sheet 1 of 8 I ; ! I I I I I. I i ,: I I I L .. j I I I •.. J I I I ~ ~ 1!i '111 o f i" GI GI s= en e N Jii IL N ~ CD .., 01 f t GI II: .., ~ ~ CD .., 01 ~ ... ~ ~ it! I!! ~ ~ t I j) ) 'I =-=--==-'-. / ; . ~ .. .- I (-4-I, f .! i ,. t / , .• J'/" ............ . .. ~~ -. .:-: ''fI'''~' "', B-100 ~ B-200 ~ B-300 • TP-300 • C-300 0 AL \ I Iku:oh r~1 "I;'" (1'-. ~ ____ • ____ _ ~ , " --- ... .... 1 1 1 -------t------.. \,. ... ..... 1 ""~'" ", ~ .. -~~~ ) I LEGEND .--___ ./ .. Current BOring Designation and Location Surveyed by Perteet (Shannon & Wilson,lnc.) Current Boring Designation and Approximate Location (Shannon & Wilson, Inc,) I I I I I I , Boring Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Cone Penetration Test Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Generalized Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate Location (See Figure 3) I. , , ----'--- urU03~U STRANDER i ) , I. , r \ I , rr, .. "h '______ ____j-L~-----"" -J":--:-. \. \ .... B-302. Bo~/hg Longacres Site .I r' .,-, ! '-. ., 0. ..... -' -----~-- .-...... --... o 60 120 I E-3 I I Scale in Feet ~ '. II ,..;-' i=:"t: II ~ .1. .1 c-, ,_:" oJ rI .o.b. .,-f-~ lL . '-lI:' l I I I I kL~ -' ---- Sheet Key Plan i I'" \ ,,-V'-'~_'_'_' ___ "'''' '. ,_ ... .-._.,._ ••.•. __ .... _. ___ / ....... , .... \ ! I ) i ! NOTES 1, This figure is based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg,' dated 8-22-03; 22044pts,dwg and 22044ROW,dwg, dated 7-9-03, 2. Survey performed by Perteel 3, Elevation datum is NAVD88, 1Iro..:;h nr:o: .. ' ...... ,-.' ..... """---•.. ~ ."-_. ""'""" "--"""--"""--' iIn.'Sh r---~ ,/ / ! i' ! I i \ '". ~ '---------- Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 2 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 2 of 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , " ..• ,.r- ~. ,.:. " '. '\. '" \ B-1~1 / / -' .. --- .. _-----\ -!~~~/J""',:l --.----~;----..---' =-;:~.' .---.-- --... -~-i.;. ;". _---- ._.;. . .r !Z o L: i i I rn e N t ~ :I! m q ... , ~ &. ~ te -.'?:;;-,' ".;., -. o _,' .-.. --.... ---,-; ; i \ \ LEGEND '; r-------·/'· i ,~~,.,,- ...,.-,". B-1 00 ~ Current Boring DeSignation and Location Surveyed by Perteet \J (Shannon & Wilson,lnc.) ~ B-200 ~ Current Boring Designation and Approximate Location ~ (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.) '!f,s"i>" ,l J i B-300 • 'Boring Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) .., / ~ TP-300 • Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) \ .. ----." ,.:--- I .... -. I . -------~'-:-\ -." . ", .--------_ .. ',; \ . :::~.-~--.-. "\\..""--.,....:-~~~ d I I Boeing Longacre~ Site \, f\\ i \\ \ ! \,\. \ '\ \ \ \. \ ~> .. " .~\ . -" .. ;~~. '/ . ::::--.~-~\ j.: ./ o I 01 .. ....----'------- ----." ~---: .~' .-...... .. -". 60 120 I I Scale in Feet .. --.-- .,~-Boeing Longacres Site \ \ \\ .\ \ . '\ ".v.";!' \ NOTES 1. This figure is based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03: 22044pts,dwg and 22044ROW.cIwg, dated 7-9-03. Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington SITE.AND EXPLORATION PLAN !i Cone Penetration Test Designation and Approximate Location c: C-300 0 (previous, by others) February 2004 21-1-09369-002 ~ L ~ A Generalized Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 2 2. Survey performed by Perteet. Location (See Figure 3) Sheet Key Plan Geotechnical and environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of S ~L __ ~~ ________________________________ --______________________ ~ ________ ~~ __ u::: 3. Elevation datum is NA VOSS. ,I il ;1 '1 '1 I I I I I I I 'I 'I '~I ,I :1 II ~I .... z 0 ~ :J < ~ :J! 'l' N 0 j III 0 ~ . 'C ~ =: .r:. (/J e- N .2> II.. ~ ~ CD .., (JI q ";' !i 1: Ii GI a: .., q N ~ CD .., (JI ~ !i 2' = I!! ~ iii lr i \ LEGEND -' 8-1 00 ~ Current Boring Designation and Location Surveyed by Perteet 'CJ (Shannon & Wilson,lnc.) 8-200 ~ 8-300 • TP-300. C-300 0 AL Current Boring Designation and Approximate Location (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.) Boring Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Cone Penetration Test Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Generalized Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate Location (See Figure 3) Boeing Longacres Site Renton Wetlands o 60 120 I E:-:3 I I Scale in Feet Sheet Key Plan ~'-.--. --""::::::......- .-, I • '---.. ....•... "'\.. _~'-_ •. _ L.,. ".lLN:;': -.i?S;:.~---··. NOTES 1. This figure is based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROW.dwg, dated 7-9-03. 2. Survey performed by Perteet 3. Elevation datum is NA V088 .. \ \ J I / Wetlancls / / , .:r;.-~ .. ~. • Renton Wetlands --.. - Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington 1It.!\.:.;!f," SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 2 Geolachnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 4 of 8 I I I I I I I I Ii I I: I I I I I I I I B·304 • '" \ Wetlands ~, -.(f:?'-..,.....~. --1---,+-"1 -- I-Z (J I,; I ~ ~ 0 1!i as c CI ~ i' : .J:. rn e- N ~ ~ :1 CO .., 0> 9 ';" ~ &. ., GI II:: .., 9 N ~ 0> co .., 0> ~ ; I I!! 9 .:.: .! u:: .----- I J r .•.. -- 8·100 ~ B·200 ~ 8·300 • TP·300 • --- ----.------ LEGEND Current Boring Designation and Location Surveyed by Perteet (Shannon & Wilson,lnc.) Current Boring Designation and Approximate Location (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.) Boring Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Cone Penetration Test Designation and Approximate Location C-300 0 (previous, by others) A.. Generalized Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate L-Location (See Figure 3) ---_t~. __ --\, Renton Wetlands o 60 I F3 I scale in Feet Sheet Key Plan B-305 • 120 I TP·301 • ..f " -=1- !iQ!§. 1. This figure is based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROW.dwg, dated 7-9-03. 2. Survey performed by Perteet. 3. Elevation datum is NA VOSB. I Tp·302 \ • r . l.~'J!:!:~ ...... ~~ ~ 1 -- TREe: Strander Boulevard f SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, WaShington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 2 Geotechnical and EnviIonm8n!111 ConsullanlS Sheet 5 of B Ii I: 1\ I: I: I: 11 I: I: I; I) Ii Ii II ! IJ Ij I I: -,..; I' '.-- I-z 0 I.: 0 = ~ § t)I .., t)I N 0 .! 01 0 f i" CD CD .r:. (/J e- N t N 0 :1 to .., Q) f ~ 8. CD a: .., q N ! '" .., 01 ~ .. !:I 2' = I! ~ iii ir TP-302 • ;'-"'~ '. LEGEND ), ' . :,' I TP-303 • 8-1 00 ~ Current Boring Designation and Location Surveyed by Perteet 'CJ (Shannon & Wilson,Inc.) 8-200 ~ 8-300 • TP-300 • C-300 0 AL Current Boring Designation and Approximate Location (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.) BOring Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Cone Penetration Test Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Generalized Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate Location (See Figure 3) liEII~E lREC !l(lI~E f:?([:; Wetlands .... " Renton Wetlands '0 60 120 I F3 I I Scale in Feet Sheet Key Plan NOTES 1. This figure is based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB,dwg, I dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROW.dwg, dated 7-9-03. 2, Survey performed by Perteet. 3. Elevation datum is NAVD88. .... _.-_.--... \ ConocoPhillips ; TankFarm I I :.7[; __ • __ ll£HSE TREE'; Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 2 GeotachnicaI and Environmental Consultants Sheet 6 of 8 II r-"~ I r" 1 I I , , I I I I I I I " I I I I :1 :,1 I II 1.1 I-Z 0 L: 0 ~ ~ ~ j II C t S-a .c Ul !e. N .si> II.. N 0 :i CD .., 0> f ~ 8. ca a:: .., q N ~, CD .., ~ ... ... I I!! ~ iii ir , . ----.--. :.:.::);;. ~~ ... :::;:. , ConocoPhillips Tank Farm .:.-;;:i:<-';;'~;;;; /~:;::". :;'; 8-311 8;-312 _--,-_=:c.~ 8-100 ~ 8-200 ~ 8-300 • TP-300 • C-300 C!) AL Renton Wetlands __ -r' LEGEND Current Boring Designation and Location Surveyed by Perteet (Shannon & Wilson,lnc.) Current BOring Designation and Approximate Location (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.) Boring Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Cone Penetration Test Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Generalized Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate Location (See Figure 3) Wetlands O(IIS( :1-1([:: o I -" .. <*-'0""'''-.'''' .... ,-~-,,-,'. _~'! 60 I Scale in Feet Sheet Key Plan 120 I j Q) N ~ "5, .... 8';315. TP-304. , ~ , Wetlands I I ----.----'" / , , '--_~f""'~\~) ."', 0 1-1 -1'-Ir-lj:]I, I ','. ! I i I ,~,~ 8-317. NOTES 1. This figure is based on drawings provided by Pe,rteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, , dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and' 22044ROW.dwg, dated 7-9-03. 2. Survey performed by Pertee!. 3. Elevation datum is NAVD88. ~ ... ,.; ........ 11 :. .~. TP-306. Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG.2 Geotachnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 7 of 8 I~ . :----1 i I 'I CD " , I ~ 13 -~ 'I I I I I I .... z U L.: t I ~ :J! ~ I .!i CD c :1 f S-a .<: rJ) !!. ;1 N Ii u: ~ ~ <D '.1 .... = q .... , ~ , 8. il ao a: .... q N tl ~ II) .... = Si .... I ;i 2' ~ ~ .1 ~ j N 8-316 l • TP-~05 • 'bF--== • 8-318 8-100 ~ 8-200 ~ 8-300 • TP-300 • LEGEND Current Boring Designation and Location Surveyed by Perteet (Shannon & Wllson,lnc.) Current Boring Designation and Approximate Location (Shannon & WIlson, Inc.) BOring Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Test Pit DeSignation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Cone Penetration Test Designation and Approximate Location C-300 0 (previous, by others) A .. Generalized Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate L-Location (See Figure 3) C-301 0 o I .~ llii1r ~ r • ,I f~ U::~ 60 F3 I Scale in Feet . ..,'., 1 ." I IT -.,-tl ' .&-. /. """ fl1' rr -- Sheet Key Plan 120 I ,.I' -'I NOTES 1. This figure is based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.~, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROW.dwg, dated 7-9-03. 2. Survey performed by Perteet 3. Elevation datum is NA VOSS. Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON. INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consuttants FIG.2 Sheet S ats MATCH LINE SEE FIGURE 10-2a ! ! ,~-" \ ' , \ \ V I I) I I, I; I , I I ! j \\ ,\ \1 I I \ I , I i L! -l~~ xi 1 : ; i Ii 1 j! I , I ! ! I Ii ; i , , i , I , , , r ! .+ j ~ I : ' I , , i ~ , , I ; I , I r I , '. I " d i ~ I " --, ,; I: X 'I I :' I I roo: I::;; I . , I I ' " I ? I , l I o~ \, \., \ Ii I ) ;'1 I I [+ i tt-, I : I H D. I i . ++ , , i I -r ~-, : : i I ' +~ ! : : i , , 1-1" ! ; ; i \-L I I ++ I ; i : -r -i I i , ++ i : I ' ~+ I , ' i i ~J-, , i ' ! i -t--r , i \-+ I \ i ' , -" j , I ' _,.,J. ! ! , , +- \ I , ' I, I ' I', ' , , Ii , , Ii, I \ ': L , I - }- : / r ') , i I Ii i '>\ ' 0 I ! I ! r V \ \ \ PROPOSED UPRR TRACK II \ I I : Iii j) ; i I i .. f.-j-, , I , I , .,1 : 1 , , I +-+ \ i I , ! l -H-, , : i I ' it i : I ~ ! ,T , I , tt : : t+ , , i : I , , j I ' +-1- I • i _ TT , . , , , , , I ·H ! ; 1 ' ~--' I i \ ' I ! I : I ,',i, \ \ : . I' ' I \ I I' \ I -, I : \. "', I' I I , I'" ./ I \ I I ' ! I ',' ! T , : , , \ \ MATCH LINE SEE THIS Perteet Inc, 425-252-7700 I 1-800-615-9900 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Everett. Washington 98201 / // II (j / / '\ ? \ \ \ I " \ \ ' ( DRAWING \ \ J I , \ , , Ii , I " 11 'I Ii ; i: , , I ,-• I, I , " iii ! I I , 4· g , : . If-! " , , , ()l -:-_-,.- I' !: " , __ L I, .; i- '0 ! : : ~ i: ~~, I .; -- , ; .;....- I , ; --~- I ! ; i -~,..:.. i , , ' , " ---t ~ ~. ! ' ---'" , --!.L . , I: I , +~ , H-./ i' I . ~~. . : I ~-, , , • i : -H n ! J : I it , J • \ \ FIGURE 10-2e FIGURE 10-2b j FIGURE 10-2c FIGURE 10-2d FIGURE 10-20 FIGURE 10-2f KEY MAP NOTES: 1. A THOROUGH TREI: INVENTORY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE PROJE CT AREA. THIS INFORMATION WAS COMPILED FROM AN AERIAL SURVEY AND A FIELD SURVEY. 2. THE CITY OF RENTON IS DESIGNING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES. THESE PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEMENT AND WILL NOT EXCEED 12" DIAMETER PIPE. 3. WETLAND BUFFERS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT ARE PROUDED ON FIGURE 16-1. LEGEND BP--- op--- ss--- so--- G---- ----w---- RIGHT-OF-WAY BURIED POWER OVERHEAD POWER SANITARY SEWER STORM DRAIN GAS LINE WATER LINE BRUSH/TREE LINE ---,-WETLAND BOUNDARY - - - - -CITY LIMITS SCALE ...... •••• 60 0 60 120 FEET Figure 10-2f Site/ Topographic/ Tree Cutting/ Land Clearing/ Habitat and Utilities Plan x. , ; , " i , , : i ," · ' , , • : ! t ! · , " , , • I i , i , i I , i \ , I • I I : : " , I , , ¥---' , i I ' , I I I , ! , I \ 1 ; , I ' DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 1 2004 RECEIVED STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT MATCH LINE SEE THIS DRAWING , , : i I , , ,I , i I , I . , ~ \ " --_I, 1 -, , • -~ --.. /---- II r I , j ! , ' 1') , • ~- : ., I ! i :',' \ II: : ;\ :' ( " I , 0 I • 1 ' , I I, ' '\ i \" I " \ I I I ' I ", I " I , I 1 I \ I • ! I : I , I I I PROPOSED UPRR TRACK " ! , -I ! :; I 'I " I ':- i ! I ,~ , ,0 :. r-:"" . I, -H-Jl ; ; , , ....!.-+---'; !:" -;-t-: I , , --, J -'-_ -T, " I: +-+-" , , _~ ~ i; -t-, i! ~---; , I _:L~ .' .1_+ " , ++ ii,! i, , I ' ;; +:-!' i : --.:... : ,. I : ' , , +c ! I , I +---'-: +t-'I I " I i i! -toot ~ , I +--'-1-i, !! ! i RENTON' MATCH LINE SEE THIS DRAWING ) I- I -----: I , - ------ , I ----... __ .J I -_. -_ .. ---)(-.~,--,-.- I .. I ) I o ~--~ , I : ! ; I , , , ' +-~- i ' .' : I I' , , -, --1-t , , ii , ' ! " ,--I ; i I I , I , I " i , ' ~f ,-.. t i' I I' i I , -, .. "~'- MATCH LINE SEE FIGURE 10-2a Perteet Inc. 425-252-7700 I 1-800-615-9900 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Everett, Washington 98201 -t . , g • -. ~ I i' ;-t , i ! \j \ \, \, FIGURE 10-2e FIGURE 10-2b AGURE 10-2c AGURE 10-2d FIGURE 10-20 FIGURE 10-2f KEY MAP NOTES: 1. A THOROUGH TREE INVENTORY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. THIS INFORMATION WAS COMPILED FROM AN AERIAL SURVEY AND A FIELD SURVEY. 2. THE CITY OF RENTON IS DESIGNING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES. THESE PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEMENT AND WILL NOT EXCEED 12" DIAMETER PIPE. 3. WETLAND BUFFERS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT ARE PROUDED ON FIGURE 16-1. LEGEND RIGHT-OF-WAY ----BP BURIED POWER ----OP OVERHEAD POWER ----ss SANITARY SEWER ----SD STORM DRAIN ----G GAS LINE ----w WATER LINE BRUSH/TREE LINE - ----. .---WETLAND BOUNDARY - - - ---CITY LIMITS SCALE "\.~.ll!i.~.lI'iiI-__ I~~ -=-... 1.== 60 0 60 120 FEET Figure 10-2e Site/ Topographic/ Tree Cutting/ Land Clearing/ Habitat and Utilities Plan ",.." \ --", \ J~ I j H i i ~ , , ++ I , I i Iii ).1 : I!~I II ! i-+ ! I '; , , ' -<+ \ , J~_ i I: t" I I -!-L -i DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT I I 2004 RECEIVED STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT : : j--i-- , -~ .1 :-+ , , , , ' , , !--r j i , ! i f +-, : I' -+: i ! ,. , , -I ,I ! I , 1 ~ I iii' I': I -\ , , -\ , " i " i , / PROPOSED UPRR TRACK MATCH LINE SEE THIS I,' \ \ ' I" \ II", ( , I, I' ( , ' I \ \ ~ \ \ \ , '-} DRAWING ',' -'" , ' ~:-\-\ \ , , ~_':-I ~---:- \ \ , \ i -.---' I : • I -\-t I '" -,-! i! __ \-+ i; I: \-~ : : , ' t-l I', ,! .L c_ : ,; ~-~-! i :: ,; \ . " \ \ \ \ \ i j 1 ! l ! j ~ i : :: ~ Sto ~ 122-+ .8908 i! :: \ , -:-t !' " -; i' ,I • I ! --~ Ii! ! i I -, i F .J : ! 0 :-, 0 • . t I _ : i -, -~. i -r--' : ,I ".. ,-f ,. , , - i J I f , 1 I i " '! I-! 1 '\'1'.",-..".,,,,,: i ! i , __ J ! L _____ ! L __ _ -\--- . ___________ J ~-<f·--_ RENTON' o o C;J + <D <Dr-.~ 'L ~ ALL TREES IN EXISTING LANDSCAPE STRIP TO BE REMOVED , e.. --.. . lIE-.. I·· ..' .-,.w .. ~~ .. ,. I I., ~---f LALL TREES IN EXISTING LANDSCAPE STRIP TO BE REMOVED Perteet Inc. 425-252-770011-800-615-9900 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Everett, Washington 98201 . c, NEW TREES IN LANDSCAPE STRIP SPACED @ 25' TYPICAL FOR LENGTH OF PROJECT . '~:'.i::. '~:TJH ... S '<_ .. _ ....... e .......... . .. . •. '" .... . 71''fO() ,. '. -e ! I + REMOVE LARGE SHRUBS AS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION ; ... . ! ' 'I I, !,I II i 'i!:;;; , ! 't'>;I;-, • 'W , I Ii IJI$ , , , Ii', ! J C~ I L~ (/, • :cJ , , , I , 'I " i I I ,? ' ,f; , , " .iTi! I ! j I, II I' i i I ' ,! i , i- . , , ~------;;--.~.---.. J , , I I f·,.----· , { ,~~ I Figure 10-2d Site! Topographic! Tree Cutting! Land Clearingl Habitat and Utilities Plan .-._---- DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITy OF RENTON OCT f 1 2004 RECEIVED STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT SCALE rIC-iilIIJ-lI'iiiI--2· ____ 1~~ 11::»... 1= ! 60 0 60 120 FEET FIGURE 10-2e FIGURE 10-2b FIGURE 10-2c FIGURE 10-2d FIGURE 10-20 FIGURE 10-2f KEY MAP NOTES: 1. A THOROUGH TREE INVENTORY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. THIS INFORMATION WAS COMPILED FROM AN AERIAL SURVEY AND A FIELD SURVEY. 2. THE CI1Y OF RENTON IS DESIGNING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES. THESE PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN lHE RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEMENT AND WILL NOT EXCEED 12" DIAMETER PIPE. 3. WETLAND BUFFERS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT ARE PROUDED ON FIGURE 16-1. LEGEND RIGHT-OF-WAY ---BP BURIED POWER ---CP OVERHEAD POWER ---5S--- ---SD--- ---G--- ---IV--- SANITARY SEWER STORM DRAIN GAS LINE WATER LINE --,/, v BRUSH/TREE LINE WETLAND BOUNDARY RENTON' , ,;" , \ - , ------ NEW TREES IN LANDSCAPE STRIP SPACED @ 25' TYPICAL FOR LENGTH OF PROJECT DETENTION VAULT BLOCK RETAINING WALL Perteet Inc, 425-252-7700 I 1-800-615-9900 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Everett. Washington 98201 WATER VAULT , -- '"'~--~IJ·5-------_--f<!:·i , , c QUALITY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 200' BUFFER ~ W w a::: () ~ o o a::: m C> z -a::: a... en\ I I I I I I I I BLOCK: RETAINING WALL I / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FIGURE 10-2e FIGURE 10-2b \ } FIGURE 10-2c FIGURE 10-2d FIGURE 10-20 FIGURE 10-2f EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED AS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENTS KEY MAP EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED AS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENTS ~~----.~ /" / /// -",- \\, i , EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED \ j \ ,I / ----------15_~ -, DETENTION VAULT I I \ ; iii \\, ,./~/ "'-~~~~+C~ "---~./-/ iif! ___ ~,_,~~'~~_"""_,,, __ ,.~.,;~f: I ' , ' f, , " ' Ii' ,I j -----' 6' ~ ~---6:-;=----~-'--:c~--;~·:'~\I, -----__ 0/ . ' .;r--+L_,_,":I\~~______ _ ____ ,. _________ , ____ ~ EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED NOTES: , 10' 1. A THOROUGH TREE INVENTORY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. THIS INFORMATION WAS COMPILED FROM AN AERIAL SURVEY AND A FIELD SURVEY. 2. THE CITY OF RENTON IS DESIGNING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES. THESE PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEMENT AND WILL NOT EXCEED 12" DIAMETER PIPE. 3. WETLAND BUFFERS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT ARE PROUDED ON FIGURE 16-1. \ \ --;1-- I : L ~U ,: . I If ~~,!,: ' i ! !i> i I> 'I, • en If " ~',. -r : ,! .~ :' BLOCK RETAINING WALL , , , , , --+--', ; -:: -+-*+-+-+.,-i! (:') FILL l ~ r'" ",j o ~J I i I , i F '~i''''~'' ," ..,. , ,I co ' I' I .., . I S I Figure 10-2c DEVELOPME . CITY OF %1!fi~%~'NG Site! Topographic! Tree Cutting! Land Clearingl Habitat and Utilities Plan OCT 1 1 2004 RECEIVED STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT SCALE ...... •••• 60 o 60 FEET ALL TREES IN EXISTING LANDSCAPE STRIP TO BE REMOVED 120 o "---___ JO + CD DETENTION VAULT LEGEND RIGHT-OF-WAY ---BP BURIED POWER ---OP OVERHEAD POWER ---ss SANITARY SEWER ---so STORM DRAIN ---G GAS LINE ---w WATER LINE BRUSH/TREE LINE ----WETLAND BOUNDARY BUFFER ----------OHW RENTON'- . '-, .-~ -'~---"-~-"-- EXISTING POPLAR TREES TO BE REMOVED AS NECESSARY FOR tMPROYEME:NI~::: .......... . "''''''~''._. ___ .''':._. __ ..... C: ... / Perteet Inc, 425_252-770011-800-615-9900 2707 Colby Avenue. Suite 900 Everett Washington 98201 / NOTES: 1. A THOROUGH TREE INVENTORY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. THIS INFORMATION WAS COMPILED FROM AN AERIAL SURVEY AND A FIELD SURVEY. 2. THE CITY OF RENTON IS DESIGNING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES. THESE PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEMENT AND WILL NOT EXCEED 12" DIAMETER PIPE. 3. WETLAND BUFFERS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT ARE PROUDED ON FIGURE 16-1. NEW TREES IN LANDSCAPE STRIP SPACED @ 25' TYPICAL FOR LENGTH OF PROJECT i ! ------_0';,.-: -,,-~;-:~ '-~ .. ( / / .-./ ~+oo 6' 12' -. \ \ \ \ \ ~ , , , , , J) I i/l I ' . , ! i I , ?":: \ \ \ , : \. > ~ i \ \ -+ <11 ,n til " ~ i ./ , ; , j :' ' ' , Vi ; ,. . (;': , , ! ' ,; 1 l , it;' , \, "1\ /1 /1;' ,-~-----'i--' i .~. W "i!i ) --! il i ;1 , o· ,0 i 1 ! " 'on i-,.' I , ! Ii: ,I l ! I ' I '! l Ui iJ) ;: I Ii ~ I' 'i ,-, \ ! ! 1 i " ' , , ! \ i I I , , FIGURE 10-2e FIGURE 10-20 FIGURE 10-2f r FIGURE 10-2b KEY MAP BLOCK RETAINING WALL EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED / , 0£Jl.»IIl 21C FIGURE 10-2c FIGURE 10-2d SCALE "-,,-<, \ r-.C-jlIIJ-~--2-~iilliiiiliil~~ £e... c:: I 60 0 60 120 FEET EXISTING SMALL SHRUBS TO BE REMOVED AS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENTS V--.-------~ ___ >Z-__ -------.-<::>----_ ("~ , --i/~; -'.:..;.' -+ ~----,- EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED BLOCK RETAINING WALL ------. __ ~:,£.w.--27r-H~T.- DETENTION VAULT \ o L() + Figure 10-2b Site! Topographic! Tree Cutting! RENTON' Land Clearingl Habitat and Utilities Plan STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT I -, LEGEND ~~-BP-- ~--OP-- ~--ss--- -~-SD--- ---G~~- -~--w~~- RIGHT -OF-WAY BURIED POWER OVERHEAD POWER SANITARY SEWER STORM DRAIN GAS LINE WATER LINE BRUSH/TREE LINE WETLAND BOUNDARY CITY LIMITS Perteet Inc. 425-252-7700 I 1-800-615-9900 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Everett. Washington 98201 I -, 1 \ \ ! I L) ,,-----.- , , , c+ MATCH LINE SEE FIGURE 10-2e FIGURE 10-2e f'----~. ~~-- -r- -- -r : i r-r , I / ~ + / I' / Ii: (i il I FIGURE 10-2b ! ~- : j ; II / II II 11-/ II II MATCH LINE SEE FIGURE -r I I - I I r l f I -r -r- i I - J : -'- I I I I' I I i ! I I FIGURE 10-20 FIGURE 10-2f ---.-----... ~~ ---------.------------------ 10-2f Figure 10-2a Site/ Topographic/ Tree Cutting/ Land Clearing/ Habitat and Utilities Plan - --------_. -----,-. ---------- STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT FIGURE 10-2c FIGURE 10-2d SCALE ...... •••• 60 o 60 120 FEET KEY MAP ,NEW TREES IN LANDSCAPE STRIP SPACED @ 25' lYPICAL FOR LENGTH OF PROJECT NOTES: 1. A THOROUGH TREE INVENTORY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. THIS INFORMATION WAS COMPILED FROM AN AERIAL SURVEY AND A FIELD SURVEY. 2. THE CITY OF RENTON IS DESIGNING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES. THESE PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEMENT AND WILL NOT EXCEED 12" DIAMETER PIPE. 3. WETLAND BUFFERS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT ARE PROUDED ON FIGURE 16-1. ! I i ! / / RENTON' , "." '.', '-,-,:;: 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 . I D-o \ \'" I CL o (. I II 1"1 I§ II ~ i ~ I ) L~ , I '." I ' r i H- I I 8 , ( ~':::2~_ --::!L-S:' __ L AHV37 22.41 r~ I ~ l:~~'/ I ~lt~ I ~'----. I ,'-,-. ",""" . : .'''. " . I f( I // _____ FILl'" ~_~! __ +--+ __ +-~ __ ~ __ ~-+--___ ~-+_--+L __ +-~_'-~ __ ~ __ ~_rll __ +-_~ ___ +-__ ~ __ 4-~ __ ~--r--,~I --~I-_--+--_+--+-~~'---~'~---4-~--~--r--+--+--+--4-~---+-.-'--~' _'-+" __ +_-~r_'-4_-~ __ ~_~+_-+~ __ ~-+_+--+_+_~ __ ~_+ ___ _ ~' PROP. TRAIL ,..,.. -12 1--------~' --. __ -UP ------ I ,~!---jt;-f------ _-1--- 13+00 Perteet Inc. 425-252-770011-800-615-9900 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Everett, Washington 98201 14+00 1--1 -- UPRR ----_L ,------- ::.fUPRR BjuN~Y ------+-- 15+00 16+00 '-'[VEl, OPMENT PLANNING (,rYOFREIiTON .~, ~!1!4- ""'" ""'" ""'" I NEW Ufj{o EX.IoN. BNSf , f I-'efl''''' .---f----__. / / I 17+00 --. J 590' v. 18+00 19+00 Figure 14-1 Architectural Elevations GRADE I---------r------r------t---L -____ 1--___ _ 20+00 21+00 22+00 SCALE OCT I 1 2004 RECEIVED STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT ~~~'~~~'~~~~~i"".1 40 20 0 40 80 FEET !.no. v.e. --1--------r------1--___ _ 23+00 24+00 RENTON' AHEAD OF TIlE CORVE 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 I. I.! I~ I .. I., I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I SEPA Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton September 2004 -16 - WETLANDS REPORT I DELINEATION The attached Wetlands Discipline Report, Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan, and Wetlands Site Plan (Figure 16-1) provide the information requested for this requirement . ..................................................................................................................................... , ~ Perteet Inc. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 1 2004 RECEIVED 16-1 Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan The Wetlands Technical Discipline Report (May 2004) that was prepared for the Strander Project identified wetland and wetland buffer impacts in the cities of Renton and Tukwila. The wetlands within the project area are listed in Table 4.1 in that report, and the fourteen wetlands and/or buffers that would be affected by the project are identified in Table 5.1. Project Impacts Direct adverse impacts to wetlands would occur during and as a result of the construction of the Roadway Overpass Proposed Action (Alternative 1). Impacts would inClude fill placement within the proposed railroad footprint and in numerous wetlands and buffers located along SW 27th Street (see Figures 5.1 through 5.4 in the Report). Approximately 2.02 acres of wetland impacts and 3.90 acres of buffer impacts would result from roadway improvements. Wetland impacts from fill placement would result in . a decrease of wetland functions and values performed. These impacts are summarized in the table below, with subtotals provided for each of the two jurisdictions. Wetland Impacts of Roadway Overpass Proposed Action1 :~i.:~~l~:;:!!t.>t!~i'j~t~i~j;;;!~!,-Wetland]D 1:~~~pOE~j ~ij~'iiTkii~, ]f}~iiHiilil~ !llsFWS1:'I~t~ ~~l~~~f'ih~~tii;~i!If:I~~~~!H~J~flm~:ciJ~~~rf· ~r.l~hf~~:.~~~~r:f1~!j~~m· 'e t:~;'v'!;;;\iJf,~F . eaorv Jur ictiof, ~~~f~I~~ti~t~1~[fft~~~'i;1:~~~~t:;~: A IV Tvoe3 Tukwila PEM -1.319 SF (0.03 AC) P III Type 2 Tukwila PFO 238 SF (0.01 AC) 6,825 SF (0.16 AC) Q/R II Type 1 Tukwila PFO/PSS/PEM 66,412 SF (1.52 ACJ 19,929 SF (0.46 AC) S IV Type 3 Tukwila PEM -2,737 SF (0.06 AC) T III Type 2 Tukwila PEM 20,744 SF (0.48 AC) 69,100 SF (1.59 AC) Tukwila Subtotal 87.394 SF (2.01 AC) 99.910 SF (2.30 AC) 27A II Category 2 Renton PFO/PEM -3.373 SF (0.08 AC) 27C II Category 2 Renton PFO/PUB -3,681 SF JO.08 AC) 27D III Category 3 Renton PFO 524 SF (0.01 AC) 27E II Category 1 Renton PFO/PEMIPOW Combined area is -25,233 SF (0.58 AC) 27F II Category 2 Renton PFO/PEM 166 SF (0.004 AC) 27G II Category 2 Renton PFO/PEM -24,874 SF (0.57 AC) 27H II Category 2 Renton PFO/PUB -3,169 SF (0.07 AC) 271 III Category 3 Renton PFO -3,926 SF (0.09 AC) 27J II Categ<>.-ry 2 Renton PFO -5,546 SF (0.13 AC) Renton SUbtotal 690 SF (0.014 AC) 69.802 SF (1.60 AC) TOTAL IMPACTS 88,083 SF (2.02 AC) 169,712 SF (3.90 AC) Notes: 1. Data from Wetlands Technical Discipline Report (May 2004). See Table 5.1. 2. AC = acres, SF = square feet. ~ 16-2 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Project will provide full mitigation for these wetland impacts in accordance with applicable codes. Mitigation proposals will be subject to approval by the Corps of Engineers, State Department of Ecology (WDOE), and/or the City of Renton and City of Tukwila. Conceptual Mitigation Approach and Locations The Wetlands Technical Discipline Report discussed the regulatory approach of the local, state and federal regulatory authorities. The Proposed Action would incorporate measures to avoid and minimize effects to wetland resources where practicable while meeting the purpose and need of the project. However, 2.02 acres of unavoidable wetland impacts would result from the construction. To address impacts to wetlands, approximately 3.8 acres of wetland creation would be required, based on WDOE mitigation ratios (see Table 5.2 in the Report), but wetland enhancement could also be used as partial compensation for wetland impacts and would likely reduce the required amount of wetland creation as long as the proposed action ensures no net loss of wetlands. The use of wetland enhancement for compensation would be based on the amount of functional benefit that would be provided based on specific characteristics of the mitigation site. Wetland mitigation ratios established in the Tukwila and Renton Municipal Codes differ slightly from WDOE ratios, as represented in the table below: Renton Category 3 (Forested) 0.012 1.5:1 0.018 Tukwila (All Types) 2.006 1.5:1 3.009 TOTAL 2.022 3.043 Wetland buffer enhancement would also be required to compensate for buffer impacts of 3.9 acres. The extent of the buffer enhancement that would be required would be determined by each local jurisdiction, and is based on improving the functional attributes of the affected buffers. For example, the City of Renton requires that enhanced buffers be not less than 25 feet wide, with creation at a 1: 1 ratio. The codes provide guidance for various combinations of wetland mitigation, creation, enhancement. Two locations on-site or near-site were identified during project planning as being potentially suitable for development of mitigation, and it is proposed that all or a majority of the mitigation be done at these sites. Both of these sites lie within the same drainage basin (Green Duwamish, WRIA #9) as the impacted sites. One site that is potentially suitable for mitigation is located on-site in the vicinity of the railroad tracks in the City of Tukwila. It is not known exactly how much area could be developed as wetland mitigation, and how much enhancement of existing wetland could be done, but .~ 16-3 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I potentially a large portion (or all) of the total mitigation obligation could be met here. The site has the advantage of having other nearby wetlands, is located in an area where the existing use precludes much other development, and is on-site or adjacent to the location of the majority of the impacts. The second site is on property owned by the City of Renton near the proposed project area. The designation of some of this area as a wetland mitigation bank is currently being pursued by the Washington Dept. of Transportation, though approval for this has not yet been obtained. Were such a mitigation bank available now, credits generated from the bank could compensate for impacts associated with the proposed action. However, the delay creates a procedural difficulty in project permitting, because approval of mitigation at a site that may (but may not) be designated as a mitigation bank is not acceptable for Renton because of the future uncertainty. A deferral of the mitigation requirement (through a variance) would allow the procedural difficulty to be overcome, and the commitment to mitigation would ensure that the mitigation would be done when the mitigation bank site were approved, or at another site to be determined by Renton. Should the area or site characteristics not be sufficient to meet all Tukwila mitigation needs at the Tukwila site, it is suggested that the remainder go to the future Renton mitigation banking site, which though not in Tukwila is near-site and would contribute to the overall benefit of the Green River/Black River/Springbrook Creek wetlands community. This approach might require special permission from the City of Tukwila. Alternatively, Tukwila city staff may have a suitable nearby site that could be used to fulfill the remaining requirement. A mitigation plan for addressing the unavoidable wetland impacts will be prepared and submitted prior to construction. A mitigation variance would be prepared should the future use of a wetlands mitigation bank be desired for part of the mitigation. ~ 16-4 Perteet Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I DRAFT WETLANDS TECHNICAL DISCIPLINE REPORT Prepared For: Prepared By: Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton Department of Public Works Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 David Evans and Associates, Inc. 415 -118th Avenue SE Bellevue, W A 98005 (425) 519-6500 May 2004 I I, I I I I !I' I I I' I I. I I I, DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................•......•..........................•..... 1 1.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE ........................................................................ 1 1.2 STUDY AREA ...........................................•................................................................. 1 1.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................•............................... 4 1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE ..................................................................................................... 6 1.5 PROJECT NEED .......................................................................................................... 7 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................... 8 2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .................................................................................... 8 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND COORDINATION ....................................................... 13 3 .1 EVALUATION CRITERIA ........................................................................................... 13 3.2 APPROACH TO ANALYSES ....................................................................................... 13 3.3 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION ............................................................................ 15 3.4 COORDINATION WITH AGENCIES AND JURISDICTIONS ............................................. 15 3.5 POLICIES AND APPROVALS ...................................................................................... 15 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................• 17 4.1 PROJECT AREA OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 17 4.2 WETLAND CATEGORIES AND RANKING ................................................................... 21 4.3 WETLAND DESCRIPTIONS .......................•................................................................ 21 5.0 IMP ACT ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 25 5.1 No ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................... 26 5.2 AL TERNA TIVE 1: CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWAY OVERPASS CROSS-VALLEY LINK, RELOCATION OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACK, AND MODIFICATION OF SW 27TH STREET TO FIVE LANES ......................................................................................... 26 5.3 AL TERNA TIVE 2: CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWA Y UNDERPASS CROSS-VALLEY LINK, RELOCATION OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACK, AND MODIFICATION OF SW 27TH STREET TO FIVE LANES .................................................................................. 35 5.4 AL TERNA TIVE 3: CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWAY UNDERPASS CROSS-VALLEY LINK, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACK NOT RELOCATED, AND MODIFICATION OF SW 27TH STREET TO FIVE LANES ......................................................................................... 36 6.0 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES ....................................................... 39 7.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 42 Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton I I I I 'I :1, I I I I I DRAFT LIST OF TABLES TABLE 4.1: WETLAND SUMMARY TABLE .......................................................................... 19 TABLE 5.1: ALTERNATIVE 1 WETLAND IMPACTS .............................................................. 33 TABLE 5.2: MITIGATION REQUIRED ACCORDING TO ECOLOGY REPLACEMENT RATIOS FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 ......................................................................................................... 34 TABLE 5.3: MITIGATION REQUIRED ACCORDING TO LOCAL JURISDICTION RATIOS FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 ......................................................................................................... 35 TABLE 5.4: ALTERNATIVE 3 WETLAND IMPACTS .............................................................. 37 TABLE 5.5: WETLAND CREDITS REQUIRED ACCORDING TO ECOLOGY REPLACEMENT RATIOS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 ..................................................................................... 38 TABLE 5.6: MITIGATION REQUIRED ACCORDING TO LOCAL JURISDICTION RATIOS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 ......................................................................................................... 38 TABLE 6.1: WETLAND IMPACTS FOR EACH BUILD ALTERNATIVE .................................... 39 TABLE 6.2: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE .................................... 41 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP ................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2: STUDY AREA AND PROPOSED ROADWAY LIMITS ............................................... 3 FIGURE 3: TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION ............................................................................. 5 FIGURE 4: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ...................................................................................... 18 FIGURE 5.1: ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2 WETLAND AND BUFFER IMPACTS ............................ 27 FIGURE 5.2 : ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2 WETLAND AND BUFFER IMPACTS ............................ 28 FIGURE 5.3: ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2 WETLAND AND BUFFER IMPACTS ............................ 29 FIGURE 6.1 : ALTERNATIVE 3 WETLAND AND BUFFER IMPACTS .........•.............................. 30 FIGURE 6.2: ALTERNATIVE 3 WETLAND AND BUFFER IMPACTS ........................................ 31 APPENDIX A: APPENDIXB: APPENDIXC: APPENDIXD: LIST OF APPENDICES NWI and Soil Survey Maps Wetland Photographs Wetland Delineation Data Fonns Ecology Rating Fonns Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 11 '\ May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I DRAFT 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Organization and Scope This report has been prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) on behalf of the City of Renton to assess the potential impacts of the proposed Strander Boulevard Extension Project on wetlands. This report describes existing wetlands identified along the proposed alignment of the new roadway, roadway improvements, and the railroad tracks. The report also assesses the impacts to wetlands from constructing each of the Build alternatives and associated mitigation requirements. This information provides supporting information for the Environmental Assessment being prepared by Perteet Engineering Inc. 1.2 Study Area This project study area is located within the jurisdictions of both the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila in Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 5 East; Sections 24 and 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East; Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East (see Location Map, Figure 1). Renton is located at the south end of Lake Washington on the edge of metropolitan and rural King County. Its location between Seattle, Tacoma, and Bellevue places Renton in the center of a region that is the economic hub of the state. Renton encompasses approximately 16.7 square miles. Renton and Tukwila are at the crossroads of a regional transportation network where seven state and interstate highways converge and which is central to national and international air traffic . . The study area is sideways T -shape. It includes the area between the west side of the Interurban Trail and the east side of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad track. The study area is wider in the vicinity of Strander Boulevard because it is possible . that the trail would be moved (see Figure 2). The southern boundary is south of a railroad spur heading northwest from the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline (the spur that crosses the Green River, not the short spur that serves adjacent businesses), which is about 1,700 feet south ofStrander Boulevard. The spur would be the approximate takeoff point for a new UPRR mainline track that would replace the existing track. The new track would parallel the existing BNSF tracks. On the north end, the study area extends just past 1-405 where the UPRR track begins to parallel the BNSF tracks. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton I I I, I 1\ I' I ,I I I I I I I, I I I I I Puget Sound East Passage ~'. Perteet Engineering, Inc. e Civil. Transportation and Surveying City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 1 Project location Map I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I C/l -''------.! ,:. (fl (' \ \ \ '--I ~t"---j I --I''-T~"\ -5--L : STRANDER BL VD " --' ; S S 180TH -~c Perteet Engineering, Inc . . ~ Civil. Transportation and Surveying •• _",j f+--ST DY AR A I '" S: en !i: SW 34TH ST ;:-._---------- i;; !. " I "-" )--- '" '" " W Q. > 0 I'; a z c: < w > 0 T 0 z " s 11. ST T(\J~ I J I II I I, (5 SE L----\~, I \'\ 43RD ST 180m ST) <f' City of Renton Figure 2 Strander Boulevard ExtensionStu Study Area and Proposed Roadway Limits ,I 'I I I I DRAFT East of the BNSF tracks, the bulk ofthe proposed project construction in the primary study area would be confined to the Strander/27th Avenue corridor, branching off at the points where the Boeing access roads and Sounder station access are to be located. From Oakesdale to East Valley Road, the expectation is to widen the existing roadway within the right-of-way limits. The new roadway would be five lanes with sidewalks and planter strips on both sides (See Figure 3). The intent is to keep the project within City right-of- way. 1.3 Project Background This project began with the formation of the Project Stakeholder Committee composed of public agencies and private businesses. Members of the committee have some insight concerning the needs of this project, opportunities that this project could promote, and potential transit and commuter rail improvements it could provide for the Tukwila commuter rail station. Thei'roject Team facilitated Project Stakeholder Committee meetings with affected agencies, such as WSDOT; City of Renton; City of Tukwila; King County; and private businesses, including Boeing, BNSF, and UPRR. Concurrently, the Project Team reviewed existing information regarding the corridor and the existing environment and infrastructure within the project corridor. The Project Team assembled information about to potential corridor concepts, existing and projected traffic that would be generated by the proposed corridor improvements, affected environment, and costs. The Project Stakeholder Committee, formed by the City of Renton, became a soUrce of guidance and input with regard to the information assembled for the potential corridor concepts by the Project Team. The role ofthis committee was to review and comment on the major study tasks and to recommend preferred concepts. The committee met seven times during this phase of the project and provided the Project Team their endorsement to the Project Team's preliminary recommendation for each ofthe three proposed segments: • Segment 1 -West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW • Segment 2 -Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Highway • Segment 3 -added access to SR 167 via East Valley Road At the conclusion of the study, the City of Renton determined that construction of Segments 1 and 2 by themselves would provide a vital cross-valley route and have substantial utility independent of Segment 3. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 4 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I Z 0 lfJ Z lLJ Z \---0 X I-lLJ U D 1U If) ~ >-<C <C > 5 lLJ D -.l <C :) 0 0 ck ---1 CO <C U ~ (L lLJ >-D I- Z <C ~ \---lfJ ,,""," : ~ " . Perteet Engineering, Inc. ,~ .~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying elL ILl r-2 « -1 CL ILl 2 « -1 N::::J -elL I: r- ILl 2 « N -1 -::::J elL I: ~I: r-O~ elLCLILl ILlILlD ~ ILl I:lf)if) 2 r-::::JI: 0 " ::s elL 0 N ~Dr- \..ll -2 I:1Ll::::J 0 elL r-elLO Q") ::::J ~~lf) r-2lf)2 1LlI:0 ILl Qr- 2 ~~ « N -1 -::::J elL I: r- ILl 2 « -1 N ::::J elL I: r- City of Renton Figure 3 Strander Boulevard Extension Typical Roadway Section I I I I· I' I DRAFT The Project Team prepared a statement of the problem based on a review of existing traffic volumes, projected 20-year traffic volumes, economic growth projections from the cities of Renton and Tukwila, and committee member discussions. There were initially 13 potential concepts for Segment 1, 5 potential concepts for Segment 2, and 4 potential concepts for Segment 3. Each of these concepts was described in a conceptual level of detail. At this level of definition, the corridor improvements included sketches, key physical and operational features, functions, benefits, and potential impacts to the environment. The Project Team evaluated the concepts through a first-level screening, which was essentially a "fatal flaw" analysis. Concepts were recommended for elimination if they contained serious flaws, were likely to perform poorly, demonstrated an undesirable combination of performance and adverse impacts, or did not appear to meet the committee's committed goal for the project. Following the initial screening, a second screening was conducted on the concepts not eliminated. During the second-level screening, a more detailed evaluation was applied using additional criteria related to transportation performance, land use/social impacts, environmental impacts, and cost/feasibility. A final screening was conducted on the last remaining concepts using the same criteria as the second screening but with additional information collected, as well as the results of a traffic analysis on the effects of adding this east-west corridor between SW Grady Way and South 180th Street/SW 43rd Street. In addition, more detailed costs of the concepts were discussed and the potential for funding the concept and the overall financial viability of a concept were evaluated. During each of the evaluation screenings, the Project Stakeholder Committee was briefed on the evaluation. Upon endorsement by the Project Stakeholder Committee, the Project Team continued to the next level of evaluation. . The final screening resulted in a preliminary recommendation for each segment by the Project Team. The Project Stakeholder Committee has concurred with this preliminary recommendation. 1.4 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to improve travel speed, reliability, and access in the north Renton/south Tukwila area. This would be accomplished by adding a new roadway segment from Strander Boulevard to SW 27th Street and roadway improvements along SW 27th Street. This would result in a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and East Valley Road via Strander Boulevard in Tukwila and SW 27th Street in Renton .. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 6 May 2004 City of Renton I, I· I I, I I I I I I DRAFT 1.5 Project Need The proposed project would meet several needs important to both Renton and Tukwila. The project would: • Decrease travel time and increase reliability • Relieve congestion • Provide access to the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station • Improve freeway operation • Encourage transit-oriented development • Promote freight mobility and economic development 1.5.1 The. Need to Decrease Travel Time and Increase Reliability The absence of a direct route to and from the project area between West Valley Highway and SR 167 results in extra travel time for freight shippers, transit vehicles, and general purpose vehicles. A grade-separated route crossing the UPRR and BNSF tracks would both decrease travel times and increase the cert~inty that vehicles would not be delayed by trains traveling through the area. 1.5.2 The Need to Relieve Congestion In order for traffic from Strander Boulevard to cross the UPRR and BNSF tracks and connect with East Valley Road, vehicles must either travel approximately .6 miles north on West Valley Highway to SW Grady Way and then east or go more than a mile south to SE 180th StreetlSW43rd Street before going east. In either case, the circuitous route causes unnecessary congestion that would be alleviated by a direct cross-valley connection. 1.5.3 The Need to Provide Access to the Future Sound Transit Tukwila Station The Boeing Longacres site currently facilitates one of south King County's highest proportions of van pool users at a temporary Sound Transit station. The temporary station . will eventually develop into the Sound Transit Tukwila Station and will become an important intermodal center for the South King County area. Current routes from the temporary facility to the freeway system are convoluted and congested. Improved access to this commuter rail station will encourage transit use, and help to relieve traffic congestion in the region. Improved access would result in shorter commute times for high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) users, and keep the use of alternative modes of transportation high. 1.5.4 The Need to Improve Freeway Operation Due to high traffic volumes, it is difficult for HOV and freight traffic on 1-405, SW Grady Way, and SW 43rd Street to access important employment and industrial centers Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 7 May 2004 City of Renton I, I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT in the GreenlDuwamish River valley. Bus movements across congested SR 167 traffic lanes between the inside HOV lanes and on-and off-ramps at the outside lanes increase travel times for HOV s and contribute to general purpose traffic congestion. By providing an additional cross-valley link, the proposed project would take some traffic off ofl-405 and SR 167. 1.5.5 The Need to Encourage Transit-Oriented Development Ifthe UPRR tracks are relocated to more closely parallel the BNSF tracks through the project area, additional land could be made available for economic development in Tukwila adjacent to the planned Sound Transit Tukwila commuter rail station. The location would be ideal for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and would reinforce opportunities for development and growth within the Boeing Longacres site and surrounding areas. 1.5.6 The Need to Promote Freight Mobility and Economic Development Fast, reliable freight access to industrial areas in the GreenlDuwamish River Valley is crucial to economic development in the area; without such access, businesses could suffer and may choose to relocate. The extension of Strander Boulevard from West Valley Highway (SR 181) to SW 27th Street would improve access to SR 167, thus providing an alternative to the existing freight routes in the area. In addition to reducing travel time, the new facility may also reduce congestion in the area by drawing vehicles from other truck routes, thus reducing the overall congestion level in the area. Additional access to the future development of the Boeing Longacres site is equally important to the economic development currently projected and being planned. Without improved local and through access, the rate at which new and existing businesses choose to locate or expand here is likely to be significantly reduced. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Alternatives Considered Three action alternatives and a No Action alternative are evaluated in this report. The alternatives focus on a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and East Valley Road that would begin at the signalized intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway on the west and would terminate at the unsignalized intersection of SW 27th Street and East Valley Road on the east, a distance of 6,500 feet. At present, West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW is an unimproved area with no roadway that directly connects Strander Boulevard with the area to the east. From Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road, there is an existing roadway approximately 3600 feet long. The project alternatives focus on strategies to cross the unimproved area, especially railroad tracks owned and operated by Union Pacific Railroad and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 8 May 2004 City of Renton I I· I I I I I I I, I I I I, I I I I I DRAFT 2.1.1 No Action Alternative The No Action alternative would keep the projectcorridor as it currently exists. No new roadways would be constructed or improved in the corridor. The purpose and need for the project would not be met by the No Action alternative. 2.1.2 Alternative I: Construction of a Roadway Overpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification ofSW 27th Street to Five Lanes Alternative I would create a link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single overcrossing of both Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) tracks. From Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road, SW 27th Street would be widened and inc1udepedestrian facilities and landscaping. Alternative I would include five elements: • Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad track • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW • • • Improvements to SW 27th Street Modifications to the Interurban Trail Modifications to South Longacres Way Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track The UPRR track would be shifted to the east to parallel the existing two sets ofBNSF track. To develop this alternative, a new railroad track would be constructed within a new 100-foot right-of-way adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way and then joined with the existing UPRR track at both ends of the project area. Approximately 5,500 feet of new track would be constructed at an elevation similar to that of the existing BNSF tracks. Construction would require placement of 125,000 cubic yards of earth and gravel for the new railroad bed. The new UPRR track would be located at the center of the new 100- foot right-of-way. Approximately the same amount of track and railroad bed would be removed from the existing UPRR location as will be constructed at the new UPRR track location. The railroad bed material would be disposed of at an approved location or reused as a construction fill material. Construction would be sequenced so that disruption of railroad service would be avoided or minimized. With this alternative, the new UPRR track can be constructed while service is continuing on the old track. When the new track is completed, UPRR train traffic would be moved to the new track, the existing UPRR track and railroad bed would be removed, and construction of the roadway overpass would begin. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 9 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I, I I' I I I I I I I DRAFT New Roadway Construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW A new roadway would be constructed from the intersection of West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Strander Boulevard to the intersection of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 27th Street. The roadway alignment would be an extension of Strander Boulevard and curve (see Figure 2.3) to match up with the existing alignment ofSW 27th Street. Alternative 1 would feature an overpass that would be constructed over the two existing BNSF tracks and the new UPRR track. The overpass would provide vertical clearance of 17 feet and include four travel lanes, a sidewalk on the north side, and a shared use path (combined bicycle/pedestrian path) on the south side for pedestrians and bicycles. From West Valley Highway to the overpass, the roadway would consist of five lanes (four thru lanes and a two-way left turn lane), landscaped strips, a sidewalk on the north side; and a shared use path on the south side. Bicycle facilities would be provided in either combined travellaneslhicyc1e lanes or as a shared use path. The landscaped strips would be provided between the traveled way and the pedestrian facilities, and in some locations where a two-way left turn lane is not needed, a landscaped median would be provided. The overpass would not have the two-way left turn lane and planter strips. From the overpass east to Oakesdale Avenue SW, the same five-lane roadway, landscape strips, and pedestrianlbicycle facilities would be constructed. This section (including the roadway, pedestrian facilities and landscaped strips) would be 90 feet wide from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, staying, for the most part, within the appropriate existing City-owned right-of-way. The new roadway construction would result in three new intersections between West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW. There would be one intersection at the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station access road, and two intersections that would result from access roads to the Boeing Longacres site. New traffic signals would be installed at each of these intersections. Improvements to SW 27th Street The existing section of roadway between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road would be widened to match that of the new roadway segment to the west (five lanes, landscaping strips, and pedestrianlbicycle facilities on each side). The section would be 90 feet wide from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, staying, for the most part, within existing City-owned right-of-way. At some locations where there are space constraints or the need to avoid wetland impacts, the planter strip may be eliminated. Portions of the north side and south side of the proposed improvements may require a 3-to 8-foot block or rock wall at the back of the sidewalk to minimize impacts to the adjacent wetlands. A handrail would be required along the top of these wall sections. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 10 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Modifications to the Interurban Trail The new roadway segment linking West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW would cut across the Interurban Trail.· As a result, it would be necessary to construct a new means of making the trail continuous. The least obtrusive and preferred route is to have an at-grade crossing at either West Valley Highway or at the future Tukwila Station access road intersection. On the north side and the south side of the roadway, trail users would be routed onto the new bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the roadway, directed toward the intersection, cross the intersection, and then be directed back to the existing trail. Modifications to South Longacres Way .South Longacres Way, which is approximately 1,700 feet north of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway, is bridged by the UPRR track and the BNSF tracks. It currently provides access to the temporary Sound Transit commuter rail parking area. The existing railroad bridges over South Longacres Way are Iiarrow and have clearances that are below the minimum requirements. As a result ofthis project, if South Longacres Way were to continue to remain open, improvements would have to be made to provide minimum vertical clearances. A new UPRR bridge structure would have to be built, improvements would need to be made to the BNSF bridge structure, and the vertical profile of South Longacres Way would have to be lowered. 2.1.3 Alternative 2: Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification ofSW 27th Street to Five Lanes Alternative 2 would create a link between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single underpass of both the UPRR and BNSF tracks. As described previously for Alternative 1, the UPRR track would be relocated to the east to parallel the existing BNSF tracks. The roadway would be the same as Alternative 1 and have the same five elements as Alternative 1, listed below: • Relocation of the UPRR track • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW • • • Improvements to SW 27th Street Modifications to the Interurban Trail Modifications to South Longacres Way Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1; however, construction sequencing would be different. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 11 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Construction would be sequenced so that disruption of railroad service would be avoided or minimized. The construction of the new railroad track and the roadway underpass (see new roadway construction subsection below) would also be constructed simultaneously. When the new track is completed, train traffic from the western BNSF tracks would be temporarily shifted to the new track and construction of the underpass beneath the unused tracks would take place. After completion ofthe second section of the underpass, train traffic from the eastern BNSF track would be temporarily shifted to the western track, and the third section of the underpass would be constructed under the eastern BNSF . track. When the underpass is completed, BNSF train traffic would be shifted back to their two original tracks, and UPRR train traffic would be relocated to the new track, and the existing UPRR track and railroad bed would then be removed. New Roadway Construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW This project element would be the same as Alternative 1, except that an underpass of all three railroad tracks (the relocated track used by UPRR and the two BNSF tracks) would be constructed rather 'than an overpass. The underpass would provide 17 feet of clear distance between the roadway and the bottom of the bridge structure and would contain all of the same roadway elements as in Alternative 1; Other elements of Alternatives would be walls along the underpass and in other various locations and the construction of water quality treatment and detention facilities. The underpass section would include a pump system to remove the accumulated rainwater. Improvements to SW 2·7th Street This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to the Interurban Trail This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to South Longacres Way This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. 2.1.4 Alternative 3: Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Union Pacific Railroad Track Not Relocated, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes As with Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would create a link between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single underpass of both the UPRR and BNSF tracks. Alternative 3 differs from Alternatives 1 and 2because the UPRR track would not be relocated to the east to parallel the existing BNSF tracks. For this alternative, the UPRR track would remain in their existing location. The roadway would be the same as that for Alternative 2 and would have most of the same elements as Alternative 2: Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 12 . May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW • • • Improvements to SW 27th Street Modifications to the Interurban Trail Modifications to South Longacres Way New Roadway Construction/rom West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW Under Alternative 3, this project element would be the same as Alternative 2 except that the length ofthe underpass would be longer because of the different location of the railroad structures. The longer underpass would result in the purchase and modification to the existing parcels and businesses on the northeast and southeast comers of the intersection ofStrander and West Valley Highway. Changes would have to be made to these lots so that the driveways could match into the new roadway, which would be at a lower elevation than the existing roadway. All other elements of the project that would result from the Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2. Improvements to SW 27th Street This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to the Interurban Trail This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to South Longacres Way With Alternative 3, there would be no required modifications to South Longacres Way because no changes would be made to the existing UPRR or BNSF tracks. 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND COORDINATION 3.1 Evaluation Criteria This study was conducted to determine the extent and classification of wetlands that occur in and adjacent to the proposed project area. Potential direct wetland impacts such . . as fill or disturbance to wetland buffers from proposed construction were assessed. Potential indirect impacts to wetlands, such as post-construction disturbance, and potential mitigation opportunities were identified. 3.2 Approach to Analyses 3.2.1 Preliminary Research Published information about local wetland conditions was reviewed for known occurrences in the project vicinity. The information reviewed included: Draft Wetlands Discipline Report . Strander Boulevard Extension 13 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Renton Quadrangle, United States Department of Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988 (see Appendix A). • United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Soil Survey o/King County Area Washington. 1973 (see Appendix A). • City of Renton. Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands. 2003. • City of Tukwila. Sensitive Areas Map. 1995. 3.2.2 Field Investigation DEA biologists conducted an onsite investigation of the proposed project area on June 4, 5, 10, 11, and 16,2003, to document wetland conditions. Wetlands were identified on the basis ofhydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology as described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) and the u.s. Army Corps o/Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers) guidance. Hydrophytic vegetation (i.e., plants adapted to saturated soil conditions) was determined to be present when dominant cover of plants observed had an indicator status of facultative (F ~C), facultative wetland (F ACW), or obligate wetland (OBL) (Reed 1988). Plant species were identified following Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973), but updated nomenclature was used where known. Hydric soils were determined on the basis of organic matter content, appropriate chroma, and presence of redoxymorphic features or other hydric characteristics as stated in the methodology. Wetland hydrology was verified by presence or evidence of standing or flowing water, saturated soil, oxidized root channels, or other positive hydrologic indicators. Wetland hydrology, if not directly observed, was assumed to be present in areas where indicators of local inundation were observed. Indicators of inundation include but are not limited to drainage patterns, water-stained leaves, water marks, and drift lines. Data were collected on vegetation, soils, and hydrology at each data plot and recorded on data forms (Appendix B). If all three criteria were present, then a wetland determination was made. If one or more of the criteria were absent, then the area was designated non- wetland unless determined to be a problem area or atypical situation according to the methodologies (Environmental Laboratory 1987; Ecology 1997). Wetlands were delineated between the UPRR tracks and the Interurban Trail, in all areas between the UPRR and BNSF tracks, and within 50 feet of the edge of pavement along SW 27th Street. Wetland boundaries and data plot locations were marked with flagging then surveyed and mapped by land surveyors. All wetland boundaries are subject to verification by the City of Tukwila, City of Renton, and/or the Corps of Engineers. Wetlands were classified according to the local city ordinances and rated using the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Rating System (1993). Wetland buffer widths were determined based on wetland class. Impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers were quantified by determining the area that occurs within the project footprint. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 14 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 3.3 Avoidance and Minimization Potential opportunities for avoidance were identified. Best professional judgement was used to determine the feasibility of altering the proposed alignment to avoid wetlands or using retaining walls and other engineering tools to minimize wetland impacts. Avoidance measures that were considered include: • Using retaining walls to reduce or eliminate lateral extensions of road embankment slopes into wetlands • Using guardrails to increase the grade of embankments and avoid wetland fill • Using buried stormwater detention facilities to avoid placement in wetlands or wetland buffers • The limits of existing ROW limited design options for improvements to SW 27th Street. The railroad relocation design is restricted by where shoo flies would work based on maximum curvatures and clearances that are necessary to maintain safety and speed limit requirements. The location of the Sound Transit temporary station also influenced railroad design. Available locations to construct stormwater facilities are also restricted by ROW limits. Wetlands occur along much ofthe SW 27th Street corridor, so wetland impacts would be unavoidable. These wetland impacts would be on the south side of SW 27th Street between Oakesdale Avenue SW and Lind Avenue. Of the four options explored, stonnwater treatment design incorporated the most expensive option to achieve the least amount of wetland encroachment. Placing ponds as close to the road as practicable would minimize wetland impacts. Proposed ponds would abut the road and sidewalk areas. 3.4 Coordination with Agencies and Jurisdictions Roadway construction and operation activities that affect wetlands are subject to federal, state, and local agency approvals. Agencies having jurisdiction over development activities that affect wetlands include, but are not limited to, the Corps of Engineers, Ecology, the City of Renton, and the City of Tukwila. The Corps of Engineers administers Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials and other activities in wetlands. Ecology has review and approval authority for many federal, state, and local permits. The City of Renton and City of Tukwila sensitive area regulations define development parameters in and around wetlands. 3.5 Policies and Approvals Compliance with federal, state, and local permits, plans, and policies is partially provided for through the environmental review process conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A). Listed below are permits, plans, and policies relating to wetland resources that must be considered prior to and/or during construction and operation of the proposed alternatives. Permits requirements and administration may vary depending on jurisdiction, funding source, and other project-specific parameters. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 15 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 3.5.1 Federal The following list outlines federal laws, regulations, guidelines, and orders that pertain to wetland protection: • . Clean Water Act (33 United States Code [USC] 1251 et seq.) • Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 320-331) • Guidelines for the Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged and Fill Material (a.k.a. 404(b)(1) Guidelines), (40 CFR Part 230) • Memorandum of Agreement Between the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department ofthe Anny Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (February 6, 1990) • Council on Environmental Quality Procedures for hnplementing the National Environmental Policy Act(40 CFR Part 1500-1508) • Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) 3.5.2 State The following list outlines state laws, regulations, and authorities that pertain to wetland protection. The list is not all-inclusive, but outlines some laws and regulations that could apply depending on project-specific parameters. Washington State Department of Ecology: Ecology is responsible for several laws and regulations pertaining to wetlands habitat by protecting wetlands, and water and air quality. Specifically, Ecology manages CW A Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general stormwater permits, shoreline substantial development permits, coastal zone management certificates, CW A Section 404 for isolated wetlands not under jurisdiction of the Corps, state waste discharge permits, and several other related permits. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR): The WDNR primarily manages aquatic beds and state lands capable of supporting timber. The WDNR manages aquatic beds through easements ~d aquatic resource use authorizations. State lands are managed through the forest practices application and mining permits. Alternative Mitigation Policy Guidance Interagency hnplementation Agreement between WSDOT, Ecology, and the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) (February 2000) Washington Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was adopted in 1972 "to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines." While cities and counties are the primary regulators, Ecology provides technical assistance and reviews local programs and permit decisions. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 16 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 3.5.3 Local Local jurisdictions manage wetlands and their buffers through sensitive area regulations and associated development codes. This may include management of the State Environmental Protection Act (SEP A), wetland and groundwater protection, stormwater facility design standards, clearing and grading permits, shorelines ofthe state, floodplain development, and noise permits .. The City of Renton and City of Tukwila were consulted for information on wetlands known to occur in the proposed project area. Municipal codes for each city define the wetland classification system and required buffer widths. 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.1 Project Area Overview The proposed project study area is located within the GreenlDuwamish River Watershed -Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9. The project is within the Springbrook Creek subbasin located east of the mainstem Green River in the vicinity of Renton and Tukwila, Washington. Adjacent land use includes urban and industrial development (see Figure 4). Wetlands within the project study area generally fall into two categories: (1) linear palustrine wetlands characterized as ditch features along the railroad and (2) large palustrine wetlands with a forested component located along SW 27th Street. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 17 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :t PenC't:\ Engineering. Iflc. ~ rr..~I. iJ~"l'rcL:lhlX:..:ud 5.1.I:'\~)'inr. "'= City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 4 Aerial Photograph (Year: 2002) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 4.1.1 Vegetation Several wetlands along both sets of railroad tracks are characterized as isolated ditch features dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) with Himalayan blackberry (RubUs procerus) along the edges. These wetlands were classified as palustrine emergent (PEM) following the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979). Other wetlands along the railroad were identified as palustrine shrub-scrub (PSS), and palustrine forested (PFO) classes (see Table 4.1). These wetlands were primarily dominated by red-osier dogwood (Comus sericea), Pacific willow (Salix lucida ssp lasiandra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), and red alder (Alnus rubra), with Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass occurring along their edges. All wetlands located along the SW 27th Street corridor were named by including "27" as a prefix (see Table 4.1). On the south side ofthe street, wetlands typically have a forested edge composed of red alder, willow, and cottonwood, with an emergent component dominated by reed canarygrass or cattails (Typha latifolia) inside of its tree line. Common shrub species occurring beneath the tree canopy include red-osier dogwood, salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and willows (Salix spp.). Wetland 27D is the only wetland along SW 27th Street that does not have a forested component, as it is a wetland mitigation site with young woody plants classified as PSS. Maintained planter strips with ornamental plantings are also present throughout SW 27th Street. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 19 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT The uplands consist of both open grass fields and deciduous forest. The open grass fields are typically clear of shrubs, often mowed, and dominated by Himalayan blackberry, tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), orchard grass (Dactylis gomerata), quackgrass (Elymus repens), and bluegrass (Poa spp.). Red alder and black cottonwood dominate forested areas, while mature big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees are scattered throughout. The shrub layer is diverse and varies considerably depending on location, but common species include beaked hazelnut (Corylus conruta), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus). 4.1.2 Soils The King County Soil Survey describes five soil types in the project study area: Newberg silt loam, Puget silty clay loam, Woodinville silt loam, Snohomish silt loam, and Urban Land (SCS 1973). The Puget, Woodinville, and Snohomish series are listed as hydric soils (SCS 1991). The Newberg series is made up of well-drained soils, and urban land is described as soil that has been modified by the addition of fill material (SCS 1973). \ . Outside of urban land, each soil series is known to form in alluvium of river valleys, stream valleys, or stream bottoms. 4.1.3 Hydrology The primary sources of hydrology associated with ditch-like wetlands along the railroad corridor are precipitation and overland sheet flow or stormwater runoff from adjacent uplands primarily composed of fill material. These wetlands are considered isolated because they were likely created during construction of the railroad tracks and have no surface water connection to other wetlands or streams. Other wetlands along the railroad tracks, especially those farthest south and closest to the Green River are influenced by groundwater and potentially associated with the hyporheic zone ofthe river. It is likely that these wetlands had a surface water connection to the Green River during flood events prior to the construction of the West Valley Highway and Interurban Trail, both which parallel the railroad tracks and occur between the river and proposed project area. The primary source of wetland hydrology along SW 27th Street is groundwater inflow. Stormwater runoff associated with precipitation events is another primary contributor, which is typical in urban areas with extensive impervious surfaces. Stormwater drainage facilities such as catch basins along theroad were observed as providing stormwater connectivity to wetlands. However, these primarily large wetlands extend quite far . outside the project study area and are also influenced by the presence of floodplain and groundwater input due to their low topographical position relative to the watershed. Most wetlands along SW 27th Street are within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain associated with Springbrook Creek, but floodplain influence has been reduced due to urban development and related activities. Significant floodplain modifications are primarily due to the Black River Pump Station, which prevents high Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 20 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT flows from the Green River from backing up into the Black River and Springbrook Creek. 4.1.4 Topography The topography varies little along the proposed alignment given its location within the GreenlDuwamish River valley. The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) map that includes the proposed project area does not depict contour lines anywhere along the proposed alignment except for contour lines delineating railroad beds. Approximate elevation within the proposed project area is 20 feet above mean sea level. 4.2 Wetland Categories and Ranking Twenty-nine wetlands were delineated in the project area. Ofthese, 18 wetlands may be impacted and/or have buffer impacts from one or more of the Build alternatives. Each of these 18 wetlands were rated using the local jurisdiction classification system and rated using the Ecology Rating System (1993) (see Table 4.1). Rating and classification systems divide wetland categories based upon an analysis of their ecological condition and ability to perform wetland-related functions. Category I and Type 1 wetlands are of the highest quality, while the highest numbers indicate degraded wetlands that are small in size and/or hydrologically isolated. Wetlands, buffers, and riparian areas in the proposed project area have been degraded from past logging and agricultural activities as well as urban and industrial development. Photographs of these wetlands are provided in Appendix B. 4.3 Wetland Descriptions 4.3.1 Wetlands A, H, I, J, P, and S Wetlands A, H, I, J, P, and S are characterized as ditch features along the railroad tracks. Each of these wetlands is dominated by reed canarygrass, with Himalayan blackberry along the edges. One exception is Wetland P, which is predominantly forested with a young stand of cottonwood and Pacific willow. The wetlands are hydrologically isolated and are driven by precipitation and surface water runoff from the railroad and adjacent areas of fill. These isolated wetlands do not appear to fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, the Corps of Engineers has the ultimate authority in making Section 404 jurisdictional determinations. No other wetlands within the proposed alignment were determined to be isolated. Saturation was observed 10 inches and 12 inches below the soil surface in Wetlands I and J, respectively. Direct observations of wetland hydrology were othelWise lacking at each wetland during the field visit, which occurred during the dry season. However, the presence of oxidized rhizospheres, drainage patterns, water-stained leaves, and the low topographical position of the ditch features provided evidence that these wetlands are saturated during the wet portion of the growing season. Low-chroma (lor 2) soil matrix colors and distinct redoximorphic features were present directly underlying the A-horizon in soil test-pits at each wetland data plot (see Appendix C). Functions provided by these Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 21 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT wetlands are limited to nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal and low·levels of flood flow alteration. All of these wetlands were rated as Category IV following Ecology's rating system because they are isolated and almost entirely covered in reed canarygrass. However, Wetland P is a Category ill because of its forested component and species composition. Ecology rating fonns are provided as Appendix D. 4.3.2 Wetland B Wetland B is located between the UPRR track and the Interurban Trail. A portion of the wetland is dominated by reed canarygrass and climbing nightshade (Solanum dulcamara). However, the majority of the wetland is forested with predominant species including Pacific willow, cottonwood, and red-osier dogwood. This wetland is farther south than others near the proposed action footprint and is closer to the Green River. Soils and hydrology indicate that a hydrologic connection was once present through a surface water connection to the river despite the presence of a constructed benn, roadway, and trail between the two resources. Drainage patterns and water-stained leaves confinned wetland hydrology, while low-chroma soils with distinct redoximorphic features in the B-horizon of the soil test-pit confinned the presence of hydric soils. Functions provided by this wetland include flood flow alteration, nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal, and habitat for birds and mammals. Wetland B is a Category III wetland following Ecology's rating system because of its size, hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands, and relatively high plant species and structural diversity but relatively low habitat value. 4.3.3 Wetlands Q and R Wetlands Q and R are located between the BNSF and UPRR tracks. The two wetlands are connected and were evaluated as the same wetland for classification and buffer-width assignment. However, the portion constituting Wetland R contains PEM and PSS classes and is evidently a wetland mitigation site based on the large amount of newly installed trees and shrubs. The portion constituting Wetland Q is characterized by its mature forested component dominated by cottonwood, Pacific willow, and red-osier dogwood. Excavated ditch features dominated by reed canarygrass along the railroad tracks comprise the edges of Wetland Q. Principal functions include nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal, as well as habitat for amphibians, mammals, and birds. Wetland QIR is a Category II wetland following Ecology's rating system because of its size, hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands, relatively high plant species diversity and habitat value, and multiple wetland classes. Despite the presence of a mature forest, the extent of invasive grasses precluded the wetland's ability to qualify as Category I. 4.3.4 Wetland T Wetland T is a linear ditch feature located along the west edge of the BNSF railroad tracks. The shape, location, and concrete outlet structure indicate that the wetland was likely developed as part of a stonnwater management facility. Standing water was Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 22 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT present throughout the wetland, as well as a diverse number of emergent obligate wetland plants. Principal wetland functions include nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal; flood flow alteration; and amphibian habitat. Wetland T is a Category III wetland following Ecology's rating system because it is not isolated and has relatively high plant species diversity but relatively low habitat value. 4.3.5 Wetland 27A Wetland 27A is located at the southwest comer of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 27th Street and extends offsite. The wetland is forested primarily along the perimeter by willows. However, reed canarygrass and cattails are the predominant species inside the tree line. Drainage patterns and oxidized rhizospheres provided evidence of wetland hydrology, while low-chroma matrix color and redoximorphic features within 12 inches of the soil surface confmned the presence of hydric soils. Wetland 27A functions include nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal; habitat for mammals and birds; and low levels of flood flow alteration. It is a Category II wetland following Ecology's rating system because of its hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands and relatively high scores for habitat value. . 4.3.6 Wetland 27C Wetland 27C is forested with an open water component. The wetland is connected to Wetland 27B, a wetland mitigation site located outside ofthe proposed project area. Dominant species include cottonwood, Pacific willow, Douglas spiraea, Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), and reed canarygrass. Free water at 4 inches and soil matrix color with a chroma of 1 between:3 and 16 inches below the soil surface confirmed the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Principal functions and values of Wetland 27C include nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal; habitat for amphibians, mammals, and birds; and educational value. It is a Category II wetland because of its hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands and relatively high scores for habitat value. 4.3.7 Wetland 27D Wetland 27D is located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 27th Street. The wetland was likely part of a larger wetland system that is now separated by an earthen berm to the east and south, and by the adjacent roads to the west and north. The wetland is forested by red alder and willow, but its habitat value is limited by the lack of structural and species diversity as well as its small size. The principal functions of this Category III wetland following Ecology's rating system include nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal. 4.3.8 Wetlands 27E, 27F, and 27G Wetlands 27E, 27F, and 27G are located on the south side ofSW 27th Street and extend a great distance offsite. While each of these wetlands is hydrologically contiguous with Springbrook Creek, Wetlands 27E and 27F comprise one wetland system west of the Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 23 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT creek and Wetland 27G is east of the Creek. A wetland restoration area is located between Wetlands 27E and 27F where an old roadbed was removed. Both of these wetlands have forested and emergent components. Based on aerial photographs, it appears that offsite portions of this wetland system contain scrub-shrub, open water, and aquatic bed habitat. Red alder and willow characterize the forested portions of these wetlands. However, large areas are dominated by reed canarygrass. Installed plantings are present near Springbrook Creek, and cattail is predominant near the intersection of Lind Avenue and SW 27th Street. The high groundwater table and adjacent creek provide hydrology to the wetland system. Hydric soils were determined by low-chroma matrix colors with distinct redoximorphic features in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile. Principal functions and values of Wetlands 27E, 27F, and 27G include flood flow alteration; production and export of organic matter; nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal; habitat for amphibians, mammals, and birds; and educational value. These wetlands are rated as Category II following Ecology's rating system because of their hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands and relatively high scores for habitat value. Despite the presence of a mature forest, the extent of invasive grasses precluded these wetlands from qualifying as Category I. This evaluation relied on the extrapolation of observations made within the project study area, aerial photographs, and other available data because large portions of these wetlands are located outside of the project study area. 4.3.9 Wetland 27H Wetland 27H is associated with a reservoir and is characterized as open water with a forested fringe. The wetland extends outside the project study area. However, red alder, Pacific willow, and red-osier dogwood dominate the portion in the project study area. Oxidized rhizospheres and water-stained leaves indicated the presence of wetland hydrology, while the presence of low-chroma matrix colors and distinct redoximorphic features between 2 and 16 inches below the soil surface confirmed the presence of hydric soils. Principal functions and values of Wetland 27H include habitat for amphibians, birds, and mammals and education/scientific value. Wetland 27H is a Category III wetland following Ecology's rating system because of its size, hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands, relatively high plant species and structural diversity, and high habitat value. Despite the presence of a mature forest, the extent of invasive grasses precluded the wetland's ability to qualify as Category I. This evaluation relied on the extrapolation of observations made within the project study area, aerial photographs, and other available data because large portions of the wetland are located outside of the study area. 4.3.10 Wetland 271 Wetland 271 is located at the northwest comer of the intersection of Lind Avenue and SW 27th Street. The wetland is surrounded by roads and industrial development and appears to collect stormwater runoff from adjacent areas. Cottonwood, Pacific willow, red alder, Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 24 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT and red-osier dogwood are predominant in this forested wetland. The presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology are indicated by a soil matrix chroma of 2 with distinct redoximorphic features between 2 and 16 inches and observation of free water at 10 inches below the soil surface. Principal functions of this wetland include nutrient and . toxicant removal (due to the likely sources ofthese pollutants) and the ability of the wetland to collect runoff. Wetland 271 is a Category III wetland following Ecology's rating system because of its hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands, and relatively high plant species and structural diversity but relatively low habitat value. 4.3.11 Wetland 27J Wetland 27J is a forested wetland located on the north side ofSW 27th Street adjacent to the east bank of Springbrook Creek. Dominant species of this forested wetland include cottonwood, Pacific willow, red-osier dogwood, thimbleberry, and reed canarygrass. Oxidized rhizospheres and water-stained leaves indicated the presence of wetland hydrology, while the presence of low-chroma matrix colors and distinct redoximorphic features between 2 and 16 inches below the soil surface confirmed the presence of hydric soils. Principal functions and values of Wetland 27J include flood flow alteration; production and export of organic matter; habitat for amphibians, mammals, and birds; and educational value. Fragmentation caused by urban and industrial development have reduced the size and habitat connectivity associated with this wetland. However, structural and species diversity of the plant community within Wetland 27J provides important functions to fish and wildlife habitat. Wetland 27J is a Category II wetland following Ecology's rating system because of its hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands and relatively high scores for habitat value. Despite the presence of a mature forest, the extent of invasive grasses precluded the wetland's ability to qualify as Category I. This evaluation relied on the extrapolation of observations made within the project study area, aerial photographs, and other available data because large portions of the wetland are located outside of the project study area. 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS Wetland impacts are discussed by alternative and shown in Figures 5.1 through 5.3 for alternatives 1 and 2 and in Figures 6.1 through 6.3 for Alternative 3. Impacts for each alternative were estimated to the nearest square foot. However, the ability to quantify wetland impacts is limited by the preliminary level of project design. Although impact areas are subject to change slightly while project design is finalized, information provided below allows a comparison to be made among the alternatives. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 25 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 5.1 No Action Alternative No direct or indirect impacts to wetlands or their buffers are expected to occur under the No Action alternative. However, ongoing impacts to wetlands would continue to occur as nonproject-related activity and development continues in and around the proposed project area. 5.2 Alternative 1: Construction of a Roadway Overpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation ofthe Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes The existing project footprint is partially developed in the vicinity of Strander Boulevard and SW 27th Street. The overall project footprint is approximately 19.49 acres, with 6.21 acres currently developed and the remaining 13.28 acres undeveloped. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 26 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AHEAD OF THE CL'~:VE ~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~ Civil, Tr;,nsportilti~t> and Sl!r"~~'ing City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 5.1 Wetland Impacts Alternative 1 & 2 I .1 I· I I I I, I· I I I; I· I I I I I I I AiiEADOFTHE Ct'ftV[ kE Perteet Engineering, Inc. [~ Ci\'il, Tra'lsporta(i;ll~ and Sl!rVe~'ing; City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 5.2 Wetland Impacts Alternative 1 & 2 I I I I I I I I' I I' I I' I I I I I I I BE Perteet Engineering, Inc. t~ Civil, T"'.''J~portatfor. and Surv~~'ing City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 5.3 Wetland Impacts Alternative 1 & 2 , ! ;g ~ Pt:rteet Engineering, Inc. ~ ~i AHEA.D CF THE CLI~V[' City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 6.1 Wetland Impacts Alternative 3 11 I~' Civil, Tr<m;;portati(1!: and Surv~ying ~~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ I I I I 11 I I I I I I I' I I I I I i I I City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension ~.:.' Perleet Engineering, Inc. ~..:: Ci\'i~ Tran~port~tion and Sun:~yjng Figure 6.2 Wetland Impacts Alternative 3 I I I I; I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I ~ Pe~leet Engineering, ~nc. L~ e"',I, Tralgport3tt-;:,r: and Surv<)'lrrS City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 6.3 Wetland Impacts Alternative 3 I I, I' I I , o' I· I· I I I' I I I I I DRAFT 5.2.1 Construction Impacts Direct adverse impacts to wetlands would occur during construction of Alternative 1. Impacts would include fill placement in numerous wetlands and buffers located along SW 27th Street and within the proposed railroad footprint (see Figures 5.1 through 5.3). Few wetlands are present between SW 27th Street and the railroad tracks where Strander Boulevard would be extended. Approximately 3.90 acres of wetland impacts and 2.02 acres of buffer impacts would result from roadway improvements. Wetland impacts from fill placement would result in a decrease of wetland functions and values performed (see Section 4.2). Table 5.1 provides an overview of impacts that would be associated with Alternative 1. 83 SF (2.02 AC) 69,712 SF (3.90 AC) Note: AC = acre, SF = square feet 5.2.2 Operational Impacts Indirect impacts to wetland resources are those that occur later after a project is constructed. The indirect adverse impacts to wetlands from Alternative 1 would affect wetland functions through wildlife habitat degradation, water quality and quantity degradation from increased stormwater runoff and sediment/toxicant input, and increased human disturbance. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 33 May 2004 City of Renton I I I' I I I DRAFT Wildlife habitat impacts would occur as a result of habitat loss and fragmentation .. Wildlife habitat in the proposed project area is currently fragmented, but proposed project-related activities would cause further fragmentation. Increased stormwaterrunoff would result from the increase in new impervious surface in the proposed project area. Wetlands often become receiving waters for stormwater runoff, which typically causes a change in hydroperiod. Water quality could be affected by stormwater runoff, which may carry roadway pollutants such as sediment and toxicants. However, stormwater treatment and detention facilities would minimize these impacts. Transportation projects typically increase human access to formally inaccessible areas. The level of noise and activity may increase, thus inhibiting wetland use by some wildlife species. Cumulative impacts are caused from the incremental effect of the proposed alternative when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Based on this defInition, the cumulative impacts in the proposed project area have already been extensive and will continue regardless of which alternative is chosen. However, the implementation of Alternative 1 would lead to additional adverse impacts to wetlands in the proposed project area as it becomes more feasible to develop land as a result of improved access. 5.2.3 Mitigation Measures Alternative 1 would incorporate avoidance and minimization measures where practicable, while meeting the purpose and need of the project. However, 2.02 acres of unavoidable wetland impacts would result from the construction of Alternative 1. Approximately 3.8 acres of wetland creation would be required based on Ecology mitigation ratios (see Table 5.2). Wetland enhancement could also be used as partial compensation for wetland impacts and would likely reduce the required amount of wetland creation as long as the proposed action ensures no net loss of wetlands. The use of wetland enhancement for· compensation should be based on the amount of functional benefIt that would be provided based on specifIc characteristics of the mitigation site. Table 5.2: Mitigation Required According to Ecology Replacement Ratios for Alternative 1 Wetland mitigation ratios established in the Tukwila and Renton Municipal Codes differ slightly from Ecology ratios. The City of Renton establishes ratios according to its wetland classifIcation system, then further defInes ratios depending on the wetland vegetation class. The City of Tukwila Municipal Code establishes a replacement ratio of 1.5:1 independent of wetland class. However, modifIcations to Type 1 and 2 wetlands Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 34 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I' DRAFT are subject to administrative review and approval by the City of Tukwila and more stringent mitigation ratios may be required. Required mitigation following the local jurisdiction ratios is presented in Table 5.3. Wetland buffer enhancement would also be required to compensate for buffer impacts. The extent of required buffer enhancement is determined by each local jurisdiction and is based on improving functional attributes of the impacted buffer. For example, the City of Renton requires that enhanced buffers are not less than 25 feet wide and that greater reductions require a variance from the sensitive area regulations on a per-project basis. to Local Jurisdiction Ratios for Alternative 1 The City of Renton owns property suitable for wetland mitigation near the proposed project area. These suitable wetland mitigation areas are being considered for inclusion in a wetland mitigation bank. Credits generated from the bank could compensate for impacts associated with Alternative 1. However, mitigation bank approval can be a time- consuming process compared to concurrent mitigation projects. Some land under consideration for the wetland bank may be used for concurrent mitigation to compensate for impacts associated with Alternative 1. A detailed mitigation proposal for unavoidable wetland impacts would be prepared during the permit phase. Mitigation proposals are subject to approval by the Corps of Engineers, Ecology, and/or the City of Renton and City of Tukwila. 5.3 Alternative 2: Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification ofSW 27th Street to Five Lanes The impacts to wetlands associated with Alternative 2 would be identical to those discussed above under Alternative 1. Figures 5.1 through 5.4 show wetland impacts that would be associated with the construction of Alternative 2. 5.3.1 Construction Impacts The direct impacts to wetlands from Alternative 2 would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 1 (see Table 5.1). Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 35 May 2004 City of Renton I I, I I, I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 5.3.2 Operational Impacts The indirect and cumulative impacts to wetland resources from Alternative 2 would ,be the same as those discussed under Alternative 1. 5.3.3 Mitigation Measures The mitigation measurers for wetland impacts from Alternative 2 would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 1 (see Table 5.2). ' 5.4 Alternative 3: Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Union Pacific Railroad Track Not Relocated, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes Wetland impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be similar to those outlined under Alternatives 1 and 2. All impacts resulting along SW 27th Street would be identical. The profile required for adequate vertical clearance under the railroad bridge structures would result in the modification to existing properties and businesses on the northeast and southeast comers of Strander and West Valley Highway. Impacts to wetlands along the railroad tracks would increase beyond those described above for Alternatives 1 and 2, specifically within Wetland QIR. However, Alternative 3 would avoid impacts to the forested component of this wetland. Alternative 2 would cause impacts to wetlands located between the UPRR track and the Interurban Trail, including impacts to Wetlands A, B, H, I, and J (see Table 5.3). Figures 6.1 through 6.3 show the proposed alignment as well as wetland and wetland buffer impacts associated with Alternative 3. The existing project footprint is partially developed in the vicinity of Strander Boulevard and SW 27th Street. Under Alternative 3 the overall project footprint is approximately 17.77 acres, with 7.65 acres currently developed and the remaining 10.12 acres undeveloped. 5.4.1 Construction Impacts Direct impacts to wetlands from Alternative 3 would include fill placement in numerous wetlands and buffers located along SW 27th Street and along the railroad tracks (see Figures 6.1 through 6.3). Few wetlands are present between SW 27th Street and the railroad tracks where Strander Boulevard would be extended. Approximately 0.38 acre of wetland impact would result from roadway improvements. In addition, 2.80 acres of buffer impacts would result. Wetland impacts from fill placement would result in a decrease of wetland functions and values performed (see Section 4.2). Table 5.4 provides an overview of impacts associated with Alternative 3. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 36 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Note: AC = acre, SF = square feet 5.4.2 Operational Impacts The indirect and cumulative impacts to wetland resources from Alternative 3 would be similar to those discussed under Alternative 1. The difference is associated with the magnitude of impact, as Alternative 3 would result in less wetland encroachment. Therefore, the indirect and cumulative impacts to wetland resources from Alternative 3 would be less than those associated with Alternatives 1 and 2. 5.4.3 . Mitigation Measures Although the design of Alternative 3 incorporated avoidance and minimization measures where practicable, 0.38 acre of unavoidable wetland impacts would result from the construction of Alternative 3. Approximately 0.53 acre of wetland creation would be required based on Ecology mitigation ratios (see Table 5.5). However, the amount of required wetland creation may be reduced through incorporating wetland enhancement into mitigation design. The use of wetland enhancement for compensation should be based on the amount of functional benefit that would be provided based on specific characteristics of the mitigation site. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 37 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mitigation measures, proposals, and potential sites that could be used to mitigate for wetland impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be similar to those discussed under Alternative 1. The difference is that Alternative 3 would result in fewer wetland impacts, thus requiring less mitigation. Table 5.5: Wetland Credits Required According to Ecology Replacement Ratios for Alternative 3 Wetland mitigation ratios established in the Tukwila and Renton Municipal Codes differ slightly from Ecology ratios. The City of Renton establishes ratios according to its wetland classification system, and then further defines ratios depending on the wetland vegetation class. The City of Tukwila Municipal Code establishes a replacement ratio of 1.5:1 independent of wetland class. However, modifications to Type 1 and 2 wetlands are subject to administrative. review and approval by the City of Tukwila, and more stringent mitigation ratios may be required. Required mitigation for Alternative 3 following the local jurisdiction ratios is provided in Table 5.6. Wetland buffer enhancement would also be required to compensate for buffer impacts. The extent of required buffer enhancement is determined by each local jurisdiction and is based on improving functional attributes of the impacted buffer. For example, the City of Renton requires that enhanced buffers are not less than 25 feet wide and that greater reductions require a variancefrom the sensitive area regulations on a per-project basis. """", .. ,~rI Plcc:on:img to Local Jurisdiction Ratios for Alternative 3 Potential mitigation sites suitable for Alternative 3 are the same as those described under Alternative 1. A detailed mitigation proposal for unavoidable wetland impacts would be prepared during the permit phase. Mitigation proposals are subject to approval by the Corps of Engineers, Ecology and/or the City of Renton and City of Tukwila. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 38 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 6.0 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES Wetland impacts were quantified by the amount of wetland in which the proposed action footprint occurs. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in 2.02 acres of wetland impact and 3.9 acres of buffer encroachment (see Table 6.1). Of these wetland impacts, 3.06 acres include Category II wetlands and 0.74 acre includes Category III wetlands following Ecology's rating system. These potential impacts would affect five different wetlands. Alternative 3 would result in 0.38 acre of wetland impact and 2.80 acres of buffer encroachment. Of these wetland impacts, 0.08 acre includes Category II wetlands, 0.12 acre includes Category III wetlands, and 0.33 acre includes Category IV wetlands following Ecology's rating system. These potential impacts would affect nine different wetlands. Note: AC = acre, SF = square feet The implementation of Alternative 3 would result in the fewest impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers, while impacts associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 would be identical and result in more impacts. An additional 1.64 acres of wetland impact and 1.1 acres of buffer impact would result from Alternatives 1 and 2 in comparison to Alternative 3. The number of individual wetlands impacted would be greater under Alternative 3. However, wetlands that would be affected by Alternative 3 but not affected by Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 39 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Alternatives 1 and 2 are primarily emergent wetlands that do not provide the same level of function as the wetlands affected by relocating the railroad tracks (Alternatives 1 and 2). Table 6.2 below summarizes potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to wetlands by alternative. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 40 May 2004 City of Renton 'I DRAFT I I Alternative 1: Approximately 2.02 Alternation to water Increased access would I Construction of a acres of wetland fill, quantity and quality in likely facilitate additional Roadway Overpass 3.90 acres of adjacent wetlands, development and Cross-Valley Link, wetland buffer increase in invasive therefore further I Relocation of the impacts. species, and reduced impacting wetlands in the Union Pacific RR Alternative 1 would wildlife function. study area. Track, and result in 1.53 acres I Modification of SW of impact to 27th Street to Five Ecology Category II I Lanes wetlands and 0.49 acres of impact to Ecology Category I III wetlands. Alternative 2: Same as Alternative Same as Alternative Same as Alternative 1. Construction of a 1. 1. I Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the I Union Pacific RR Tracks, and Modification of SW I 27th Street to Five Lanes Alternative 3: Approximately 0.38 Similar to Alternative Same as Alternative 1. I Construction of a acres of wetland fill, 1 but reduced based Roadway Underpass and 2.80 acres of on fewer acres of Cross-Valley Link, wetland buffer wetland impact. I Union Pacific RR impacts. Track Not Relocated, Alternative 3 would and Modification of result in 0.04 acres I SW 27th Street to of impact to Five Lanes Ecology Category II wetlands, 0.08 I acres of impact to Ecology Category III wetlands, and I 0.26 acres of impact to Ecology Category IV I wetlands. I Draft Wetlands Discipline Report 41 May 2004 Strander Boulevard Extension City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 7.0 REFERENCES Berger/ Abam Engineers, Inc. 2002. Project Definition Report, Strander Boulevard SW 27th Street, Street Corridor Improvements. Submitted to City of Renton, Washington. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, USFWS, FWS/OBS-79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Hitchcock, c.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Reed, P.B. Jr., 1988. National List of Plant Species that occur in Wetlands: 1988 . Northwest (Region 9). Biological Report 88 (26.9), USFWS, Inland Freshwater Ecology Section, St. Petersburg, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1973. Soil Survey of the King County Area. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1991. Hydric Soils of the State of Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1993. Washington State Wetlands Rating System, Western Washington (2nd ed.). Publication #93-74. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Draft Wetlands Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 42 May 2004 City of Renton I DRAFT I I I I I I I APPENDIX A I NWI and Soil Survey Maps 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 ~o Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~ {"i\'i1. TJJil3port.:lti~m :,mJ. Sur .. :~)'i<lg .~ City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Source: u.s. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory 1988 Renton, Washington Quadrangle Appendix A-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Scale: 1 : 24,000 I Appendix A-2 City of Renton .I"o.,!"r niE (1'\, Strander Boulevard Extension I ~. Perteet Engineering, rnc. Source: u.s. Departmental ~ricunure tr ~~: ~=~r:,~~: ~r;~~~~~ea. _;~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying I I DRAFT I I I I I I I APPENDIXB I Wetland Photographs 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 G) WetiandB ® WetiandH " City of Renton . Strander Boulevard ExtensIon Wetland Photographs • ., 0 PERTOOOO-OOO3 Appendix B-1 DAVID EVANS ANOASSOCtATES INC April 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ;;; 0> a I '" (') City of Renton . Strander Boulevard ExtensIOn G) WetlandJ Wetland Photographs • .. 0 ® WetJandO PERTOOOO-OO03 Appendix B-2 DAVID EVANS .... NoASSOCIATES INC. April 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '" 0> o '" c.'l G) WetiandP o WetiandQ City of Renton . Strander Boulevard ExtensIon Wetland Photographs • .. 0 PERTOOOO-0003 Appendix B-3 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC. April 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I G) WetlandR ® WetlandT ~ City of Renton . Strander Boulevard ExtensIon Wetland Photographs W .. 0 PERTOOOO-0003 Appendix B-4 DAVID EVANS A,NoASSQCIATES INC April 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I G) Wetland 270 ® Wetland 27E '" City of Renton . Strander Boulevard Extension Wetland Photographs " .. 0 PERToooo-0003 Appendix B-5 DAVID EVANS Af'loASSOCIATES ONC April 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '" '" a '" l'l G) Wetland 27F ® Wetland 27G City of Renton . Strander Boulevard ExtensIon Wetland Photographs V .. 0 PERTOOOO-OOO3 Appendix B-6 DAVID EVANS ... NoASSOC1ATES INC. April 2004 I DRAFT I I I I I I I APPENDIXC I Wetland Delineation Data Forms I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I ,I I I DATA FORM 1 , Routine Wetland Detennination . (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or orps e an emea on anua 1987 C W tI d D r ti M I) Project/Site: s-nZ~ijDeR Bou£.£VtlRl> £J<1EtJes,I a'" Applicant/owner: , Investigator( s): /C. A iJDCflSo.I &. k=r,v cr Do Nannal Circumstances exist ,on the site? @> no Is the site'significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ~ yes Is the area a potentia) Problem Area? yes _ VEGETATION " " " Dale: to/i/O'!> County: ¥INCr ,. -----.:: State: -WIt;J ---. 'I' srrtR-~ -S;l.S t2..~":' R. L\ E Co~unity ill: l".lLt\o.. .. JA Transect JD: -,;. Plot ID: tn -\t\ :::.u Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 0 p~ 4 \ o..V~ c,. "'''"'-''\ J ~ ~ Co (~o-\-\ -FACw " -I "1-" <;~\\ ).. ¥o.o\e..v' ~"-_ S fi\L. ~ . ' ' . ; t HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: . . ~~:.'. >r·~;~;iqt.~ ' . . r~}i_~:'.i~_~· t~."i.'i~l:;;~ .~;. ; ~ " ;;... -., .'~.: -.. , % of dominants O~L. FACW. & FAC:' \00 ("oJ ;0 ",:,~~~! ~:~. " , " ~,.:'. ":' ,.,.i.:.;-;:, ' ,".~;._.:'_'. !.t;! 'J~)"h--'-) ~ }i:<i~·7~~··~~~~d~F~;.~h;~·'! ;~·n.l!;}: ;:-:; i ~;.,.:.: ", Check a1l indicatorS that"apply & explain below: ' • ,o'. --.: ; ~ : ?." ; . '!.;": r. '!';i.~,v:.-~~:~,;>.-:·~ti~'.! ~ .. :: .... : Regional kriowlcdge of plailt' coriuriunities : ~ , .• ' •. ' ,: -1 :.; ~,' I; .. ' .. , :.. Wetland plant list (nat') or regional) "22C" OTIIER --Physiologi~al or reproductive adaptations' MOIphological adajitations " " ";'w;' .. ' --."' .'~>; I.' ~ 1 Technical Literature Wetland Plant Data Base :. ~~. 'j . . : '~.;'" ; ':.: . ! .. -.- Hydrophytic vegetation present? ~ , ....... : ..... -00 --."OJ no Rationale for decisionlReriiliiks:' ' .. ," ---" . ' , , - leo 1-af J.D"'1 ~",--""" t\o..'-\ t 5ft..c..\~~ ~-I'<L tA~ ~,;."LJ.dt.eV" .... ", " .: • "<' ," .. ~.' ~ ~ .. ' . \ , , ,~!:." '" :.'!. ;.~."':~.·l , ;.:: .. _.L ... ~.~ ~~t.J i HYDROLOGY to: :;. "~ , . :."! ~ 'I;!'J i :;;j!,~l'~';j~': . ~: ~ 'f.~}.': ~:) ,i.~r~} ~j .. -, Is it the gr~wing season? , ~-'no Water Marks: yes .f!W\ Sediment Deposits:'yes~~ , Based on: r~;Je""c.f' ,,~ r~ p • ..t.. 1:\\.,0.., .\-., -\ V"l> .I+h Drift Lines: c".,-_-yes ~, Drainage Patterns:" 'yes C fI~ Dept. of iilUndation: ~Iinches \J Oxidized Root (live rools) Local Soil SurVey: yes~ Channels <12 i~ no .. " .. ~ ? =, Depth to free water in pit: ~inches FAC Neutral: yesl~3 Water-stained Leaves: yes a Depth to saturated soil: J!.A-inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other: Stream. Lake or gage data: ' . ,--" --L"( ... tt.! '''' c..'IY-"<. .,r t ()I.I +!)rbj~e~ Aerial pJloto!mlphs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? ~ no Rationale for decisionlRemarks: Oxt\';l.Ll ~~L0'Sf\.o..v«~ ~~IZ"") 0.." ~ W(..H"" ... l ,-; \~ c... .1.e. yV'<!'S..!."-.b~ l~v . . '"' -\.? 'P p", -n..P""-, ~ c,."" "'-S: &., n a. V" e. C( <:, r\D r ""\-tt\-e,\.>\ ""'-clV-1 ..,~ .. o"'-.. c> ~ .e .. --\v...Ji " .... \' .. t s~~~o"' ~~ " ... .,. v \ l\:.t-\. .Lv r " "\ ~a"'\T 5ru-\","~ • <f-~' .... -t---\" \"",~ V'e.v lDW .1uv\ ... 7 SOILS Map Unit Name rv(.W~~V"j s~\r \Dtt..'Yl (Series & Phase) i Drainage Class Wi \ J. ~ '" It. J. Field observations confirm Yes No Taxonom rna d e? ',;, , Profile Description' Deptp ,:', Horizon Matrix color Monle colors ' MoUle abundance Texture, cpncretions, Drawing of soil (lv1 uniell " (Munsell size & co~tr.ast " structure. etc: ,-.. -" profile, (inches) " '" moist) moist) (match descri~tion) -••• ,>' .. lOyp.. 2/1-'Y~ ('07,""""0" " i .:" " 6-b.e; ~ \O1~ .l~ s'" .... Got-~~t. 5-'" I, (.0."-, \N\~U~ " " " 'Ibir<. y,' C .""'...."D '" : : ~. .{{ ¥\c-{,,~ .:., ' . '.'l"'~ r? \oyr:. '/ t' J, ~ sti hoi t-S"c..",l{ Mi~u~ -" " , : " . , " ",: , .. _.--' .. " " ' :. " , ~.~ ~: j: Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) --Histosol __ , .Conc~etions) " . ~." ~. /.~' ~.:' ;;. \; .;.::tf,-,c-, __ Histic Epipedon __ '_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ~ Sulfidic Odor __ " _ Organic Streakirigin Sandy Soils ' .• ' , ' __ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Listed o~ LoCal Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions" , ,"', ' __ , ;Listed on .N,:ati~nal,Hydric.Soils List . , . ..r.-=x. ., " '''''''''''';,','',,' ",',h"h , ' ,-" Gley'ed or Low-Chroma Colors Other(explain in remarks) Hydric soils present? fiV no .' : ~ t .. ~ ',I" 0:.: " ' , Rationale for decisiorilRemarks: " h ",:~::;:", ' " , ~""" ,;~~,!, ,; ;-': t • -;;. .. ! , /v....Jrt..c" <l.;\ V'D "" -- .S; L '-'~ ~\. J~ s~",c..r f't, ~~~lOo ,...~\.,; <-<.C><...-h)~~;s ~ rt ... S «-"'\ \-~'-o"'l \.bU\-~.\\ tV'?~·~· 't .: " < Wetland Detennination (circle) , . - Hydrophytic vegetation present? 8 no ,~ HYd.rlc· soi!,s p¥s~n~t;;·" .', (yeS'. ' . no . Is the sampling point no Wetland iJydiology'~reserit? .. ~es ·no-' I within a wetland? RationaleJRtimarks: '. " : ~\\ ~N-c:.... f"'-""'''''' Vt-\.~t-ev j .. , .v't...V'(.. W\~+-:. • : ~ • I." •• '.' ,', NOtES: W t.t~",J is. \oc4....\ecl . o..'~~" l c\ ~ -\c..l. f<o..~ \ D c..c..;\ ~J. 111\ ~ ~\ri)a.. ! ~c:.S ' .: ~ "-«-~ T-. ~~ ! _... . .... II' ,.r I, I I' .' I: I i I I 'I I I I I I I I I I' I I I Projec!1Site: $-rR"t.JDf-R Applicant/owner: DATAFORMt.. ' Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 C Wid D r ti M I) orps et an emea on anua 8ovU!VtlRb" £t.:rC:N'S} 0 rJ Dale: '1'/° 3 County: KIN V-I State: Wit ',' Investigator(s)~ /C. A Nr, €:.fl.S CJ./ &. Jc;(Ntr' SfflR:' S i.e; / '12.3f',J I f!..~ E:.. Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? @ no CoIJlJ1lunity ill: ~~l .. ~(Lt Is' th~ ~-Jt:{~ignificantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes <;t TranseCt ID:' , Is the area a potential Problem Area? ' , yes Plot ID: ~r ~L.. -V- " VEGETATION', Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator ?~41~v;s H i 0\ v,,~ t I.tc. ( Cf. c:- ,.$ F""~c..:..J < /. i i, 1 , '. ' 1'- I' i " HYDROPHYTIC VEGElATION INDICATORS: . ' , -::(.l .• f.~·.;l!~i:~:; .• ; --. 4"' ;'.".: ~ t~: ; :'>;... !,' 1 ,.,.;.; ~; : :-.. " .".' :.' , % of~ominant~ O~l:~.f~'7'Y~ ~ F,t\S~~:~'~t?,~: -/0 .<£:I.Jt·:::i:J I_':.'~~ ,-"-", , H~~~~" ..,~--/. !:·1::{t ..... _~ .. ~ .. ~~' .. ·~! .. 't_, ... u. ~{~'" ,,-:';.(-.-~. :o·i,_:. -:~~~""': .. ~.i.' ... - Check all indicators that apply & explain below: , 'I: ;\ ' -' ~ ~ ; I ~:~ . , ~';!" .~~ .~:i;,.1.C::· ~:';;,+/ i:~'{: <f:'-";'-':'!' ~;,~~ ',: i; ':L: Regional kzio~iedge'of piarifco11mlu~ities ~ Wetland plant list (nat'! or're~~ri~b L " . ' OTIIER --Physiological orreproducti"e adaptations --Morphological adaptations .~ .. ' ". --:"";, ' Technical Literature Wetland Plant Data Base '.r; " ',\' Hydrophytic vegetation present? WV no Rationale for decisionlRemms: '" , , ~'.' , ," .- '\~J~):' ~{l,~', ~'4 ~ t y\~" t <),~ l.! ,--~ FA~ o..r:'~~V'~. ""c, " '" . ,~. , .. --" .... ,~-- ~ r, ;'>\~1~}··.~ .• ;),r'fJ, '" : ~. , .-.. ,:,.- HYDROLOGY H· "'::~'-'" ~," .1f'-~~ r:~~i.~~f;},,~ii;~ { ;11';'.,','<"-,:-' , " " Is ii the growing season? "~' 'no Water Marks: ·',"Les fiO\ Sediment DepOsits: yes( rio Based on:Jy; Je.11 c..e. .£ rue.I'lt'61~} :"I.v-l>i.~ Drift Lines: -' res~ Drainage Patterns: .yes·_u.O\ Dept. of inundation: .J::J..A..linches \J Oxidized Root (Jive r~ Local Soil SUrvey: yes€) Channels < 12 in, yes· 0 , Depth to free water in pit: .p!.h-inches FAC Neut'ral: yes @) Water-stained fiinciles Leaves: yes ~ Depth to saturated soil: Check an that apply&,explain below: .. Other: Stream;' take or gage data:. __ Aerial photographs:, ~ Other: Wetland hydrology present? yes ~ Rationale for decisionlRemarks: .. TlI\cl t,-__ ~."..s c£ ~t\~"" 1 l7dV1:)\¢"j 7' cW'~\~\~~"'J ~T l--~, Y(ot t bt. ~-t\tx., SOILS Map Unit Name Nt.wb. V"j ~\+ t.t>G .. y"," Drainage Class l..r"e\ t ~v:o..:"'f' d (Series & Phase) , , -. .'. Field observations confirm Yes No . ,-... ,', rna d ';, i Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color 'Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (illches) .! (Munsell (Munsell size & contnist structure, etc.' .. ' ,.·pr~fi)e 1---"-"-' _+-___ ._i ~'·'·~;:-'m-'-:o~is'-'t)'--, -+_-'m""'o-'is'-'t)'__---t~------t__-"-i _-""_' _":'_' :'-}-""-':"-"'---t '(matcJi description) \~;:!'f'L ~ ---~"<)"'~Jf('<"~ ..... . D~) .. \D 1(t,4!Z 7·S '/ It-If /, Cf.~;;"t.' ~ "'l <;--" ly l~~" [' ,,",,~,d"''-I' / .1 ,; . .' .--. ... .. ' " Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) , , Histosol __ Co~~~?ons,·!.':':f: .. '/'<~.~,;if .J:",,' ""~o,;,,,!,;,:;.;:;' __ Histic Epipedon __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Sulfidic Odor __ Organic Streaking iri Sandy Soils, , __ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Listed oil tocai Hydric soiis List ' ;o~, 75X ~~:;;!n! ~~t~#iJiria C~]orS -, ,-' --~it~:: (~ifI~~i~~eIfI~r~/OiIS List .,;", Hy~ric so(ls'pr~e!'t? G.ii> ,,; ~~:,""., :I'? ,'~' Rationale for declslonlRemarks: ' . . , Low c:..~ \,0 ~ D\. V\>'\A.. -+t\ '" co \ ~ -r S c.,--J~ -t l, J ; ~ I<.. t ~Ye.c..th·1 .J"",~vr\yt~:~~ k '~~t~"'. WetiandJieterminatiQ.n (cirt:le) .. , Hydrophytic vegetation present? ~Y,~c: ~~~fp~~~H%{;. Ii: j .. Wetland by(fioloJtY present? -~ Is the sampling point within a wetland? yes ~',. Ra tionaleIRemarkS: >\". ~ "6~\., ~o~r "~~ :.'.: ,,'f,'.,. .j J.~V'~<.' f~~1M,~~YS: ~L. """~\-• .. NOTES: ,\.~ (6U,I;t.! J" 5 ~ l>o\;k l.IeJ\""J A.'?..:·...,.~1 :+;~;."j;<:~.S \t~e.,,", +~.,~ '~\o rc:.-"" J t~ l .... ~ ~\t.+ \"'S.~ ~-t{~'-1 ~.~~' -\"\..\ ~ ~ \. + (~ i" ~l j I. LV" +-~ :'S""" !' "/' -" .!. ~:~ ':~f'1;~ J '(' "'-\. "l.I ~ '" t. ~ S . I'U( <!. \ --c ~ S ~ -\-• A ~Sl-\ oj +<.l7 "',. ~7 J. va l () J 1 '1"'~~LC .. \1YS Vl..IfL ~rrs.ey\-Dl.t" t~\S. J~~ -r~o+. 11\ I I: ,I: !I' t, I' I: (I i_, ·1' I I· ,a I I 'I I I I: I DATA FORM 1 , Routine Wetland Detenninati"on (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: SIR~NDf:R Applicant/owner: Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? .. is'iliiif s'jie~significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? . . VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species , Stratum HYDROPHYTICVEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & fAC:M)D{;' . ,'':.. '-/J~;~~ 1~': ~t::"~:,,,.J :.I:~1\~.~;f) n~).i;.:-l.'::':·:· J ::'[~-21·,Y,:·; . .:·~.;<.;·: ~ Check all indicators that apply & explain below: . --;'-_~.:] .. ;'"_~l!.J':~ ~~·;,~.;:-~::·.L >-.: -~. :;: """~:' .. ; Regi?nal ~owledge" of~l~l ~o~\J~ities 4 PhY§I()logJcal or reproductive adaptatJons.: _" __ . Technical Uierature . &>! no yes"C~ yes ;~ .. ,~ .. :"'''' i IndiCator ." I' ... j Date: '/ '1/0 3 County: KIN cr..", state:,: IN" . .. ~"" . . , SfflR: S2,)/,'l..3'" I ¥-"\~ <;~~unity ID:\.J~~ t E' Transect ID: ' PlotID: !R~~ ~ Dominant Plant Species ; Stratum Indicator "., ~ i . ... Wetland plant list (nat'lotregionai) '-L Morphological adaptation~,.-,.: .' .... ~. Wetland Plant Dai~fBase ,~"~1~ -. ,-. -,,,.-C( '. OTHER __ Is it the gro:wing season? Based on: (v; de",c.e.. nr; ..... ~. .., i no ~W:..:a~te:.::r..;;M-=ar;;:;k;.;;.s::...i-..J.Y..;:les.:.....; (_;.:n~J~~-+.::.Se.:.;d::.:i:.:.rn:.:.e:.:.nt:...:D::.;e:;J;:j>o~·J ;;.:si;.;:ts;.;..:!-:!!j~;;.e.:..s..::; ~n;.:.;o~ re...c P ... r "I;,u.. -'-~ Vb· ~~ Drift Lines: .' yes (Db) Drainage Patterns: Jyg no Dept. of inundation: Depth to free water in pit: --tJ.a:.. 'inches '-J Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Sufv.ey: "': 'fiJ. ~ Channels <12 in. yes (iiq). JJ.lr inches FAC Neutral: yes C!!V Water-stained Depth to saturated soil: M inches Leaves: @ no Check all that apply & explain below: Other: ~ \o,\-L~c..~-\i:...l .-:. ~ \ ~ Stream, Lake or gage data: -_ Low +r-n"j l.t\tLc-. \ J~~'I'e. S ; ~ '""\ Aerial photographs: Other: ' . ~ .,....", (> " s SOILS Map Unit Name ~I tAd ~ 51\-'P0-W\ (Series & Phase) " ' Drainage Class vJcJ.t ba.4i. e J. Field observations confmn Yes No rna d e? ,',f· ,; Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color MonJe colors MottJe abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (inches) , '-;-(Mun~di: (Munsell size & contrasi s~cture; etc:')':), ,.:: ,. :j':"profil~: I----l~---f-,:-'" .:,:m.:,:·o;;;is:..:;.'t),-' _i -+_...:m.:.:;o::..:i:::..st:L.-)'_+-_' _e_' _____ t--:--___ -'--:--i' (match description) A 'lOt~~f3 -f~~~k~7 \~~ ", ,1 Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol ~o~~r~~o~~:. c;" \ !;;.\-! .. Y!;,,,,,:,, ;," ", '. __ Histic Epipedon __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor __ '_' OrgaiJic Streaking in Sandy Soils',':. ',: ' " " __ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Listed on Local Hydri~ Soils List , ,~Reducing Conditions , , " , __ Listed on~atiqnal Hydri".Soils List:, ;; "'1-... Gley~d or Lo\\tChroiha C-o]orS Other (explalninremarks) ,," -,"'" Hydrophytic vegetation present? H~drc" ~o!ls pre~~t? :;,~), ,,! Wetland hydrolOgy present? RationaleIRemarks:" ". " frU *~~L ,~~~tar~ NOTES: ~\ ~~.:, l ~~), no J,," " , 'l,J~ \M'~t- Is the sampling point within a wetland? :1 'I 'I J, 'II I 'I' II) " ~I/ I, ,I ,I ,I: II 1\ I 'I I I } ,I I, .'. I , I' I II I I .'. I' DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (\VA State Wetland Delineation Manual or ' 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) , ' ., " ... , Project/Site: s'nVVJDf:R BC)~t.e:V-1ru,:>' fD<Tt:IJ'S1 ~ tJ. , Date: -'f -"I c> 3 . County: IeIN fr. .. ' "e' State: Wit '" .~. -." ... SrriR:' : 's i-S l-r'l. 3 N &:.. '-\ G Applicant/owner: Investigatof(s): Ie. AH~Ol.s~ Co~~jty ID~ ~\c.", d. C:.. Transect ID: ' ,-.... - . " _. '" @> Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? I no Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? -yes yes ~' PlotID: ~? ~ ~ ~ VEGETATION- Dominant Plant Species . Stratum .." i~dic~t~r Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:" . -----'---.. -.--" :.-... -' ..... -:-.'-,-,_. . . 'r := % of dominants OBL. ~A~W. & fA~_: \ oDVtJ.: ' .. ~.. .: ! .;: ... ;t:>.~< J !, J-, :~ :;.~ ! 1: .:~ '-:: ~-''"t 1,",;' --r. ''-.\ -: ~! .i.':'J",:~.!: ,,;".-. ~ ; -:~:..~r:J ~~ -':. -~ ,; .• ": ~ ~ t: . ;:;".'" ':", , Check all indicators that apply & explain below: ;~~, ,t;f:.:",-::~:'l' Regional knowj~ge OfPI~~communities J Wetland plant list (nat'l or regiClnllJ) ~.' OTIiER Physiological or reproductive adaptations ~,?rphological adaptaiions ' __ TechniCai Literature--", _c:.~. '" ' .. Wetland Plant Data Base f' Hydrophytic vegetation present? -.@> no Rationale for d~cisionlRemarks: ,. _ "I ,._,,·-h :' _:, :,' \ DDv/6 CJ1 J~~~"'t~ ~ 1. s-ru1ei ~ CL"j-t~,~, 0-1' v~~~"'., HYDROLOGY Is it th.e gro\\,ing season? Based on: [.,;Je..,c.e. Dr; -, -".!,. • i~·. • ;'. Dept. of inundation: ~'inches U Oxidized Root (live rooW Local Soil Survey:; yes ~ Channels <12 in. yes ~~.-' : ': 2 Depth to free water in pit: riA-inches Depth to saturated soil: " inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream. Lake or gage data: Aerial photographs: Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decisionlRemarks: Other: FAC Neutral: yes ~ Other: Water-stained Leaves: yes. ~ SOILS J) j.!(.t,JbQ.r~ s;/I/o t4.~ Map UnitName@fllju Sill! (!.'4~ Lbit's,., (Series & Phase) .. ,( .' .'. Taxonom Profile Description Depth Horizon (inches)'" ,.C, ", .;, .. Matrix color Monle colors (M~riseIi' . (Munsell 'nn'fuoiSt)-' : moist) Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) (j) lY~( ( p -.,"£.4. Drainage ClaS@ P'V'y('Z' /)r~1,i( <..J -~ ( .. field observations confmn Yes No Mottle abundance size .~ contrast' C ~.~-...::> '" "3~;""'l\ . ..t \4H V\c....-\- rna d ? '. < .... : Texture, concretions, structure~ etc: :',".:', • P·,";.: -' ..... ~:-. ~~~\l1 ., .- s-A, loe."", 0"'1 • Drawing of soil ... 'profiie ", (match description) . ~I, '"'. ~ • 'i ;- ..... ~--., ;;,~~~,;», .~~ .',;~:;,.,::,~.:,;,:~~:: 1:~;~;';~1~i;"~~:;~/:'? :i':; . Histosol __ <;'onc~etions.l·i ~\ / ,.n:i;.~:H""'" ".r;;;",;,t;';:·'<j: __ Histic Epipedon __ High Organic.Gontent in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils _" _ Sulfidic Odor __ Organic Sireaidrig In Sandy Soils . . :., .... :.; __ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List .' ~RG' ele~~e.cd~!'ogr' cLo()nw"~_!Chti~'ronSm<a"c:;I'O:'I:'o: rs-' ..... , .. r'·:' -' --' Listed on.National Hydric.Soils List :., . ~I .~, . '" .,. . Other (exj)lain in remarks) : ,'. ,... Hydric soils present? ,. _(yes" no .. ; .. ,., >'::'''-',: .' _ _.. . ,." .' '.~,,:,,~.:.:i";. . t~:: :d:t)imar~:::;'~sP Vl~ ~,:l.";;'OV~t.·<-~+;;:;;;~~~~';J::d-~ "~~d(,orl'ti""&1 '""~ 'A-(-{-ikR~l. 7-'('-" ~eT~$:\('.'>·,>~~~.{). . c, .. · .• Wetland:Qetenhination (circle) ., . "! c~ ':}¥l~~'f?}:~nl? e. :~c Weilanahydiofoiifpre~erii? l;~: y, no . , RationalefRemarkS: ... C •• i . " .../.,. Al\ +~~.:~~~~~! ~L~~:'" -,." . NOTES: Is the sampling POint within a wetland? ':'; : : :,' ~ . ·1 ,I. I' I I' Ii ,I :1 I I I I I, I I I I I I, I I 'I' I Applicant/owner: DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Detennination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Co~s Wetland Delineation Manual D6 Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? 6§> no yes ~ yes @ .. ,: Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a pote~tial Problem Area? VEGETATION County: kIN~,-,.:.! .. ', ' ,":i Slate: wtt· . . .... SlTtR; ~2.sJ-ri~tJ/ ~ 4 P. C?~unity ID: UQ.tlct(d.. c. . Transect ID:' . " . Plot ID: P yo -:t\ S"Lr '. ; Dominant Plani Species ''''i;''>'.,' .,. , Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator ~ .' t f • '1 '. ~\ttvtS: '\vV\,i~h-~lW HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: . ~!~f~~j~~~,,~~:;;~~::: ~ .. ;~.~;. I§'6 ~tr; .. Check all indicators thai apply & explain below: -·;".i.J.: .~,:.'.:-:-:?~~ ;~~~~.~'~t·ft·l;t. :.f\.r;.',,;. :, "~'.; - Regional kriowledge 0'£ plant communities P~y~i.()logi.!=~I. or r~prodt:ictive. adaptations TechniCal Literature' ", Hydrophytic vegetation present? Rationale for decisiotltRemarks: .. 1 . 100.'. J J[)\Mi~'-\~ $~~'I!.S HYDROLOGY .>' ,! •• ,r •. ~ .• ,'~_" _ ••• -~u.4 • 'i '-.; . . ':;.::,~ l~.~l;;:~f!~'F··J j:r'~: ,(.:~.~. :.rt:j ;:"l t ! ~ 1 ? : = .... l .;... -;:';' ' .. ~. Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland PI ant Data Base x····· OTHER __ Is ih.he growing season? Based on: (v;Je..,c.e. D~ . . ~. ....1. 'no Water Marks:, yes,lo) Sediment Deposits: yes (n"O\ r~pt't t-' i:'Il otH -I-~ v-ti~ I-Dri-o":"ft":"L":"in":"e"':"s~: ~_J....;..;; Yles-~~:'-"'~D":"ram~·:":;a:":;lg:":;ce:";;P:";;att;.&:.e":"in:":;s:":;: ~"'-yce":"s;"'=-:~o,.LI Dept. of inundation: ~Iinches v Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes' ~ Channels <]2 in. yes ~. ,'. Depth to free water in pit: ~ in~hes FAC Neutral: yes e" Depth to saturated soil: NP. inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other. Stream. Lake or gage data:. __ Aerial photographs: Other: Wetland hydrology,present? yes. ~ Rationale for decisioillRemarks: '. ~d.; (L,+N"5 AJ ~t\o.",J o'"'t1votu<J7 \~c\::.l ~ ~ \ Je;..~ ptc>t Water-stained Leaves: yes § SOILS Map UnitName{\1t1,1ktN') S~~ 'O~W) (Series & Phase) Taxonom , Profile Description Drainage Class l,.J(.\( :1>1r!:.U1o ('1 Field observations confinn Yes No rna d t e? ;' /:,:. '" ... ":: Depth, Horizon, Matrix color Monle colors ' Mottle abundance Texture. concretions. Drawing of soil (iriches) '(Mu~~ell.': (Munsell" size & contrast' ~t~c~,,!r~:~tc.' :;" ',' , ,;.~: profiie' ~~ __ ;~:~~:!_~._'~_i_r_·~,.~n~~~~'=b~~~~~:-_;~~~m~o~i~stl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_,~~~(mrudd~Kri~tio~ . ~ ~ '. ,j : :; -.,.'. ,--' .. . ~:. .' . .:i ~ . .. :' " L Hydric Soil Indicators: (check an that apply) __ Hisiosol ' __ Copcr~~ipn!L\i;;:';';i; , ."'d!"> ,~';!~j,;: ;'1;;' .1;. ~iY ;i-\;C; , __ Histic Epipedon __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils _. __ Sulfidic Odor' " __ Org3njcS~lngiii~andy Solis'", ": ' __ Aquic Moisrure Regime __ Listed on LOcal Hydnc Soiis List ' __ Reducing <;~J.l~.i:~i9~S .. ,,':;i h'o;P .~ _". _' __ . Listed on National Hydric.Soils List ..£ ~. ~~.~ .~~~'.-:',' " Gleyed or Low-chroma Colors ' " Other (explain in remarks)· i·;;i'j'/" :.r 1 Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydii~'so~ pJ:C~e~t1t':~5j:U,_ - -,Wetland iiYdrOiogypreseHi?.' ~.~no.,: _ -. yes;" n ",,' yes .. rio :i';" "-," .' ~.~ ~ -~ r:~ 't : (~. ·.·,~~i~~1}: ~.~.~~. ;" Is the sarnplingpoint ;. within a wetland? '-.•.. , yes,:'§;F .. ', . RationaleJReniarkS:",,;; :, ' , "",!'; ", :: " ~-/ ' O~ll ~~~"~~~~'~~V:.M~~.,j)'~~\ot .\D~"\c..~,,:,;o!>~ ~I\. NOTES: S hi>vc. ( ~D t I. II, I , II: I' II 'I' ,If I '1, ,I, 'I' 'I 'I \1' tl II 0;-" 'I' I '1-' I j I I I I I I' I I" I I I Project/Site: SIR"~Dt:-R . : :. ',. .--. ~---. Applicant/owner: DATA FORM 1 . Routine \Vetland Detennination (WA State Wetland Deliri~atioJ) Ma~ual or 1987 Corps Wetl~nd Delineation Maim'al) .:' -. -.; County: /CIN0':i ·,,~;;_;I: Investigii'6r(s): :/C:AJ.ir/i'iisW&' ! ~(;J 6-"'> .,:-.-' , : I:';.' State:~' Wtf·~ -: --";:,-: C'" .-";: , srrlR; ~U/Ti.~~ /~ Do Nonna! Circumstances exist on the site? Is ili~ ~it~sJgnifjcantly disturbed (atypical situation)? . Is the area a potential Problem Area'! ' VEGETATION .. '®v no yes ~' yes '(1@ ,~~ -~,~~-.. -.. ; ' .. -----.-. ~ - ;:;:" ., Dominant Plant Species Stratum '.' Indic~t6r DOminant Plant Species Stratum Indicator ;i ~\tAV\<::';c o..II"V\V!.lt\iI\U,&\ " ; -..... ~~ •.. '.-. ! ' Check all indicators that apply & explain below: ~ ~~:~!t ;~#;4.~~*~ (!~,~r'~;~'~J-<~·::';';;~·~:, '~'N~~='-;~i:"c; ~::; ';' ~:':f::.;,~:<,:.;, ""~ Regional knowjedge'ofpi&)i'conunu~ilies ':"}"":/ Wetland plant list (narIorregiohal):-V,., ., OTHER Physiological or: reproductive adaptations;· ~'_~'Y" Morphological ~daptations'\.---'}':-..:..~,-'-":< ":'::~:~,:.:-,;j ; fedl~iCalLiteratur~---Wetland Plant Data Base'~:~;'C " ,<"."-'.y,:'HI,; J: L'~~-: . ~y~,~o~hytic,~~etatiOJi present? ,-o..es J Rationale for decisiontRemarks: ' -~-"J ~ I • ~J:"' "o'...-:_-~~-..,:~.,,::"-.,,:. ~} :--~. "',~. ':. ._ ~ ~.:..:.\ .'.~. :~~ "." no ,I,." ! , \ me 7 u ~ do OYh.. '" 0... w-l-,,'?fe ~~ '::> OV" "" P-A(:.,., ~:' ~:',: -~"--"',-'.'-~~--~.;. -,: . .~~ --. " ... ". - ~.:J ji,~"'~:~f~~:~r~_t~~~~SittrLttl~~\tl;~; . HYDROLOGY Is it the gro~ing seaso~'! Based on: t:~~ Jenc.~ D~ Dept. of inundation: Depth to free water in pit: __ 'inches v inches ( I Depth to saturated soil:""'" . ~ inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream. Lake or gage data: Aerial photographs: Other: l I J l / , Water MarkS:'-' yes Ol()'") Sediment De~osits: jies'J.ijo DrifrLines: <.~:,; yes J..n,<»_ Drairiage Pattems::J:ies fto) Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey:';'yes' &leV Channeis<12 in.&.e~ no < FAC Neutral: yes GLO) Water-stained Leaves: -yes <ho) Other: SOIlS Map Unit Name (ItI'ht!"" 14 VI d " . . Drainage Oass I"v-i"-(.ot (Series & Phase) l..<.:.,f:; vloH_f,. fUj ..... -t:sd~ ~~(OA""" ~~, - . -7 -pc:>o"'\1 &. ........ "-cd. Field observations confmn Yes No ProfiJe Description Depth Horizon . Matrix color Monle colors (inches>. (MuJi'sell (Munsell , " 'I;"?molst)' moist) o-C{; (j--' \ <.p ·A -t:o-. , ' .' . \ -' . Hydric Soil Indicators: (check an that apply) Histosol iDa ' ' de?., ,,( i',;" Monle abundance Texture. concretions. Drawing.of soil size & contrast' '," ,~~.c;~~~~.,·~~~_:,:,'~:~:·',·· ;: .:" ,~~,;,pr.o~l~ . ".' t, . (match description) • ..: I,~ £' _. .' ~ ~~c.l~ roOl "'" "'.-l •.. --~. c.o~ 'J:~i-..",J-",'r_ -' '. ,~', ~ .. ..:.. ': (,OCAon ~ -. ~. " . '. ',:,", "'~7" .... ,;:-'~ .. "" Concretions. ", ". ,,,-N.'.·, " '" '.'~.,., --. " ," r-:,~'~:, ··~.).~t·!t::.f .. ' ,".' <'/','! .".' . : __ Histic Epipedon . ~ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor __ Organic Streaking in Sandy SOiis> ,C,,;' :: .' " . Aquic Moisture Regime __ Listed on LoCal Hydric Soils List . ~ Reducing Con~i.tions" ,."c' .'. • _. __ . Listed on National Hydric Soils List,,';: . ii"~ :., 7'7 Gleyed or l.Ow':Chroma ColorS' Other (expiilin i~ remarks} ." ,.," :.,' ,. ' Hydric soils present? (Je5'J,c nO;<I,',-.,"~ . > ." ..' ."f¥ff.;,;~f:J!E;::::,il;.,:;: :,: Rationale fordecisionlRemarks: c.h';6M.~ o.€-\ v.f d.tf.tl~~ ~-Qo1-;;)(:i ~O~Ph'C,;.'~~l~1~f~~ J.\i"4:.dl, v~J~r\'f\~~ ~<. A~:(<;;':-ti;"~b~fo~ tti~, tJr~~ :~.~~", ',:2" .,:{' ,O:;~ •. ~ .: ... ;-t·e .'.-'l', Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? It dric' soiIs"reseiit?~,~.", ;' ., ~,." .. ,',.:.. P .. ,., ".,., .. ' ~'_:, .. ,. ':' Wetliiiid liydi'oIogypresent? . RationaletRemark.S:, . . ,,-. A\l· ~,~C4~:~0~W~, NOTEs: • . i r' ,.,: 'l.'· .;, w .... ~~~' ', .. ". -~_.: ;Jr"' .. " . Is the sarnpliDg point within a wetland? ...... ' -.)",.- 1_ .. '-, \I~\ , , 'I' ,I, ,I' Ii ,I II' '.~' . ,II I . ; ,I ·11 'I' I I ,Il I .... ,. I , I .1' I I' I I' I '1 I DATA FORM 1 . . Routine Wetland Detennination (\VA State Wetland Deli~eatio~ MaihJal or· . '., ....,. 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Applicant/owner: I~~6stigator(st'/CANi>i:;isoJ&. J:;{Iv& Do Normal Circumstances exislon the site? Is tJig siie'~jgnificantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is ihe area a pote~iial Problem Area?.' . . j. f&> yes yes no C~~unity 10: W --J Il~ '0' ~. TranseCt ID: .. . . ~~ l ~~. . Plot ID: 1) f ~~ . >It,., Dominant Plant'Species ::Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Spe_cies Stratum Indicator I PhlAklf"c,c, i fi.V'v",J\W\~ 0. . L..· ... -... Sp\v-eO\. J~/)O.~~s\i \ I j [ . --~.- . , "';' .~-.-~, .' ,....,," ....... --;-~1' HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: • . --.~ --r ~ ,"' .. ,-. . i:·:J~t~.~ \'.~ . -.:., ;\t· ~~1·.yr:~·\ "_ "~~~!:~~?~.r.-~$; E~'~~ 'j!"~~~'.i~J~':~ ~ % of dominants OBL. FACW. & FAC:,~~i t D97c:1 t.'t.,;~lo l~jil<) fi?~Vf~!. 'HhH>i,t~,,:! >l[t.i<;j:':<' ~WJi ' ... '." . -.~ . ~J.:. ':'.~ '~"'?~"':.:'l-<"·i~.~_~~-t: Check all indicators that apply. & explain below:' \." i.;' ·,-f~-I~ ·p',r-J,t~.,::.(; "'.-. ,u.., f ~;_ "~<~~:'io1 ~ · • .:-.::.,.-,i'·" < __ I.<,c,~:· Regional knowI'~~~;~f'~I~:~b'::hniii~: ;~~·Z . Wetland plant list (nat') or~gJrina1)"-v/ -,,',i' OTHER ;: Physiological <>.r repr¢ucthe. adaptations'; ~ .,~ Morphological adaptatjons:,:~:.~. . < . . t~cilhiclu Literahlre" " ," '. . .... . . Wetland Plant Data Base b·" • . --:::::0,;:r; \F,'l;" ..!';l lJ" ( , Hydrophytic .vegdation present?i 0e'i?, no; .'.' . . ""i, ,'-' ,; .. ,.'. RatiOrihletor'de~J!:~()m~ ~:, ~-4-~p~ '" ~ 5 ~("~ ~ ~C . " .. -.. --".'~ "". -': ~f,~~' .::;3~_;~:~ok'1.-:~r~~lit ,hytfl~i~~~:'/': HYDROLOGY Dept. of inundation:' __ 'iriches '-J' Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil SuiVey:,· yes,. no Channels <12 in.~~, no. Depth to free water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: yes no .1 Depth to saturated soil:,-. Pinches Check all that apply & explain below: Other: Stream. Lake or gage data: Aerial photo!!raphs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? (yB) no Rationale for decisionlRemarkr . , . I S' ~ ~Qtv"'~ \U Sh \ J-LD ~~ ~ vJ~c--el... I.~vr"\. ~ . : .. :' ~._ ; .... ;;, ('.:.' .. -:." . ' .. i\, Water-stained Leaves: yes no SOILS : ::--. -' Map Unit Name ld rb ~ ""' I ~'" rJ...... '" .' , (Series & Phase) l~\t-s c.1~.(.. {-be f~')(..{ ?d:f7,1 .~~ ,.'lo~"", Drainage Class mollifceol--:----. 7 For ''1. cLr~,,,,ec.c "". '. ';' .. ::-:" .•. :,-:, .-;','-Field o~servations confinn Yes No ) .. ',' . . rna d e'!.' .: .. ; '" ,. ,;.. . .' . Profile Description Dep,t~.. ~~rizon MatriX color Mottle colors . Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, . Drawing of soil (inch~9 .. ,.,. ; ..... ".. ~.\.,"~;.~m"~o,~JisJt!)'~, .. r (MUmnOsJ~sl.t)' s~~.~ contrast s~c~~,re;. ~~c. ..' :" ;:' '(';" 'pi~fil~ J-',::,~:-'; ·_':;...')_f~.::.':.!_'-+.1_1."_·:'....:-"-_1' _-+..:.;;....:..:;:=.:,:~~+_:..:.:.:::.::..:;lt.-J....;.".+ _______ +-_.....:...._ . ...; . ...:. .. :.;. . ....:.:.;. .. "':"""":"":--1 . <match description) (Q~~~'X ~oiJ!. £l~/ ,. " ,. "'~ , , ;. (.6""',.. ...... ""-f..,,vt ""'i! d I" I'>'\. ,' .. .~." .. ~. .~. r. '".; -.... ,," • -;(~. -;,,'>-: ";" ." , ' . ~~ .. \, _._ .-, ......... ,J.... • .•.• , ..... , .. _-".' .. -:.', '_'.c· .... ,. ,.: ........ , .. ' .. ,-, ...•• , '-:";"" .'~;.; •. ';' .... ::,.f;.: .. ,,"~.··.: .. ,.; •. "-.;';-.·! ... ,;"_ ... )~.'·.· ~,'.; ,,' t---:-~:-:---::~~--:-:--~----__ ..I-------'----"';'';''''''''''':'''' :"~;....;.." -' ;;..:."~' "_"':"':"-"''''...;.;' ~.::." ;;..' • ...; .. ...; .. ,;.... ';;.." .. ...;.. --'''-=-c, ..:.., • ..:..' -...:... • .L..:...:....;;.:,...;.~~~ :...:;""::;'..;,." .:....;;:;, .. :....:....---1 Hydric Soi, In~icators: (check all tbat apply) :l _. _ Histosol ~ \~", , ~C()nfretion~ ;'/1 1), ,;;J;)f:-;'i ,ifIO "<;I{;,!! 'It,h :t,~~ ",*3' E __ Histic Epipedon __ ._ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils .~, . .::.:..:::::.:. Suifidic Odor' --. __ '_ Org#JlJ~'.su:eaidrig' iii. Sandy Soiis ':." :~-;.,;,: . ~quic ~oisture. ~egime, ' . __ Listed on Local Hydric Soiis List .. ""_' .. _., ._./ R 1l,educmg Cond~tJol1s,~ I: .... ·,!, '>'1 ,,'.";; '_' __ . LIsted on ~ationai Hydric.Soils List .. ~ " "' .. ' """ ~ Gleyed or tOw-Cbio;.na CoiorS , '. Other (explain in remarks) , .. ',. '.', ;"",.§i' Wetland Determination (circle). . ; l.i.;tr ·j{}~~tj~~ifj t: Is the sampling point . within a wetland? . . " . nj'~d:'~fili ;~1~:~r!~7sent:~ (~:S L:;i'/:~l.;l .i, . wetland iiidrOi6~bi:eseni? ".; ~ yes ,;~:i·~6t'r··,!) .. "i' ; ... , _ ... ,.,." ~ ...... ~ . ,:0 !': . .'. '. .: l' l ; : .. ~ . ; .-NOTES: -f~ ) , . ! I: ,I. I' I 'I' ~I;, II II ,I 'I} 0;-", I 'I ,I, I I, ,I, 'I I I 'I Ii I -. 1-• I.f ~ I, I I 'I I I' I 'I' I Applicant/owner: DATA FORM 1 . ~ Routine Wetland Detenninaiiori , (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Iil~estig~ior(s):' je.Afjr;€:ilSc.v ." &. ~(N 6- " ...• County: KING:; i'l '>" ,<. ·~~;£:;gfih-i~_~j,~ Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? IS the site"significantly disturbed (atypicaJ situation)? tfij). no yes ~. C~~unity ID: ',./,--A,..;.O· G Transect ID:" ~\ v. '. . , Is the area a PQiential Problem Area? ' yes (TIIJI Plot 10: D¥'~ PJ 7i-: VEGETATION . ·t· . , I.: Dominant Plant' Species Indicator Dominant Plant Species : Stratum Stratum Indicator I ' I ~ '" rY\nh,cw ~Lo.N"PO'3, albv~ \ ;. HYDROflfYTICVEGETA nON IND~CATORS: . '. . 7~Y;J., ". % of dominants OBL, FACW,& FAC:U.l1"':'~;;':; , !'Hlf~~~' :··::,-·~: .. ·;:t·(~) :. .. ~~~~!~~~)(;.~.~ (!-i. ~t~f~'.;~·~~··:!~ :t!f·b,;~~~· ~ :L~~.!l. Check all indicators that apply & explain below: ' ~/;'. . ·;~.\~~'~!:J,.i.~:z; :;_~ ':~-:.) .:: . .od"1·~!.-" :~ J~).:; .. /: ~ _; ....... . Regional knowl:d~e ofpiant'co~ti~~ti~~ ~.'c' '/. Wetland plant list (nan or 'regJonai) /:<1 OTHER Physiological or reproductive adaptations, J t~ _ .,' Morphological adapbtioris ~:.' __ "._" .. -tecil~icaJ iit~rnture .... .., . Wetland Plant Data Base ,-:;"" '" ,;i,-j'~~l'iflU;:'· Hydrophytic vegetation present? "'. LYes") no Rationale for decisiohlRe~arks: . HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? B~~d' on: [v;JQ1c.e. "r; Dept_ of inundation: __ 'inches U Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes (Ei?) Depth to free water in pit: inches Depth to saturated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photographs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? yes ~O) Rationale for decisionlRemarks: '-~ _ ~ __ ~ CJK'y'r-nl'-"'':>r''''''-tJo s~,,~ ~ Channels <12 in. yes . (niS) FAC Neutral: yes no Other: • "-r",: Water-stained Leaves: , "yes ~) SOILS Map Unit Name tJ rbOv",", \.o...v... J.... ~ ,;... . . (Series & Phase)(loc;.~ J. clQ\-l ~_ ?v4)r'tcsd~ ClA.l (oo. ..... .. f; '~':.-. ' .. -. . "~ , • Drainage Class ~I)c!i -A~. &. _ . 4t:>O~,.,\ cirtUt'l-ed field observations confmn Yes No rna d ,;> .'. Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors . Mottle abundance ~inches) " (Murisell·. ' (Munsell· size & contrast·· Texture, concretions, slplc!urc,' etc.::: .' . Drawing of soil ".~. ; ,;;;~. p~ofile . (match description) ,: . . ~ j;:"molst) , moist)-' loi~ it, Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) __ Histosol __ Histic Epipedon _' _ Sulfidic Odor ~ Aquic .Moisture. ~egime " __ Reducmg CondItIons, ; . 'J ,. , Gleyed or LOvV-dirom~ Colors Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? HY.dric· soiispreseiii1:~~::' I Wetland hydfoi~gy' present? ',:c· NOTES: C:t...ei;) no .~, (noj··' yes (no).· ,:. l" ;" .• ' !'" ',; ; !- '.~' . ; ~ .;'.' " ~: ' _. _Co~cretion~"'i :!; c;t;"';, ,ihf!;·'~L';t!,:,~;t·,..)\t; __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Organic Streakjrig in Sandy soiis:( "f: >:. __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List . __ . Listed 0)1 ~ational Hydric Soils List i :. Other (expiain in remarks) .'.('" .,; :;,,~ ,' .... ·.,,1; . ~' , • ' ~. -, '.'~:: ",f, ;". ~ ~~~s~·:.i.~.,"}~~~.\~ct,<_:.-; .' Is the sampliDg point within a wetland? . ,,1 : " ~: -: ~-.i·!; ; ~'r' , : ';; . "'11'·- ·1, ,I I :1 'I' ,I', ,I I 'I- :1, 'I \1 ,I, ,I, 'I' I, 'I I: I 'I, I I' ' . I, ,I I 'I -I :1, I II I Applicant/owner: DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland D~termination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or , , <'.", 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) inv~sti~atoJ(s): /C.AIJiJkiZsoJ &. Je(N 6- .. ' " ,I,"". , Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is tile site 'significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? &> no yes ~ yes . (1'i9) C~~llJ)ity ID: VleTWb t= Transect ID: . Plot ID: ~ "*" 0) ~ VEGETATION'· .. · i i : .. '.:' .. ' . ." ... ~ ... Dominant Planti Species '" " . Stratum Indic~tor Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator " i HYDROfHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:, . ~ ., . -" ~.~. .~. :'!V.~.~./.~~>b;,: t,l}:~' ~~~.: .... '~; 1-; . : .~::~l.~~.,,~g~;:;H~·rt0~~, : ,: ~f:"':··) ~ : % o!~o~nan~~ O~~~~C~~,~ ~~S~::~S~:7~ -. ; .:~~f:,.~~.:3 ' ~.", '''.~~~/:.: .. :.J 'f:-: ~~ ;...t" i..:;' ~~ ~~; -: -:.~ ;::~1-~:.~:.· .... ~~ -':';'-~. : ....... '~. -i., ' #-:- Check all indicatorsthal apply &; explain below: .~ Regional knowi:J~:'~~i~~:'~~~~:~~~;:~:::~:/ Wetland plant list (nat'l~~re~cih~) Physiological or rep~u~ve adaptations . :.i', .... · Morphological adaptationS';'.·. Tecii~~3J Literature ". . . . .. .. Wetland Plant Data Base :-.'; ;, Hydrophy.ti~'!~getatioD I!,r~ent,~ ..... (!~ : no. ( .' .. _'; ." .!~t!o~~e for deci~~~~;:k~~, ~'~s·~.' l ~.' 'f:~ ~'_.; HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? Bas~cf ~n: C,,;d;'" c.e. "S; OrnER Dept. of inundation: .t:U-1inches U Oxidized Root (Jive roots) Local Soil SurVey:! yes~.o channels <12 in.6e~ no . \.-, ,) Depth to free water in pit: -N.1r-inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water-stained (yeS) no Leaves: Depth to saturated soil: ..JiA..-inches Check all that apply &; explain below: Other: Stream. Lake or gage data: Aerial phot0.Y3phs: Other: SOILS MapUnit Name 1?"'7d-"5i!~ (4 lQi\~ (Senes & Phase) . .:,'. "';' "'}" .. 4:. Profile Description' . Drainage Class cp.>ov=~ d.va(~ V!..J. I -- " Field observations confirm Yes.. No rna'd";' Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors . Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (i~dles) ~~'~,:":_, ... " {Munsel(: (Munsell size & contrast ~c~~r~,'~~:c:·:'.'·~~,.· .-.. /.,:·profile; 1-'_"'_' _' ,_ .. ';';'\':':'~:+_"';;..>_' _--f_;i-,I,:....;"m:.:;'·:·:.:;-o;;;:ls~tI:...·_·· -+_.:..m;:.:o:.,:i.::;st"'--)_·-:',··.+_":-'· '_' -----t-------:---t ; (match description) ; .. "i( •• ~:: • : . , Lo1f.:.3(-z. , \ .. . ; t t,;:e.' ';X~d.;f(oD.",:, ,':~ " '''';',';~. ~{t;~ .::' f,~e sa. .. ct1 (D6.w-. t'W\ -e {}.I v vv\.. -; ~. j ~, i ;i:..~'i i; -if", 7-.t~.:~~;.~~ ~.:.~ . Hydric Soillndicatoi-s: (check all that apply) Histosol __ . ~onff~ti0ns.';'~:;··1;~l;"jr"·1.:~.·:; .. jiY";:, .,<7',:;'''';''')1'1 <';1 ; __ Hi~tjc Epipedon __ . High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor . __ Organic Streajdng i!iSaHdy Soiis;;;:.;~: ,~. :>:;, ! ~quic Moisture Regime __ LIsted on LocaJ Hydri~ Soiis List . ~ ~dtiCing Conditipn~,"~ ""'~'., ... If,:. _ .. __ . Listed on ~atio.nal Hydric ,Soils List"i t,'. '" lrl~ . ,,', Gleyed or Low~tiiroma Coiors .' Other (explain in remarks)."" .: ';:7i',,;",,',:" Wetland Determination (c!rcle) Hydrophytic ,vegetation present? .Iit~p?·~~~¥~~i¥~~~i?~~f(;~;:',. " .' '" ,WetlaiJd Ilydrology present? Ritio'naleJRemarkS:, .. ...::; . '-.. ~-,." ' ~ ~.\\ ~ ... .J.t-~~ .," .,:;>,.." : .. 'Y, " .,.' .. '''-- NOTES: Is the sampling POint within a wetland? . 'Y •••• ;' <1.0 .. no ".~ ", .... '.. ~. _. "if;: "7~J::_<:t,;r ,'r:; I 'I'" , ' , II I 'I I' I' 'I ' , I I ,I: I I I I, I DATA FORM 1 ... i~ ,: Routine Wetland riet~rmination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or , "., 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Applicant/owner: 'Investiga~;~r(s): • /c':).fXi>'i.fiSoJ .... &. JC.r;J't:-' ,.';. ,> . County: ICING;. ~, . ~jf~~'·~i~ Ifi3t-1l~ Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? @y no Is ~i ~ltt;'~ignificant1y disturbed (atypical situation)? . yes ~ is the area'apotential Problem Area? yes (tlgJ Community ID: I ; L', . Tr~~&t ID::: W~'J r Plot 10: 'DP ~ lD .~ VEGETATION . \ . .i ..... t-s-"': . Dominant Plant Species i; \ Stratum , Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stfaiiim :i Indicator ~. ,;:~ . .../ ;' \ ~()bcJ':> ~~()(.ljUS I .; .-os 1=\ reA r.Jt,U'l.. Ic.c;,' ,. flyn!tOPllrll~VE(;ETATION INDICATORS:~' ,.' : >~,~::»·a.d+ ;~. _ % of dominants OBL, FACW. & fAC:>:" ~7 % '. '<'/1''*.<', h:'iMi. ~. ) l. ~.~~~ •. :..;".~.;;::;-,-~~_-:1...;.~:~~·-~t:-=:.'i~~:t~;;;;,' j:..;,~:..;,~~:..;,.t,;;.~::~::-:~i~...;'~.f'"':'t~~3,",:,~.:..;,·~t:..;,'t!-:-rt_<*....;\_~~:_}~-:-L}~-:-.i6_· ,:.:-~.?r...-:')_)'~,;,;,,~ .. ,_)_<,_. ________________ :--______ ~ Check all indicators tliatapply & explain below: : }~:;.-j.~:;z~;<~:_~ ~::,r.,;~",G~.\'·~·}~~'1f~ .. ~;"f-. Vi j ~~~::::~'~-.!; _ . - Regional kriowied~e'<>f piliilf 2oiruriu~ities i"," 'V Physjologi~~l orreprodtictive adaptations. '-. . ,. Technical Utera~j:e'-·'···' .. ....... , ..... _.!,. , Wetland plant list (nan or re'gioiial) Morphological adiiptaH~ns'" ' Wetland Plant Data Base "'"e', Hydrophytic vegetation present? Oes) no "~ .. OTHER __ Rationale for decisionlRemarks: (, I?V c:L~. r.-A-~r-e vto( s o./~ F"A-c..--err fI\4, t(.v- -." -'. !< .. ~ -':~::-.-:--.-. -;-~.-~-... ~~ .... ~fA!~·,~'~i~~J~;~:}~.~"rf~:.~f~}~'?;J~~··:~ HYDROLOGY Is Il:the growing season? B~ed bn: rvtJe", c.e., ,,\=" Dept, of inundation: ...-linches '-J Oxidized Root (Jive roots) Local Soil Survey:' YeS'~~ Channels < 12 in, yes (nb, , ; Depth to free water in pit: .",,-inches Depth to saturated soil: ,.,.,' / iriches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photographs: Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decisionlRemarks: Other: yes FAC Neutral: yes no Water-stained Leaves: Other. r-r\\j(c.cJZ,'-~ cx-\ tr'e..t{~J ~tJVt:.lo J7 '~J At .J.c::h... f It yes~ SOILS Map Unit Name1?J,-tfS; I 1, d~l loq~ (Series & Phase) . ,l . . . ..... .... Profile Description Drainage Class r0-dY~ d.r~It1.-eJ Field observations confinn Yes No rna de? . ,',:,\'" •. i Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors . Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (Mu~~eH" . (MunseJl si:ze& contrast " structure: de.'" ',> ,·",.,,; .. j)JufiJe .. ~ __ ...;.-.~ .. ;;.;.,: . ...;,: __ -+-;'~·f\_;in~"':,;;·o.;;.;Js;.;,'t),-:-,-;_·+---.:m.;;.;o.;;.;i:,;;s.;..<.t}t_--II--_··_"_"· _____ +-_·_';_,·..,;.·,·.;..,_··_·f"_._,'_,.,_ •• ..;,:':_'-:'--i' .... (~aichdescription) .' ~".;,.,. i .l (inches) . 411 0- ~{'~ ... fl'l\ ".;; Hydric Soil Indicators: (check al1 that apply) Histosol __ Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor __ Aquic Moisture Regime . __ Reducing Conditions. '. .' " . : ; .'. Gleyed or Lo~-Ch'roma 'C6Jor; Hydric soils present? ' yes . (!.10).: Rationale for decisionlRemarks: Wetland Determination. (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? .~y'~;~;c~~~S 1~~~c~1Z:tf!1i;i ". Wetland hydrology present? NOTEs:' .~ .. .' . :. . ,": ~.~., . ,,", "', ~. " -' : ,.", . . ;_.1 .. , Concretions", -, .: ... ,'t-,;/,;": ;f' ... ·",·~.,. " .• ~'" ,;. :~:i' ••. .';··! i == High ~'6rgani~' C~~'tent in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Organic Streaking In. Sandy Soils',. __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ;_. __ . Listed on ~ational Hydric.Soils List :," Other (explain in remarks) Is the sampliJlg point within a wetland? I.:; '.,.' yes (n~ <,~., . i,.' .:" .I.! ,Ii ! :I! ; I: , . I :1 '1 J 'I' , . I ~I, I I :1 ',17 ,I I I, .1 I' I, I I', I I, I , [ I . :'~':.!'" I ,I I I I I I I' I DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 COr])s Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: SI(l"~~t:R Applicant/owner: Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? Is tJlesite significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? Dominant Plant Species Stratum I'" '. -. .., ~l,~ la.s¥:tv\kO\ S'" @i> no yes .~ yes (fIqJ . Indicator Cc.?~tlIlity ID: IvJ it> . &, Trans~ct 10: --~, -, PlotID: j)P '* 1" ~ \ . Dominant Plant Species . Stratum Indicator . . : ~ .; : -~ : HYD~pr!p'I.~ YEGETA TION INDICATORS: . ,'-.-<"--:,,.. % ofdomin~ts OBL. FA,CW. &~AC:iJ;'tc;.cp _~o . ,::4:0:": (_;:) l~; 'i ·_)-.,~ •. i~, ~~. {~~~;;~"f ~ l., r~;"~ ~ ~y;~ r;'j!~r«. :} O.! ~:,~/,;;. ! ·~L~. ~~ ~ ~~r ~ i.- Check all indicators that apply & explain below: - Regional krio~i~~~f~;~:;~~~2;~~i~~~~ -~:;>: Physiological or reproductive adaptations TechnicaJ tiiernturc":-'-':"o_--" .. -_. \V etland plant list (nat') or re~ibnal) .. 0· .. . M.orphologicCiI ad~ptations. ~)::: '.'~ . Wetland Plant Data Base;;::,:· ·.OTIIER __ Hydrophytic.vegei.ation present? Rationale f~rdecisiontRe~~icS: ,.' '. '.' . .... ;>~ .. ;.-... : '~.:Jp~. >~;r' .. ' :~~. ""T'~f:'i.,. >-.:..>:r·""~··-;.": • ;-":~~J!~}l.':.~~: ... " leO 70 c{l~·q~~ ~fe('l~,\..S:';'Fk~ HYDROLOGY Is it the gro""ing season? Bas~;ron: ~1~Je;"(.e. oS; Dept of inundation: Depth to free water in pit: ~Iinches v ~inches Depth to saturated soil: ' J!.J±. inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream. Lake or gage data: Aerial photographs: Other: Water Marks:,_, yes,1J~ Sediment Deposits: yes (n~ Drift Lines:-,,··: yes V(»)'· Drainage Pattems: yes flO) Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: .. yes· rio Channels <I2in.<y~. no FAC Neutral: yes Cn~ Water-stained Leaves: ~:}. no Other: SOILS Ma~ Unit Name :?v-yd Sj (h den I D~~~ (Senes & Phase) \. ,: I.··· ~~inage Class p?dY1 d V1i( t1-€ rl .',: Field ()bservations confirm Yes No Taxonom' .. .. ) rna d e? \"" Profile Description' Depth Horizon Matrix color Monle colors . Mottle abundance Texture. concretions. Drawing of soil (indIes)·,;,····, (Mu'~s~II' (Munsell' size & contrast: s~. :~~ure~eic;·'.,':·.'.". :,.,' profiie I-_"_._d_';·_"'''_·\-+;_~_·'_·' _··_-iI-·.'.·.:...·'~_·~.:..;;·m·:".:..;;'·o··.;;.;·I;~s;...;,; .. t· .. \'-· _+---'JE~!.:;·s.:;,/.t):-...·_t-_'··_"c._;'. __ .,--__ +-'-;..;......;....;...;..~-'--_:-..._-f .• (mat'ch des·cn·ntl·on) lJ :::_\. . .:., .. ~; .. : ... ".~-.:; ,", .;1. '. a::. ~ E"IC O-~ LD1~'1'~ . .: r ",," . -. -~. ... -," .---,""( ~f"' ~~r .~;;.. ~ '!~ f ':. ,~t:-:'f.'~-,:Sr J.} '.-i '.~f~· 7'f(~ f~_;.n F!·(·1 Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol __ ._., Concretions!",·,t::l/, ir'),';'" ... ;:j'j.' ,,":.~.;. ::,j~ iY,.· f . . __ Histic Epipedon __ " _. High 6ig~ic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy' Soils __ ., SulfidiC Odor . __ OrganIc SifuikinglnSandy soiis· . ~quic Moisture Regime __ Listed on L&:ai Hydric Soils List· ~.;T .~.,::::::. Redli~in.g C<?'!~~ti9P~~;i ·1:.,,; .. ·· d,.·.·; ,.'., ._. ," __ . List,ed on i;lationaJ Hydric.Soiis List· . v/ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors,·' '. Other (explain in remarkS)' Wetland Detennination (circle) . !!y~~~p~y~.jc_~egC;!3tio!1 present? ~y~#~·.~o~.~~ !,~s~Ilt1 i" :.:;"1"'" . ,Wetland hydrology present? NOTES: Is the sampling P9int within a wetiarid? '. _:. :~' ~:i , . ~ .. ~ " .. ii. .. ,I. I '1' ·1 I I I' I I I. I I I I I I I· I I 1 I I I I I I" ; ,I' Ii I I I, I, I I DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Deterlni~ati~n (WA State WetJand Delineation Manual or .. "c." 1987. Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Applicant/owner: . In~estig~tC;~s):'i jc;jj/i,E:flsOV"i &. '~{.JC;/" D6 NonnaJ Circumstances exist on the site? Is ilifsit~:~ignifi~autly disturbed (atypical situation)? is the area a Potb'ntial Problem Area? .' VEGETATION ~ ~., _ f ." • @i> no .;, . .' yes (itt$> '. ' yes . '~9> <;?~~ity'ID!VJ~AiIO ~" Transect ID:" .... ~ ~.I.~!:::_, .... Plot ID: VP + \'2... ' .~ Dominant Plant' Species Stratum Dominant Plant Species . Stratum Indicator ,--. ~V; t9iVLerllS , H:· ... ",,:'.,.,0'" (.Afh.JS '$ev'\u.~ It .... --.: I , . • , '.... . ;'. -. + I' HYDROPHVTIC YEGETATIQN INDICATORS: , ;'-t "';;'~~" C'":'-"; ... ,,;'" . ,.-.~., -,,!.-.,' ~:.~. . e _ .~ ~ ,j ~'. ..' _"_ T Hydro~hy~~.!ete~qoD p~~ent? 0Ys""2 no Rationalc:foi' dedsioliJRemarkS~!' n" ", ~. ::t: ,., .• ' .' ,." ", ,>j ,v,,,J ·{;;';:·J('r">;;~·7/,J~--'-t;~~~~· ~~'~i5 i.<5 rA6:OY~ HYDROLOGY Is it, i~e grl?,~irg season? Bas~d~n:tv;Je~c.e.. Dsr Dept. of inundation:·' Depth to free water in pit: Depth to saturated soil:',' . rJ Pr' inches'· Check all that apply & explain below: s~, Lake or gage data:" _. _'_ Aenal photographs: Other: ",", ; . ,.:', "i,i;,!.""i;,,~;;·icj\,·~~~;~~~~t;4 { . ,,'~ '. ~.":;.~ .> . "\1 ... l1!i\,,~?tJ I~."'Y" L".iJig!~j;,,(l ,(dd Water Marks:;;:. yes J. .. no)· Sediment Deposits:; yes i ~.O) Drift Lines: ,"".:y_es cnO) Drainage Patterns:' yes (nO) Oxidized Root (Iiye roots) Local Soil SurVey:" yes (h§> Channels <12 in. 8e~ no FAC Neutral: yes no Water~siairied Leaves: , '. y~s no Other: Lpw SOILS Map Unit Name J<wb W") Si(+ lQIth--- (Series & Phase)' . _, :. -' -' , -~ , . Taxoriom Profile Description Drainage Class W-fLl-dvt!.(fleJ -Field observations confmn Yes' No rna d e? -,,;':' . -, '. ~ . -' Depth. Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors -Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, .. ,Dra\Ving orsoiI (Munsell' . (Munsell size & contrast strtJ~t~!e, dc/:~-',':,;, ".' .. ' "profile; 1-:"-_'_' _' -J-'-' _': __ "_'-'_-~_: f-'-~,_·-·.::tn::-:'o7'is:..:.t)~; -f-_..:..m:.:.;o:..:i:::.;st~l~+-_:_· -'_"--_' ____ -+_~ __ ....:...;c;......:...:...._: ~ Jmatch description) ,,' ... (inch'es) ". '-,::: .' 5~\~ . I; _ d,.,' ,~. _I~~F <-"";:,"~/:-"'T"" >.,,-;/ : Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) .. ..... -... 1 I I I 'I ,I, Histosol __ Concretions,.1';{H L:.;;"\"£/' '1;~;;;' ,~Hi:}-'_.1.';,. l_~ -,,' __ Histic Epipedon __ High 9ig~i~C~~teniin Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Suifidic Odor -__ Org~ic StreakIng mSandySoHs-;·,· .' --. -. : _ ,I I: ~~~:~;i~;~;' ~ "0> .' , t;~~ t~~n~:;~~~~~~~t.: . Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors .-,-Other (explam mremarks)"'c'. '::,':"" . .'.; Hydric soils presen~? aes~-, no ._. 'L '_. "j" .', " _ . ''''::'';'' ~';:' "i: :, ,Rationale fordecisionIRemarks: l..,ol.v ~~~~ ~i ol\il~J. t"" .. c(.o)c(t, ... ~'~lt.:~.~as"':l ~;::,:~.;<;,. . P"~~.V-:V A--~ ~~C.O-I"~,-b.e-low~,;\t"w~) Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegc::tation present? . !iydii~:solis'·preseDtj;.,).,·:. . . Weiland hydroiogy pn;sent? RationaleJRemarks: .-- -' (Ji;) .. ' no . .~~ ...•. ··no-· ., ., ....•. --'_ ... .' . yt;5}', no '. .... ' , Is the sampli~~ point within a wetlarid? 'O~ ·no '< .--,,-.-.,:; -",,' I I, \1 I I, :1 ,I' I I, ,I J I I I I I I, I I I, I I DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination <W,A State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) County: ICING-' _ Applicant/owner: i~~~~;ig;~~r(s): /C.)fif)·CflSoJ State: . Wlf' , . . .:. SfflR: S.Ze5' lrZ3t-dJ f24e Do Nonna! Circumstances exist on the site? is'ili~slte~i~ifii::antly disturbed (atypicai situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? VEGETATION".'" .. Dominant Plant Species . Stratum ~~ ~eJ~i(,? ~ \ !, t:?ubv" P-{OC,WvS ~ 1'r)/Ou!\l1;, lb~I~~i-fW~ '1 • I F I pntJs ~1~fVt . -S HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ,~~~f ~,~rN~.~~~:9~h.fJ,\~')~~.~. r A~;:;:'~:~"~' 9~ Check all indicators that-apply & explain belo~:. . !'.:~'" :. ~: ..... :~.. -.... . . !.;.~:.~ .. :::r;~L~) )1;,;i;;.;..~~;:;} ... -:¥"~i1;t-,_ "::" 1:'-Regional kriowledge of plant communities Physiological or reprodudiv~ adaptation~ Technical Literature Hydrophytic yegetation present? Rationale for decisionlRer.ncu;ks:· .' ~. /??v ·d(/h".,,,-.i HYDROLOGY @Y yes yes ,,',". J no ~ Indicator Dominant Plant Skcies Stratum Indicator ....• t i'Pc G--r ~AC U I~P<G. ~v itJ , "'-'::·~~"~:;fu ',.' '."' '}:$';'-"> Wetland plant list. (nat'l or regional) ~. Morphological adaptatl()ns,;·. Wetland Plant Data Base '. no ;"', , ." OTHER __ .' ;! !'J~ ! Is it the gro~ing season? ".' ~ no WaterMarks: . yes (no) Sediment DePosits: yes ~q Based on:1j,; JQ1 '-e.. "F ru f>. '" t' ol~ ~ ~ V1>~ I-:Dri=-:-· ft-:-:-L-:"'in-e-s:-:"" ·-,-· ..... y-.e-s -'(r'!-n":tO)'--+";'Diairi-' ..... ·:...;.;iag;.:..o-·! e--Pa-:u ..... e-m-· s-:-:"-:: (yce}~n::..,o"-l '.. ·'.t ",' .. '! Dept. of inundation: __ 'inches \J Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no Charihels <: 12 in.6'eS} no ~ , Depth to free water in pit: __ inches FAC Neutral: yes no ~,~ .. ... ..- Depth to saturated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other: Stream, Lake or gage data: __ Aerial photo!IT3~hs: Other: no Wetland hydrology present? 6B) Rationale for decisionlRemarks: , '6UI".fa Cl h1Jrvl"j'1 (" 0(, l..Jv..~rl'''~ Water-stained Leaves: u:) no SOILS Map Unit Name (Series & Phase) . " ~ .. ' '. • '. '1',;', ,': . . Fidd observations confinn Yes No ~~ d e? Profile Description. Depth Horizon· Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture. concretions, Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell; '(Munsell size & contrast· structure. etc. . _ -' ',' profile: ~-_;-_ .... _ ... _ .. ..,;' .. _ ... -+-_~_-+-";';';... ... ;;.:;in;;.:;o,:.;ls;..,<·t):.... '_<--f-_·..;.,m;.;..o;;.:;' i..,;st).<...· --f--------t-' .. _ :;(_. ''-''.----,1-.. _. '...,""-' ._'.:'_. ' . ...,. ---i. CmatCti &scription) /i.;'.;4/z, _ -,,; f;:'·~:;Z:~'I~~ _ .. :;:~;·~':~:"::i I( O-S'· A I( 6:" ~'. (.0 . $: ... ~·t· v-,··I·~ --, .. ~ ;~:,~i lDjr%;. (~r:~ :-> ". "0" . :;\" ".";- . L . :'.;. ,~ , ", -:-:; ",:' . :., ,~~ .'.~ .. ',' , ,i ", . Hydnc Soil Indica,o~: (check a1l that apply) . l:;,rf~~ ,~i< ~'~i~{'~ ~ , .l .. :;f '1 .?.~ :'1 .~y\ ,..:"~.~ /:~. ,-~ .': !! H: __ Histosol Concretions . . .. '. ' .; : . --r<..: ......... i.)o.~~: .. ,. 'fl~\·' -,,1',', ,y{.,...."i:.".:'! l,:;-f,f.:.r :.,;'", '."" _ "-." -:,"" __ Histic Epipedon __ High OrganiC Content in' Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor __ Organic ~trea.Jc~nt inS andy SoilS·, . ",': .. _ ~cjuic Moisture Regime __ Listed on Local Hydiic Soils L1s{' , __ /_ RDeducing Conditions , __ ... Listed on NationaJ Hydric .soils List '.:.·':n" V Gieyed or Low-ChromfColors" ;,i,' ,J.'; Other (explain iii'reJnarks)'·"·' '-,. ; , . Wetland Determination (circle) ,r. NOTES: . Is the sampling point within a wetland? ,.' 1-!', ,. ",'" . ; ~' no. .j; " .. ,- ') , I I I I ,I I I I I 'I, I I I I I I I I I I :L,,· I I' I, I I I I I I DATA FORM 1 , " Routine Wetland Detennination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual Project/Site: SII<~ijDeR, Applicant/owner: I~ve~tigatri~s):: jc.A,w"'pC~CN ' &. )c;i,v (? , Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? IS ili~' site' significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? is the area apQtential Problem Area? VEGETATION '," ',',: L ' ' Dominant Plant Species Stratum r, 'P'vvl \avl S ti(~~ftfla ~~ "C'i+"" .~. t2J?!.h fN"OU/v~", HYDROPHYTIC, VEGETA nON INDICATORS: :,. ", -~ _, _. 7 ....... __ .'~ '. -•• ' -~. ~-, ,.' % of ~ominan!s ?_~~. F~~~: ~;'A~:p .. 1~c?J "', L .. ~.L.~~".::f:-t I -~:),':.-:L.J.~ '~~fa~~ f:r.~"", ~~ .~;.-.·.l ;~.;.!:".1." ';'~:i~~~r!'~'" ~.~ .. ft.!}:l Check all indicatorS that apply 8.t explain below: i . ¥rhJ;..iJ)~,;;:.lr' :~-~~.:·: .. ~,f~'~i::ti.;';'~ft-.i·. ,!J -~.~ ~~.:., i1.:t.' '.:.> Regional kno\vi,edge~f piari(~o~unities "C' ~ Physiological or rep~u~tiv~ adaptations;, _'_' _ .. ,' Technidi L1tetatun: ,.,' , " , ' Hydrophytic vegetation present? Rationale for decision/Remarks: , f§> yes yes no Date: t.e :::/5 ~ 0 ~: " ' C~~~jty ID!~D t+: Transect ID:' ,.-,,, .. , .. , ' -' " Plot ID: t1P -W \'3 if ~, "'" .. Indicatbr Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Wetland plant list (nat"I"~;~;iJ~~r:'::0'2~'; OrnER Morphologicaladaptatioris<' '"", Welland pJant Data Base ·t'·; ~~'L"'?7':~:-i . :~~j;:. ·;r:' ·.(~··t> \ . no 7~ df]Y"\"",-4--speClI-e5> r'A-(..,-r:N" w~ " ,., ",'; j ;;~~:: i';ii;\l·\t,,,,;~t·: n;,;,,",';:i HYDROLOGY .. ~ " l.-;:-:~ ... !} . Is it the gro",ing season? BaS~d6'n: [~;;Je..,c:_e. orr ';.', ~;1' ,!,_ '" • ,', no Water Marlm, yes"n~ Sediment DepOsits: ies /rid re..c p.1't ~ 61 ~ i-'~ vi;~ t-:Dri::--:·":-ft-L":-in-e-s-: ',-,,-.. -"-Yle"':'s-I+-no~-t--:-Drain~·~a'-:-.g;';".e":';p-'-att""e-m-s-: '-Y"-Ie-s J+-no"""ti Dept. of inundation: /' linches 'V Oxidized Root (liv~ .oots) I Local Soil Survey:; yes\ no '.',.",' Channels <12 in.'ye~ no ' '-.,,/ Depth to free water in pit: ....L.-inches Depth to saturated soil: ' / inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream. Lake or gage data: Aerial photo!U3phs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decisionlRemarks: yes FAC Neutral: yes '--00/ Other: Water-stamed Leaves: yeseJ \ SOILS Map Unit Name ~-ew Perf"") S, ~t lo~VV\ (Series & Phase) <",,~ , .'.' Profile Description ., ,.,"" :1···· ) . '." i .. , 'Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Drainage Class vv..ul-lira II\.-e J.. . -,', J: Field observations confIrm Yes' No . rna d '~·_<t.~. -"'-.'~' Mottle abundance size & contrait' ,-. t: . ,i " " Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil ~tructure,' etc:~' .'~',. ::, ',.. .~ ;',,, profile .... :, ".'" ." " (match description) ,'.',. ",,:,,;.n': ;"';"', I;. ,<. -f"~~ ~.~ lolt~ I" ~'. '.' .. , I: ......... ,.' .. "", .. --.,r',,' ..• . 5 . , .~ ~..:,., "; t-----:-+-----t-----+-----~+_-.;..' .-' -... ~----t------'---';;.:.:.'__1'.. ', ... Hydric Soi~ Indicators: (check all that apply) __ 'lIistosol __ Histic Epipedon __ "'_' SulfidiC Odor""" __ Aquic Moisture Regime . ~ Reducing Conditions,'l ;,., .. ',' /., Gleyedor IAw~d1roma Colors Hydric soiJs p.rese~.!!., ... , ,yes CiO):cc;<:" Rationale for de'cisioil!Remarks: ' Wetland Determination (circle), Hydrophytic. vegetation present? ~ ~ qo.-<~~ •• '~-•. ;~! !.-'" .~1=-~··~":-=. .:~'~ Hydr:tc soil~ p~s~nt?m~~t;'~i . Wetl3il,f iiydroio~preStiih ,:,;. ~eo/ no yes . CD~' .;,;' yes " ( ~O)~;::' . _ . .-.... NOTES: , __ S;~p'~r~~on~:/;., ;!,\,"\>:,ft->~.' .~';;~ f :"!;"r11;'1;1L>,~';Y,I·; __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ OiganicStibking lifSaildYSolJ$./,,,:~;·\· . __ Listed on LOcaJ Hydric Soiis List __ . ~isted on National HydricSoiis Listo:;.""· , . Other (ex1>.Jain in remarks) ,>, . 'c::;:; .. <'" , Is the samplIng point ,c within it wetJand? '5::'~ .,;:1 o ,\ .. ~. I I I I I ,I I I I :1 I I I I .1 I I I .1 I I I ,I I I I I '.:".' I I' I I I I, I I I DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Detennination' (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual _.f Do Nonna! Circumstances exist on the site? @> no ~', .' IStJl~ siti:(significantly disturbed (atypiciU situation)? . Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes yes (~ ~~~~ity ID: W~ I' Transect ID: ... -"~ ".:-, ... ,. ,. . VEGETATION·....··"· H·- Dominant Plant Species I J ; Stratum . .H-.:" HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:,,· ,. ..... ' ...... --: .. " .. _. ,-. . . . ... ;. : . Plot ID:b r * \4 . .:JI-;- . \ . " . .. •• ' ... ,. A _~ ••• .,.. , __ DOminant Plant S~~ies Stratum' Indicat6r , . -' . . . . ~,;, ~,/;l;,;~':;:,;;· ·;:;:;;i:;;;~.':·;:;·;;F'; ~~;';i.L; ,i:?}:)-i~;·';~~~Yir; I Check aJI indicators that apply &: explain below:', . ' .. ' . . : Regional knO~i'~j~~'s;rJ;i,~~~~~~;::~[~~~~j~·: Wetland plant list (nan or·regi6h~;:;~'··'·0'b~R __ : Physiological or reproductive adaptations., . :;, l I MorphologicaJadaptatloii~~!~:~ i. '~:i,' :'i.~_ TedlnlcaiUterature ., ... """ .... '.. .. ~'" '. '. . Wetland Plant Data Base'},~':fl" ~':" .' ';~ .'.' "?;" l' ::..1.;;);'; ! :;t~;~~:):~ J:~:~~;~~~~~,:;. . GV no.. .. . -, .,,< ~; .. u., 2.' <;: ~ -' '.": ., ··~~'·/~,:~~~~~~,·~1.~e~;{~ . .'~~~' ~";,~~, '., '.. ~. -.. -' HYDROLOGY Is it~he gr()~ing season? Based on: [v;-Je.t"c.e. "rr " " •. -.<~." •. ' ..... ~ . ":: i~' -7~ r!~.1~.:~tnfi '~~.,.';! ict~~,~i~'·.\~·~J)·/f Dept. of inundation: __ 'inches '-J Oxidized Root (live r~ LocaJ Soil Survey:! yes\.1.co; Channels <12 in(yw no Depth to free water in pit: inches Depth to saturated soil: .~ inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photographs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decisionlRemarks: yes FAC Neutral: yes no Water-stained Leaves: yes no Other: no SOILS Ma~ Unit Name bit~) sj \+ I oo..~' (Senes & Phase) ;.i .c. '. !';" . : . ':-;' Taxonom Profile Description Dept~. '. Horizon (Inches) " ':::':~; )'. ¥, • r~', ... " '.1 •. Matrix color Monle colors . Mottle abundance (M~risell':' (Munsell' size & contrru£ " ~'>!tri'bist)' . moist):O -J ....... _, to .... -.~,.. A·· "Lloyq~ .,.0...., ~.:.: .... }.~ .-·"f·, t .~. -, :)-~.~ \ .-"'-::...! ,', , .. ', ~ - ... \ ~ . -j , .~ .. ~, ... '. , ' ·'.c. ':'" Drainage Class !Mf ( l-aVAc n.~ i . ",: .,~ Fie~d observations confmn . Yes No rna d .. , ..... . Texture, cOf!cretions. stnicture~etc. :. , :~. ' .}t.,~ .. !.,;.~ .. " ..... : ~ ~'-·~,"_r . Dra.'Y,ing .of soil ;~·;,;,;;;rpfofi!~; : (~atch description) ",r'" . ~ .:: : . t ";:..... ~ .. , , t Hydric Soil Indicators: (check an that apply) . .. . HI'st'050] . __ ~o~c!,et!~~_~ji'i':;;;"~';: ,N};\;f'·:~i~')'~"('+'ii(,:i.;'i\+;Y{·~ , __ Hisiic Epipedon __ High Organic, Content. in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor .. _,_._ .. OrganjcS~ajdiiglri Sandy SoiiS·);:'i';;><:;; . _----,,....Aquic Moisture Regime __ LIsted on Local Hydric Soils List ~" :~ B.e~~5~~gC()nd~ti~!1~~!·ki," l~).,l". 1"< ''':> .. _' __ '. p~!ed on N~ti~~a]Hydrii::Soils List;;,i,. 'l~~"::.' ' . VGleyed or Low-Chroma Colors .. ' .. :.o.j· Other (explalO 10 remarks).""'''' ':~'i;"",' p.',." . Wetland Delennination (circle) ./ '_," f NOTES: I I I I' I ,I I I I I '1 I I I t;o" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i . Applicant/owner: DATA FORM 1 -,! , Routine Wetland Detennination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) ':.';' Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? jsth~'~ire'significantly disturbed (atypiCal situation)? Is the area a potential PrOblem Area?, .' @ , no ~ Co~~i~ rp! ~ j Transect ID: : ' , " -,i'Jf' VEGETATION ,,' i - Dominant Plant Species Stratum HYDROPHYTIC VEGETA nON INDICATORS: ' Check all indicat~rs th~(apply, & ~xplain below: , ~?';'.lh-::::·"'~:"-<;':,::''''', -:.y.·'-~;.r:l ~'-r<":;;~~' / .;-. ,"..!' .~.,; ;t'<.-.' • ·3' ! 'td·~:~;·:. ';~t.~~!1-~~t,r·f~~H~~~i£~~·t~::!.!, .~~! / RegIOnal knowledge of plant commumtJes ,_'_V __ _ "'-'{:1'~''' ... '-. "'i~ ~~. ,~.~;.-",". --; -' Physiological or reproductive' adaptations-_--_',_ Technical Literature HYDROLOGY . _-" ~ ~" l Is it the growing season? Based on: [v; JQ1 c.e. ,,~ PlotID: ~p *l~ ~ yes yes ,\ , Indicator " Dominant Plant SPecies ", StratUm Indicator ;. r 3. :.':-: ;:-;i;~fi~t;,-} ~ ;:~.~~}o~t!~;:~:"lrj •. tit:~~ ~~ ::>f~ 1 ~:!iJ .. i i ~'~':~lj-n . .,' '~_'~'-,-/~~:;:i~: ~~f·:,~·_· f!~ :·t·;;.::~: Wetland plant list (nat'lor regional) Morphological ada~~tJon'sJ· . Wetland Plant Data Base" ',-'./ .',-.• -~ , OTHER Dept. of inundation: __ . ~nches '-J Qxidized Root (live TOOlS) LOca, ,I. Soil Soui'Ve)': . yeS no dlaitrieis':<:I2 ill.' ~e~ :~o Depth to free water in pit: __ inches FAC Neutral: yes" no Depthio saturated soii: I Z inches' Check all that apply & explain below: Other: Stream. Lake or gage data: Aerial photographs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? (.JiSJ no Rationale for decisionlRemarks: ..LI <5~,...tath,.....-..... @, l-z.,1( J4=' I "'- Water-stained Leaves: yes no ~ . \ ... SOILS MapUnitName J~ "S\\-t,l~~~>', (Series & Phase) . '.' " .... " ~ : ;!. ;' " ; . .::. ;: '.~: . -c' .~ . Drainage Class W{ {l-d VA ( t\€ A .-~. , Field observations confinn' Yes No mad-? Profile DescriptioD' Depth Horizon Matrix color Monle colors ,Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Draw~ng of soil (i~c::h.,es) .> <" cr' ~ (Munsell" (Munsell size & contrast . sirUcture~ de ,~' .' ", ~ '?'profile . i, , . ,";:;' mOIst) moistl" ,;:,:. ';':;.~-:i i:.,·z;' . < """", >,. ':(~aich descriptIon) ~~~~~,~~,~( ~~~:~~.~:~~.~~'~~?~~~~. ~~~~, .~,~: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l~~~~~~' .~. ~~,~~. -:.~ •.• '" . ~~y7J/I' 7.SYE'Yr .; Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol __ Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ ' 1,'.'- , . . i~ . , .' -, ~ : .. , . . ~. . ;; - , . ,.--:: . , .~ . ,. ~.'~ . .. ~";. , --~()~f.!,c:p,0f!~, ~'<"Ch',,,;,1' Ira" ,l~U~~"", .. '''iB;;,.'I,;,,,·~'1 ; __ High Organic' Content in Sriifaceuyer of Sandy Soils __ .. Organic S~~~!ng~,~~dy' S~H~~"':'r::'~'" ! Aquic Moisture Regime .. __ Listed on LOC'al Hydric Soils List" ~ Reducing Conditions ... ::: .. ' "_:' -_' _. ti~ted ~~J~~~~~~~ ~i~~~::Soi,l,~;Lis! ,,~~;,;;, :}l~ , <::::~7'\v~r Gleyedor L(jw~ciifom~ Coi()~!' ;:,J,. ." Other (explruiHii' remarkS) .'. ,... Wetland Deh~rmination (circle) Hydrophytic v~getation present? !:l)'~~c.s~},~,~~~~q;s .c:: Weiiand hydrologfpresent? ' ,. ,!. ~.:" ' NOTES: Is the samplirig point within a wetland? -.". '-:.' .:-_ .. :~ .~~~;~;. \/_~~~:~ ?ii; J ~~t ·1 I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I, I I· I I I I I I I Applicant/owner: DATA FORM 1 : Routine'Vetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) County: k.'IN&:,.::.!>:; .i'" . State:' wtt" .~. .'":-. . srriR;'SY:; Irt~}.l/ P-46 Ce~~ity ID~ W~ D J Transect ID: ' .. ,' , " . Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? .~ th~ site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ® no PlotID: up ~ t<, V Is the area a potential Problem Area? . yes yes VEGETATION Dominant Plant'Species Stratum 'Indicat~r Dominant PI~t Species Stratum Indicator \ i! I t '., , , I ... J -", ~ •• HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:. ~.i;..\ .. -~.';: -., ,;:!" ,-".,.-.-. ~",:"'i/' ji:'f;J:;~ .,., 'Z:' -~.' ~+-~~, 1{{J.i~.';'2~,~;·::·~: , ... ~ .. ~'f" .~-: % of dominants OBL. FACW. & FAC:';' ~ 7, fO .. '::~: f?'~?; .. -::';;;..:,,&..;~ ~~~:·i>:!i i~. :-,)~.~ :<;~U~H')' ~.7.-~ -<·.~"1~'~ ~::~. --i.t, :'~ : Check all indicators .thatapply & explain below: J~)j) ~:)-~.1~~,~~,,,:~t~t~.\:~i.; .. :.~.~.~~~:: ;:~'.: r'.':,1 :>':J;~-~: . 'L :'~ ~'.:. , ... '~", '-, Regional knowl;dge6f pi~t cohununities " -d Wetland plant list (nat'l or regIonal) Phy~iologicai or reproductive. adaptations _'_' ._ . . Morphologicaladap.ations~ ::.::: ;, ," Tecbnicai Uier.iiUri~c,,-:-:" ". .... -Wetland Plant Data Base ~i.· Hydrophytic vegetation present? (j.iS) no Rationale for decisi~~r:ar~ £lQ')'V\.\ (\.~~e vt-es .. FAG-;;.' tD~~ HYDROLOGY .f,,~. ' v,: OTHER --'--.•... ~_ f.c ~1 _:';:':~~)::';' .• :. Is it,the gro~~ng season? BaSidon: (y~Je~~e_ Dr; . ~,... no Water Marks: yes (no't Sediment Deposits:, yes m<\ f"e_cp.., r ~I ~ 1.-:"; \("""b ~ t-Dri-·";"fi";;'L";;'i";;'ne~s"':':~. ";"._.L;;;.:;. yces-~ ~~cO\~~Drai':":;';·;;':'na:'::'lg;;':'.e:'::'p:'::'an;Le":;;m:'::'s;;;;': '-y ..... \e.:.;s;....<D~l9-i~' Dept. of inundation: . ....-'inches U Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: .. yes OIt Channels <12 in. yes CJ!~ .. Depth to free water in pit: ---L-.inches Depth to saturated soil:, ' ,,/" inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream. Lake or gage data: Aerialphoto!IT3phs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? yes ~o) Rationale for decisionlRemarks: FAC Neutral: yes lE'C) Other: Water-stained Leaves: ,yes 19~ , .. ~. ~ SOILS Ma~ Unit Name M.vJ,h-') 5; 1-/= lwiri' (Senes & Phase) , ........ . Drainage Class (f'.t.1l dr.aiut-e.J, FIeld observations conflrm . Yes No Taxonorn , ' . rna d 1;""·:' , :" ~. . Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Monle colors . Mottle abundance· Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (inches). (Munsell. ,', (Munsell size & contrast ~iiuclure. etc.'" ;. . •. ''''; 'profile I-__..,; __ I-___ +-;'_;·'.:.:·~::..:'o:.:;h:..:'t)!..",_+_--.:m.:.:.o:..:i.::.:st:!.)-_+--------..,;+_-__ -..:-' , __ . .;..",-' -f . (match des~riptjon) >.:\ :-f: (' O~' A . ~ . . co""' ................. -f<~ (\".< ~ • .J """ :.:;( Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol __ Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor __ Aquic Moisture Regime , -.L.. Reducing Conditions .,'" ., Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors H!~!?,c s.oilspr~~~!? "" yes L~1f)C :,': " , " !: __ c~nci-etions,'}·." It h',;, ,,,{.:; "~';J';;"':"" ;,J.:,' __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Organlc SireaJeing In Sandy Soiis . __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ',' __ Listed on National Hydric,Soils List" " Other (explain iii remarks) . ,:,' RatIonale for declsloillRemarks: t1 0 t1 cLv:u l."")( ,,J.,. ,.~ :);._:L·.-·1~ ":",: }~:r·(. '(~-~~:';--:r':'."'~ i ~ l,~,,~~~,:~'~;'vr! 'Ii," ~low'~o;('SvV~" ' Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic :vegetation present? Hydric' sC?iis PIi~~ril~'~i:3;:. ' Wetland hydroi6gy present? RationaleJRemarks: ','-; (jes) ,.,no,. .. yes ,;t'ilO).>.- 'yes ~",: ,.-.J.A-~.\ ''Pi~''A~~<; NOTES: Is the samplin'!fPoinl within a wetland? 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 , .', ~ \ DATA FORl\f l'~ '.~::>~~ .. .. . ~.:.;..~: :Routine Wetland Det~~in-ation (W A State Wetland Delineation Manual or . . -, ,-::;,~ .. i''i987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual . ~. ~.' ~ . . Gounty: K INJ;:~:.\:;;:.':::':~::·:· f'<:~'; .': State:.;;wtt "";.l:I'::;~Fi: .;:,,',' SfflR: ~ie;-/i7..~~/ ~ Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~. ' no .. ".'·'U'. kili~'~it~"~i~ifitailtlfdisturbed (aiypicill' sitUation)? yes;~" '-,,-'" ... C~~~!~~:w A~-~~-Transect ID:' ; - Is the area a potential Problem Area? .!, r.es : ~ Plot ID: pop ~11 '-V- VEGETATION :. '., , .~ , ", '.'-... -....... --" .-.-.. ~.~~ ;.~.~ ... -... ~.~....-.. ~ ~ ('~"I.~/: ! : Dominant Plant Species -. '; \ \ StratU~ . I~didlt~r : f'r~~ ,", DominantPlantSpecies ,r" ". Indicat6r , ) Stratum \ J2..Uku., '*c)U,.-JS . ~ . I I;" .. " .' ,tA:<n.tJ~ ~'(JI",r~t1\ ~.-:" . I I I i ( . , i \: (' HYDROPHYTIC VE~~TA TION INDICATORS: ' " ~'Fif;;.Ar W\~i~'<!yC::; "",~}~.;c~~~!tiU~I):.~"':l,~;btH:'l··· -.~f:.~f:.f'J-~~~~f)~ j"tttJ;{t·;i.tti~:" __ <-~"~~ " ~ ~7~~~J,g~~f~~Ui~~~~~f~;,~~~~~~:rf~~(_-;., '~::'~glt.~t;t~;'.;;· HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? Based 'on: [v; j~c.f' lOr; Dept. of inundation: Depth to free water in pit: __ Iinches \J inches b~pih' t~sa1urated~~ii:· inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream; Lake or gage data: Aerial photographs: Other: :: ~: ", Wetland bydrology present? yes C ~ Rationale for decisionlRemarks: Water Marks:" yes m(5) Sediment Deposits:" yes {n~ Drift LineS::;;:; ,yes tn'i DTairiage Patterns:'" yeS:'(rlQ Oxidized Root (live roots) Loc,: .... a.IS ... oil Survey:-yestnb. Chanii~ls <I2 iii; yes; ~t:ltt . .. , .. >. . -l FAC Neutral: yes C!il\ Water-stained yes {uJ Leaves: ,,," Other: .: ~ .,.: .. ; SOILS Map Unit Name l;.ko J, 1\\1; H -e ~;{t t04 M . (Series & Phase) .! .- ,.:." Profile Description . Drainage Class foc1¥1 dX4 tI'\-.{ 0<.. -; " Field observations con finn Yes No . rna d . e? . Matrix color . Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture. concreti~?s. Drawing of soil (Munsell (Munsell size & contrast' structure. etc."" .' '. profile Depth Horizon (inches), '..," "1': moist) ; moist) .,. ;",,',. :·\"(marchdescJ;ption) I-----'--t--.:.--+-.-.;-.. :.-.,':-'.I •. ~','~;.,-;.----'-----t---,.---... -,.-,.-::-:-t--.,-,.-,-.. -:-.-:-. -:--.-:---i .. ,,' .[ ',<, .•. 0. , ." ,,_ .. ' . -.- O-'7'~ 6,1. {Oyc~~ --_ ~Io'\~ 54';'~ lo~'j -\'. :.' ~. {01rr~;,: (( 7::::,.~~.· Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) __ Hisiosol __ Histic Epipedon __ Sulfidic Odor __ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Reducing Conditions . ' . U . . Gleyed or Low~Chrom~ Colors Hydric soils present? -yes. (!lo), .. ·.', ' Rationale for decisionlRemarks: . . .". . " 'No 'l~LI\c. ~(j,,~/cb~ .~-~y ~:j_ .. -'; ';J, ~~ .!'. : ... -i ~ _ -", -, ,. >'~ '.,. 1"\ Wetland Determination (circle) Hydropbytic vegetation present? w~utJty&~J~~l~~g~t? ,'./ NOTES: -f,,, ~ "S"..,~ (\JIf~:' . )~ .:-.. ::! :.,~ ,:', , -.t(::.- .r· --C~!1~r~~!,~I1~"'"' ';-:"\''i'-i,,? '~~:""_"""":":';"'" i __ HigH Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Organic Streaking in Sandy So~ls. , . __ Llste'dbn locai HydriC-Soils List '. __ . Listed on National Hydric,Soils List,'., '. Other (eipiatJnn~efrlru-H)' ,~;,., '.' ... . ,1 Is tbe sampling point within a wetland? yes CE9.· __ ,.' , 'l '., _, ' " '} ~ '.. '. {. ~', :.'.' ~. -' ' 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 ,'J , ~ :' I I I " I I I I I I DATA FORM 1 Routine,Wetland Determination' (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Co s Wetland Delineation Manual) Date: Applicant/owner: , .~~~::t~:~',f~:-;'!'s: i,';~ .. : .. ,0·, Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? Is'ihnitcrsigriificantly disturbed (atypical situation)? is the area a t~ntial Problem Area? VEGETATION~{:.> '."''1'',! I . Stratum @> no ~ !", ·srrlR: '2 ':-., .. \ Indicator .. Dominant Plant S cies Stratum Indicator Check an indicators ilia.! apply & explain below:' " •. : Regional kno\vi~~~i"~~'~i~f~~~~~'li'i~~ ~:;:·:v Wetland plant list (nat'l'~;~~ig~~); : ~ ". OlliER Physiological or. reproduttive adapiaiioiis<~ ",':" , '. Morphological adaptilion'~'\:; . ',. ,. . -,'-.. techni~aJ Ut~rnhire . .. . Wetland Plant Data Base' C',?'! . "'->,. ~,,~ yl·. [>f. ~~J~~'t,~' HYDROLOGY Is it the grosYing season? Based on: ~;Ji;"c. Dept. of inundation: Depth to free water in pit: De th to saturated soil: Check an that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial hoto hs: Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decisionlRemarks: inches Other: Ox·idized Root (live roots) Local SoiISuivey:' yeS Channeis <12 in. es·, no _,;' ..... '. '. ,l!;i FAC Neutral:. yes no Other: Water-stained Leaves: SOILS Map Unit Name I,lv-pan (ttYl ul (Series & Phase) , Drainage Class mod j£~ e r1 : .... ', ' Field observations confinn Yes No hl~-' ~(e? .,,; i';' '" . Profile Description' Depth. Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors . Mottle abundance Texture, concretions. Drawing of soil (inc!les) I~: "./:" .. .' (Muriself~. (Munsell si:ze&contrast' ,. structure"et~.~' .' '»'!ph)fij~ ~_'_'_. _. '~ .. +;:... .. ':....';'_ •.. ,_/_,'._. ':_;_~ t-' _~.~;_;;.;.,:m.;.,:o:...is,,-;,tj,-·_· -t_-=m~oi~s~t)_· _"-+ __ .r ____ ~+__' .•. -.' .. -: '~;'_f.'_ .• _· 1_' __ ,~."._:r_' ;--i" >'iril~i~h'd~sciiption) ,,~.' . .':., .:j:~t},i '. > ~ ..... ., . ,.' ~ '. r :,;~'~.,' ',." . : .. ).;. . ,', ,",' ~,-.. " -.. -~~~ ." ~---+----:...r-----T----.. -,~t-------~-+-----~ ... ~. ~~~~, . .' .' .. ·:;~:;·:,~ii;~'4~i:T:~YP: ;,;;:':5~·'J.:;I,\;~:;:,:Hi : Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) '! Histosol __ 9~~~etions . .f.'·i; .: .••. ,S'.:' '::'~ j'F'j"';;"1'1,,"P ",':"'! ; __ Histic Epipedon __ " High Organic Content in $urface Layer of Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor ' __ Organic Streaking iii Saildy' SoiILV,·, . .' , . __ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Listed o~ Ld<:lli Hydric soiis List···· --L Reducing Conditions, ". . ... __ . Listed on !:'f.atlonalHydricSoils List .• ::: . c·,'.· .... " ;; '. ".' Gleyeiior Lh~:Cii~oma Colors ' .. , Olhei'( explain In remarks),.,,:.", ,; ,';,":......; . Wetland Determination (circle) RationaleIRemadts:" " :.,;) '~)1(t '~~< .~~~~~S NOTES: i ~ .. ' . Is the sampling point . within a wetland? ; ". '.~ :' -.r...; ~ :. _.::. ~.'.,,::--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . ; I' I I I I I I A pplicantlowner: DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Detennination . 0' (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) In·~estigat()r(s):. Jc~ AiJr,'rf:.'iisw &.. . /C:W'&' ' .. : .~.t1 ',,-;. ')' ", '.' )/; . ".~. Do NormaJ Circumstances exist on the' site?'" " . is ili'e sitifsigniflcantly disturbed (atypic3J' situation)? @> C~Tmunity rp: WBrvIbJD ·M Transect ID:;·· . . .. ,.-.,., ' .. ~ Is the area a potential Problem Area? . yes -'yes Plot 10: pP -:#=-'lJ)' ';::1L. VEGETA nON ~. .... ;-. t··.· :l' . . Stratum Dominant Plant S~cies . Dominant Plant Species .. '. Stratum Indicator. ; .f . , i _ ,-,' "'1'" .:. i; . ~ ID'Plt0fHYTIC VEGETA nON IND~~A TORS:,·",.--· 'f \~~I~ ,~'~~j,'u 'i::~rf;~ .,.) ~;':;;~f;;;l!"~i;ii~it~~;~.~,,~~~il·: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FACI;i;; ! rx>:0 i,i::.c I,:JtiE : s~~~,s~.;th. i-'~~:*'f') :~. :r~: :!·;~t,'i~.~::·~·~' \i: ~.~!#:EI;e~!;)· .~~:-r.4.if.j~·~;;::'r.}~·t~r~S· _, <. r tt~ :~qt!.!~·~.ii~ t:i¥-!. Check all indicators that apply & explain below:" ,.' ;'~.' '" -~. ¥. " .-.0 ~ J';"' i"! -: < =.' r.t.f< ..... ,·~;.~iJ.;. uj.~~-.: .. ~;i!i$.·:£.[.:J.fr~(. RegionalIaiO~I~~~:~i~i~n~~~ti;;~;;':(/ Wetland plant list (nan oiregi:~~alr v/,>;~", OTHER __ Physiological or reproductive adaptations::. " ~ -" i:i " Morphological adapiations~L;_;';' ,.;c . __ ~~.) C!'/i.:i.';::':: ~. _~ , __ -:-...-:':'~' Tech@chl iHeriture"" ", -Wetland Plant Data Base'·"\" :~t~",,,,<:g ·,·;t<,:-;/;;Ht Hy~rophytic ve~e~tionp,resent? (liS) .. >,).no ..... :c • :-... J '''ii:' ... '.:';' ..... , -", ..... '," ~atlOnale for decJsJon/Remarks:'·'. ." . . '. "' ':.r 'J'<"~). i:~:!O-;~Sit"",; lCjO'fc;.:,c'~~\.~~ ~F (5';fy~6~~ v-/~ ','. "'_' ,,~ __ ~ __ _ . : ... ::-::-;"':,.:--~ .. :--..... . : ,. ;~: ;:, n:>:~.f~rlr!'tt·~~~<~.·~~J~t~~..;:~1~;f!:·t . HYDROLOGY Is it.the grO\ving season? BaS~d on: tv:J~",c.e. ,,~ . ·"i.,-~ I; :!': . ,': 'no t-W_a_te..:;;r..:;;M..:;;...ark..;.;.;;,s:;,..,_-L.;;.. Yles~(~ln~iQ,---+-;;;.Se.:;.;d;;.:.im;.:;;· ·;;;.en;.:;;t;.;;De;..:::.J;PO· ..;;..;..;!si.;;;ts-,-:,J. '1" ·_Ies'-l,\(.,.;n.:,;'tt·y· re.c P V\ t"r.,\ ~ +, -\ v-b~ Drift Lines:':\\?; yes (n~ Drainage Patterns: ..•.. yes am) Depc of inundation: __ 'inches v Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey;o,:yes QJ,O) Channels:< 12 in. 6'e~ no· Depth to free water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: yes no ., Depth to saturated soil: ~ inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photo~phs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? (YiSJ no Rationale for decisio~emarks: " L. t. ,. L ~I' ( <. 1V'{l )4V~11;-1. 7 In II~ (2 [1~ ~u vv.~ .;. .-'.'.--'1 Water-stained Leaves: yes (nO) SOILS MapUnitNarne (Jv-ha n I.an cl-_-::"C" Drainage Class -,Inc:...;' ::-.cc(:...:.....A.I---_J..'--'-__ _ (Series & Phase) __ ""',_,l'" ,"_"'~"_' _._ Ht~·;-:·' . ".~;--." .. ' Profile Description ' Fie~~ observations confinn _ Yes rna d'; No , Depth, ,_ Horizon Matrix' color Mottle colors ,Mottle abundance Texture. concretions, Drawing of soil (liiches). ,::~.'::-(Mu~~~II<' (Munsell size&contnisl .s~~t~r.e.~t~:~~_~;;,:'::,,_, _ ;'-l-i'profile, ~~_~_;;_(_1_~~~~_~~l_~_~_~_~_:-_'_~+~~?_~~~~~~~~~~-_~~_~m~o~i~s~Q_~~'_'~_'~_~ _____ ~~~~ ____ ~'(m~h~~~M) '-----',-,'_.,' i,¥~%: l( ~;(iP; :F7-- -.' .... ,'j, ; ... 1.. __ ..... _~_ .. ,._.~ ... :i..-•.. ~. , - .~ ..... ',,-- ~nr"'" ':·~i~::,j.,'·1 ,,1-' ,: " ~dl'..lM -.. ' -. Hydric Soil In~ii~!;r:: (check all that apply) __ -Concretions.!-"+i"~;'J"jJ;~",-.df~\ ;;l'l'Tiii'id;ll].(,,;.,; .. j ~ __ Histic Epipedon __ . Hiihb~ganicC!?ntent in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ..:......:....: Sulfidic Odor' -__ organIC StreaJcirig iii Sandy Sbiis--;,:. ~: ,::>~-" '- -__ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Listed Oli Local Hydric Soiis List ,.-~Reducirig C:P,~~~;t!P!,l~.,-ri:",;t., .,;; "I' '" .,,_' -__ . Listed on National Hydric_Soils List-·/ ',.; ,'" &,/'Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors· ",. ;.,,", .. '-Other (explain in remarks):-' .. ,. ·.··:.,'-l··)~:t-i:r 'I ! Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophyticvegetation present? eyeS) no. HydDc'soils pTeseDi?i~~~j';, -. "t;~~.;-,--;-.:"" ri,cF"\,-' ! '. Is the sampling point "W>"''''e'tl'~an'';''-'-d-' -"'h';;~~o;--~I~o·t~'~re; i>'s"'e'''-n;';t'?-. -:_--1' -:,' -• --,,, " ,.' .,', ---".JUI' '5.1 t'" lYes:':'n(V~(! i '. within a wetland?: ,.,~- L'~'~~:'-'/~ NOTES: . 1 ~;.-'" . -- " i7 _-lr~'.;:.~~"'!-! ';;iJ.~h: .. :.-'f' ."= ... ~ .:. 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 DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Detennination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)' Applicant/owner: County: jelN (j-.' . . '. . Inve~tigit,ci~s):' Ie: ANT>€:.flSCN "&. )c.lIJ & State: INtf·:·· . '. .' srrlR~ S z'1 Ii' Z ~tJ J flk Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? IS ili{siic;"significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? @§> no yes ~. C~~unity ill: Wervltl.o M Transect ID:·· -.. -..: ' Is the area a pOtential Problem Area? . yes ~ Ploi ID: T"'iP -t4 z 1 -V- VEGETATION ,.~.'" " Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator . ,':;->.: .. ' , P-u bvs WJC~'iLt:.._b I I it .. • i . . HYDROPHYTIC.VEGETATION INDICATORS:-· - : ',;"i~< ". ·.~i;j~H~:'.. .:~<_:, -''-£;':~~:~2~f1~·~~·i..f<~·''1~-.~,!·'~;·f-; % of dominants OBL. FACW. & FAC:::;,,' .~~ ,-<t,!",:~:·~/~"'OY:li,d.~~~l:P~t~?:~~:;·:.(,~ (~.~~~~.} ~(J;'~.\ .~~~_,~:~:,r~?,,~~/.-'~.t.;~ .. ~: \1 .~ , Check all indicators that apply & explaii:J below: Regional kno~~~d~~-:~i~l~r~r~~~~:~~: ':' / Wetland plant list .(nat'l or regionai) Physiological or .reprt?ductiye adaptations Morphological adaptations '.::.',:.:, TechriicaI iiterature-' -'. -.. Wetland Plant Data Base "-c Hydrophytic vegetation present? 'xes (!10") Rationale for decisionlRemarks: / . " >"-. ~.': .• -C";:'D ~~~~ s~,~, S-O°j., HYDROLOGY Is it the gro~iilg season? Based ~n:[.,:j~~e. ~S; Dept. of inundation: Depth to free water in pit: ~'inches \J ~inches Depth to saturated soil: /" inches Water Marks:' yes /flo\ Drift Lines: yes I no \ Oxidized Root (live r~ts) Channels < 12 in. yes no FAC Neutral: yes· riO Check all that apply & explain below: Other: Stream. Lake or gage data: Aerial photographs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? yes 00) Rationale for decisionlRemarks: _ -l-NO. lMM(,~ f r.tSt-v-1 OUIER Sediment Deposits: yes /nd Drainage P~tiems:. yes/ no Local Soil Survey: ,yel, no , Water-stained Leaves: yes SOILS Map Unit Name -,td~thfl~~n~-I(~ttJ'L~rL:...=:...-__ (Series & Phase) Drainage Class _V1'1Qr...:...::::' <.L<dJ.:.I---L£...t..e=-j~ __ _ : : ~". " Fi~]d observations confmn Yes No rna d e?,'" ,'<:"-:f" Profile Description Depth Horizon, Matrix color Mottle colors ,Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (inches)" ," " "~"':"~mAo'~lfsJtf'il" (MUmnosl~sltl) si:ze,~ contrast' s~c,~~re,~~c. ",' ", .' , ,/,,:'profile ; 1-' '_""_' '_'\'_:_:"'_' f-~'_'>._T;_'~_" _+'';'''~:':':':;.;J.l}:.-,---+_-==~_-+-_______ t----'-__ -'---'--' '_' _'_' --i ' (~~ich des~ription) A .:0/* " 0·7- ',;,\.-: t· . ,. '.", ,:' , . j Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) , Histosol Concretions ",:~,;,c' '~~" ,,-or :.-i~ ::""~I',''''O" ,",,:,'" __ Histic Epipedon ==-liigh'Org~ib C~'~tent in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ ' Sulfidic Odor ' , __ organic Streakiiig iii Sandy SoH;; ; " ' __ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Listed on i.Oc~1 Hydric Soils List ,,' '0, . ./ Reducing Condit,ions;. '",-,), ,." " _' __ ' Listed on National Hydric ,Soils List ,';," ., ~ Gieyedor LOw~Chro~aCoio~ L" Other (explain in remarks) ',: 'Y;" Wetland Determination (circle) ~y~rpp~y~i~,o'f-~ge~tion presentZ '" !Iy~~,~,~~o,~~P~,~~lJtJi~:~~tL ' Wetland hydrologY preseni?"~ Is the sampling point , within a wetlarid? ',,' '" RatlonaleJRemarJ(s:\'! " ,~:,' , 'rJQ~~;~j~c 'iki?'~'f~ks- .. :'-~ ~ NOTES: .'.: ;' ". :.,,' .~.::: _<.l.'.· "T.~~}".f~ .. ~ ~}~.;: • 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 . : . ~ DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Applicant/owner: . . . Irivestig'ator(s): It; A"Df:fl.SOJ Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? is·ili~.!~itlsi~iticantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a J'Otential Problem Area? VEGETATION .... '~ ~ yes yes County: /CIN (7-,. . . . . " ~~:k;~ri~'ITi~~/~~ C()~unity ID: ~ ~ TranseCt ID:' . '.' .... ; . ..,..' .. . no Plot ID: nr~ 2.2 · ~ ~:" ", \ Dominant Plant SPecies . Stratum . Indicator Dominant PI~t SJ>ecies Stratum Indicator HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:' Check all indicators that apply & explain below: "!-:".;J ~'':'~;: .. >_~::: ; .. ~.;.?;~.~,~.~ ]..':'!;i':);'.1 '; : ~ ,', ~';./ .. '".~ , Regional knowiedge ~f plant 'c~mmtl;;llies "':'~ Physiological or reproductive adaptations' . Technical Literature \", i ", Wetland plant list (nat'l ori~~I~~.J) Morphological adapiatiohs~' . . Wetland Plant Data Base .,' (i Hydrophytic .. !egelation present? (Y~ no Ratio~ale for'cleClsiontReni'arks:' :. . " . ,'.; ;" .~ . .! } ,':,·',.1_x1 ,/., ~:,:;;: .. " db70 . ,+: J.. ;r..i~'J .;~ ~..L HYDROLOGY ornER .. .".'! :-.p~~ ;:~~-.t ~ :::~l.~t~!_!.~:< j Is it the growing season? Based on: (v;je;;;c.e.. nrr Water Marks" \. yes fn~ Sediment Deposits: y'es (nq Dept. of inundation: Depth to free water in pit: --=::..Iinches v /'. h __ mc es Depth to safiiriited soil: ~ inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photographs: Other: Drift Lines: ",~ot yes l no \ Drairiage Patterns: lye?) no Oxidized Root (live roolS) Local Soil SurVey:' :yes(n~ Channels < 12 ill. tfes) , no, FAC Neutral: yes no Other: Water-stained Leaves: (Ie) no Wetland hydrology present? Q:.es) no Rationale fo< deCisionIR~l "j 1 /" .be J,.,~ rY"J~ SOILS Map Unit Name ~)-l.uJbH') 5;(} ~dq~ (Series & Phase) ) Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors (inches) (Mu~seil'. ' (Munsell t ' •. Mottle abundance size & contrast Drainage Class w-! II dvPr ( Yl-l J Field observations confinn Yes No rna d t ?- Texrure, concretions, . ~ , '. structure. etc. .' :' ":, ', ... j; ; :",! : ,--; ':", ..... Dril~ing of soil " .,' p'rofil~ , ,;f:;'moistl . moist) . (match description) r------l'----'---t--__:_~-+_----'--_+-------t___:_:__:_----_f.; ... ,,' O .. ~ I( "-'(Dlr 1'2, r,fll ~l1d7 IOAI'1"-' It (oy,rz.. lOY %, ~/{V :0 &t:.v~ 5:/11 ,o(~ '. '( -,,{ f ;.; Hydric Soil I~dicato~s: (check all that apply) Histosol __ C()p~retion~,.i~:,;, ,:,', h' :. ,;; .'_" :'; ,,',<; .. ,",;;;,,,"'"; , __ Histic Epipedon __ . High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Sulfidic Odor __ OrgM.i~ ~tre~ing in~aridy Soils, ' ',; , ' --r Aquic Moisture Regime __ Listed on toc~i Hydric soiis List ' . __ v_ Reducing Co~ditio!1s . '.,,,' ' .. ;'. __ . Listed on National Hydric.SoiIs List ';, ;, VGleyed or LOw':Chroma Colors Other (expiai~ In ~m3rks) ,;.,' " .. Wetland Detennination (circle) .... NOTES: Is the sampling point within a wetland? • '.' ' ;:"-,-, 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 DATA FORM 1 . Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: SiRWDeR Applicant/owner: Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? IS'$;~itCf'~]gulricantly ~isturbed (atypical situation)?" Is the area apotential Problem Area? . ! ({§Y , yes'" yes ;. , '.t' ,.; no . ~ . : , ~ ',' ::! • VEGETA nON' "" :¥\-l-' , ' , ' .. ''':, '\ ; , ' ;-: Dominant Plant Sj>ecies ' Stratum "~ ---~: -r . ~ -... '< Indi~~tdr ":-.-.... .:..~~. HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ' ' ,~;l~~~:~.~~.,~~~;,r~F:'·,j~fr~~;:::'J'?~'" , ...• ~ ... ---.--.-.. Dominant Plant Species Stratum lridicatoi Check all indicatorS that apply & explain below: ...... !.-'. ~··uv·L,~·· . .::::.f .. ;-!; ~ ~~·l;!t~·;..l i4/,~ ;~~'t':":f~': .... ;_.~. __ ; ::~~~·::2';.:·:,: ,,-r Regional knowi~die~ipjim{~~Jj)iJiuniti~s::":/ Wetland plant list (nat'l or':r;;~~~aJF-L.;/r , OrnER p'~y~jo,I()gi~al.9r,.rep~~s.tiV~ adaptations,' • ; [~' , . Morphological adaptations ::,',~; ':'" ~": : .. -"' •. - Techriii::ai Literature Wetland Plant Data Base·..if ' .. "-' \ : ~::-;:.:,,}I "I)! f Hydrop~~tic veg~~tion present? ~~., Rationale for decisionIRemarks:.. • . ". ",.' II~ ,_ ~"1 ... 9/-> J!,(':""';'..:;I ~, " rk .;vW .. wv-. . -... ' .::: !.:f!.; ): ,\~';,~;: '~'~~(~-~~J>?~t!~'~ J·~::~!.~~.:"3' ~({i ;" HYDROLOGY Is it the gro'Ying season? BaSe,fon: (v; J01C.e. "t /,";:" >·I.'!l*l.~~'·~~~~~· ;:-~qG:-.-'l!1.i~-)~)l.J~}~~~~~(·.";.~·.}·\l~.'?·~J;{~~{(~·~-f ;., ~,.: , ,-,; "'", 'no ~W:..::a:;:.te;.:r..:M=ar:;:.k;.:s~:'_' ~_:'f,-~e;.:s~tfID)==-~-+S::.e::.d;.:i:.:.m:.::e:.:.nt;.:oe~:iX:i;..;" :.:'~s~it:;;.s:;...·",-y' ~~es;....~ (iiCK>\-,A re.cl'vt t" ~'..u.1.\-' ~-.n;~ Drift Lilies:/! yes Offi'\ Dr3iriage Patterns:'; -.tesfo Water-stained' . ,.. V \', ; Leaves: yes~ Dept. of inundation: ~Iinches \..J Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Suivey:;'yeS ~ Channels <12 in. yes . t@) - J!.Linches FAC Neutral: . yes· ~ Depth to free water in pit: Depth to saturated soil: ~ inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photo!rraphs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? yes ~ Rationale for decisionIRemarks: ~j~~ S Uci\t...V\~ \.yl"",\o<)j \~~J c-\ ~~ ~lo-\ \c>c.~o,",. SOILS Map Unit Name lVUdl'P1 <, \\= \OC<...."=l ' . )':: (Series & Phase) ... " ;;f;;, .. Drainage CJaS~ IJlJj \,J.J1D~ ~ J ;: ... : /. . Profile Description Depth. Horizon Matrix color Monle colors . Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, .. Drawing of soil (inch~s) , i:.:<:f" (Munsell: (Munsell size & contrast s"tructure;'etc:' ," '.'". " "p~ofile • ~:_"_I._-~ .• ~~.~f_i~:t~~j~~;_;~:_~~L~~n~6~~~6~1~~~~~m~o~i~~~)~~~_'_'_~'_'~~~~~_~_'_i~_"_~'~"'_:_"_"_'_"_,_.:~,._:~. '~~~~~~~iO~ A'wli-3/'L .. j ;, ) ' .. ;.' . tl:~ ,. ., ~&-H ; ~';~~cA-~ . ,': " .. --... .~. 1-; :' -~"!'.' .••.•. ; I I I I I I I I I Hydric Soil In~ii~~;~:: (check all that apply) __ C§nc::retionsj;-'!";;f.j;, I\/i~}/ '. I __ Histic Epipedon __ HIgh OrgaIli~ Co~tent in S~rface Layer of Sandy Soils -'--" Sulfidic Odor' .-_. _ Orgifuic Sii~~ing in Sandy Soils ,1': '. I __ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Listed on l.ocai Hydjic Soils List . __ Reducing C~n~i!ions .. " , 'v./,!,., I ;",' '. i." . Listed on National Hydric.Soils List ~: ",' GI~ed or Low~th;oma Coiors',", ,. ,."" --Other (explain iii remarks) ~:t~:~I~O~~r~:~~~~emarkS/es ~;j:ii """ . ;~:'" •. " ". "';, .•...• ,'/§:"~::<;;.:".;.' ..... : .. '. I !,ow c.l, ~.~ ""-~'l'.,>,,':'t'?~ "Je~ --; ;, :\~~. ¥r l >v~ ~<A. ((, =~ t;''l,(A:J <-"S I Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic ,vegetation present? ~~d,~~¥~l.~ Ji~~~f;ji~~::<·r·· Wetland hydiology present? RationaleIRemarkS:. ,';' .. , .. ---. .-., ....... ,-~ -. r-:::::::.. ~O'. . ~::',",c'+';"" ' ... ' yes .. ' ; i1o;~ . I : . { .. , ... ~.;,C<,' Is the samplirl'g Point within a wetland?, .. N<?I'\t.. . .rt ~~~~-~~·L~+.-· . NOTES: ,~ . ~ " '/, 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 Project/Site: S-rIZ~NDeR Applicant/owner: fu'v~~t~;t~~s): ' !{.'A·/J;i:ZSOJ DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Dete~ination (WA St3te Wetland Delineation Manual or '1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) . J:. 1,'.'=, '!~ &. /C(,v6- Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? is'ihr~it~;~ignifiiantly disturbed (atypiCal situation)? . Is the area a pot~ntial Problem Area?;.l ; I.'. ". €V yes no ~ yes VEGETATION _ . -;' ,...: .... TCO~~IDitY to: ~~~~~'" "-a ransect :. Plot ID: 1>i> ~ 2.. Lf-~ . -.-: .'--'.--"1,- Dominant Plant Species . Stratum ;. Indicat~r Dominant Plant Species . \ Stratum , Indicator .... , . Ii HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: . Check all indic~ior.~.~atapplY,~ ,explaj~~'ow:. '>;'~~'?' ~':';'.'l'~~;::( >\:,.~".,~~:\: '," ~';! '"':-', .~ <; •• ,:.-•. ~.;~;<:-~, . Regional kilci~igj~~bf ~i~nW-niliiririiii~~;":i}: )( physiologicai or reprOduttrvg~daptatJo~s' , Technical Literature ,-: .... :; .. 1;' . :::,1 :Jt .. , .. -, ~~ '~'~;~:~~:;;'-'}'~~S}'~~:, J' ~~~;:~1?~if. \!-;~':~. i ~ ·~:;:·,:t~!:~;:~:r~ .-: ';~~'.y( ~Y~;~,,: .~:}i:i! .. ! .tl-! -. -. ",.":,. ~.~ .~ Wetland plant list (nat'l oi}~gi~~r~l)~·j;g"li;:"'· OTHER Morphological adapi3tio~s'; ."'~; .".;>.' Wetland Plant Data i3ase"'*\~c . ..';"c;;;'~l:--':'Y J,AJ' ::t~~:~~]:; J;~:::k:~:::~t?" > c __ ~ ' .• <." _ no :..: \i\J)/2c>/~;, ~:;r~~,~~~k ~~~~\ ~ .\,4L,b~','~£L· ... k .'.:. .... '_::?:.~:'" .'.,' .':0:'-.".,',. --~ .., . ,.. ..... . ;'!:;);';~:\ .. :~:'\t~:~J!~~;':!i{~~,;rE~tll,{ • HYDROLOGY '. . .<~i:·?\· Is it the growing season? . Based on: til; JeJ'IU ,,'i; Dept. of inundation: c&-linches 'V Oxidized Root (live roo..i) LOCal Soil SU,rVey:' yeS ~ Channels < I 2 in. yes bo) Depth to free water in pit: ~inches FAC Neutral:" yes®' Check all that apply & explain below: Other: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photo!IT3phs: . j ;' '..-.. Other: Wetland hyd~~)ogy present? lr.es '\ no Rationale for decisionlRemarks: _J. , '. l,)crl.tv-~~d. \~~.s. c.-~j d~~_)L ~~V1 S. Water-stained Leaves: @no :·.':i ,-- SOILS Map Unit Name ~lo.ob ., V;-lI, 111 J Loa...~- (Series & Phase) -" ',. ':': .i.' Drain.geel." t0D-l(, L. ,', ,'r , Field observations con finn Yes No . ~ . -.' rna d Profile Description" -', ;';'-.: - Depth Horizon Matrix color Monle colors Mottle abundance size & contrast -.. Texture, concretions. Drawing of soil structure, etc~""~' . :,~, profile" (inches) i '::: Y " (MtlJiseU: (Munsell . -:. ,~,"k" C,~:;;;,:, "<Milich description) ';',':-" ;'~!-rrioist). moist) .... -,. 'l D'; i3/'l. .\071-\fILl ~~ s-~41.c; £,'::,"',' 6-1 ('--". '.,,""" { --~ I '5 "vI,;..{ ~c.,~ 7-(b -;, (> \oY/t;4'!r \0'1ii'1/' ,;-. ' ..• ' Hydric Soil Indicators: (check an that apply) Histosol , 'C' Concretions-., .,. .". "F . '._ _.', ---:. ~J,,,, •.• ,, • .!,.~ :~. <j'~~i:-r.;.~-,. j"-l·\-~::';" .. ~l ,(;I'.: ;'~·~-~;~;C~;-'-:':~'!V~·~) ~' .... ~.', , __ Hislic Epipedon __ "_' . High Organic Content in SuIface'Layer' of Sandy Soils __ ' Sulfidic Odor"~ , ,., organic streaking ill Sandy Soils:, ." " __ Aquic Moisture Regime ~ List&rdrl L"ocai Hy~~Soiis' List'1:".' '~." GRele~'~e-_'~dinogr;~_,nw·,d_iCh-ti?'~o'~in'· ,,'a-'C"'o"cl,o"'rs'" '. _,"o" "'---' !-isted~~,,~!:.~,o.~,~._!!Y,~rS(~?p~J~ist";\'i;, ''';, '~ _p LV • ," Othe£(explain iii remarks)' ',.,','.- .. w&iWiii~I[;~:~;' }' ~" ii ~ationaJ~~i;Darks:,:.;;; ;~!,;",;' ./: ~ '!; Is the sampling point within a wetiaild? . :" J\~ ~~'V~6A'dt~ ~ ... "-+: (-,' .. :j .J:. .. ,.; NOTEs: W4J{ ~'" t ... ~ .,.... J.>k-~ G\~ f~"'" ~' J. k t~\'~:> ~ .. Wu s r -=0-,+ \~ I: "'" ~,~<>~ ~L;;""~';:;;;J;"t ~DVl'\'~u~-l-k~,",> <-:'-\-(,Jt\..,S vo,~ OJts.: ~'S -;...\-~ ~H.c...~ J _~ J cLo~s ; ""' W-t, +l~ A, 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 DATA FORM 1 .' Routine Wetland Determination' (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 CoIl'S Wetland Delineation Manual) Applicant/owner: lrivestig~to~s): ·/e. A}l1>r:::.tisc:iJ '&.' Je("; 6- Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? IS iJle site'significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? VEGETATION~"..',! \': j~" . @> yes yes no ~ County: KIN (j-;"" '. __ .' State: IN It .~' ":' - . ...... -- srriR?sizit/1"i3 ~ / \L~~" ~~~unity 10: l,Ie;{-(c:..J.O ' Transect ID: ..... Plot ID: 'b f) ft 2, ~ -u- '-\.;' .' . Dominant Plant Species Stratum' Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator -'- , .-HYDROPHYTICVEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants O~L, F A;CW, & f AC:I',-c:;-z:> ~/.~ \.J{,.i,:f; ~~·q.1~:i·,;,ta~1 :·':.;~~}'·.t~t.;6.·,~?,~ }f~)~i·\la7:;t:;}:: :":';:1; l("~'J .'11 ~;~! t-~ _<'~'~ ~.~,!:-. '. '··~'f~£4;;.::;~: i~ .. i~,~~~":;-~~,:~ ;~~~~.;t . , Check all indicatorS that apply & explain below: . :~!<:i~''':'::~ tn'~~ (:c-:: ~!~~~.;:,'r ~1 _\ ~·:·i.~~t,.1, r~ '1'~: J '''~'~/iL.\ .' " I Regional knowietJge of pl~t'~oDlllliuiities: . ~ Physiological or repr:OOuctive adaptatioris ,,:;- Wetland plant list (nan or regi~nal) ,~ .. -. OTHER Tech~ical Litera~re .. .... . '. . Morphological adaptations __ Wetland Plant Data Base ...,-, , '. V. If '.0 Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes no Rationale f?r decisionlRemark,s: . . ." . _ '\)£>~~'~~-\-' .• '::OQ..~~~ .. ~~ \~+A-'-_' 0',. €)l~ ~ ,/0, HYDROLOGY Is it the growing' season? Bas~d 6n: (v;'J~c.~ ,,~ Dept. of inundation: -f1JL1inches \J Oxidized Root (live roo.w.., Local Soil Survey:, yes ~ Channels <12 in. yes £'no.~ , .J Depth to free water in pit: ,.,Jt-inches -FAC Neutral: -yes,' e; Depth to saturated soil: . ~ inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aeria1 photographs: Other: 5 ~~ .J ~ti\Ot~J hyJl-b/u,]7 Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decisionlRemarks: yes f Other: Water-stained Leaves: yeK§) SOILS Map Unit Name Ne.hl~J SdJ Lo<&V; (Series & Phase) , "r""i Drainage Class \ tk> ltD "uai-w.l . '-.:. Field observations conftrm Yes No Taxon om rna d Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color 'Mottle colors ,Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (inchesi i' "", (Muri~ell (Munsell size & contras( ',' 'm'C:;i~h moist) -, . . -' ~, . -.... ~: .. , . structure. etc .. ,;;., "'~ , '. profile ,: ' (match description) A \D{~3/'L . ~", loy f-'t/~ \f);'~t/" ,.'. Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) __ Histosol __ Histic Epipedon __ Sulfidic Odor __ Aquic Moisture Regime '_"_' '_', Reducing Conditions ; , :,;;; , Gley~d or Low-Chroma Coiors Hydric soils presen~?, yes ,tOO\. ',:"' Rationale for decisloOJRemarks: 'V -.'-! -'. ",-' .-", .• , .~. '. ~ ~SC.k~ t...;", ~:<.t!l/*hLS"~dy ID~ ;' -. , 1. -' .. -:: ~-~ j. - ,Concretions . ':!i;"'~;\,~+(iJ",;'f "i,;,,:,1 ~ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of SandY,Soils __ Organic Stre3klng iIi Smdy Solis' '; " __ Listed on Local Hydri~Soils List __ ' Li~!ed on National Hydric ,SoilS List " ",,' , ,,' Other (explain in remarks) " " , . ,:,) , '~VI-.~~~~. ,~~'f(,,~t,,~s 1~1-t~) Wetland Determination (circle) :!!y_~!~phy_t}.~,~\,~g~",~_tj()!1 present? !Iy'~p'~~,?i!~ p"~~~~t~.!t~1 ~ .. " ·Wetlarid hydrology present? RationaleIReniarkS:':o) t ' ~ -: '. , \.' /- Is the, sampling point within a wetland?, f'J ~: GJ. d~, 1~'~ 'f~ S- , ' , NOTES: .,>c." ': ::~::! '. ~;; 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 DATA FORM 1 , '" Routine Wetland Determination . ('Y~ State Weiland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: SII<~liDeR BOV~V-4rtb:' E)(T£N"SIOrJ "'H' , , Date: ,~' /"'" " I I 0 ,o.,~ Applicant/owner: in;estig'ato'r(s): . Ic. AJJf)~~~ . '&. }:;(N;'" Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? " ~:. -" !:' .. !:.:, .• ,-r:1; I ' _..' .•. _.. -.,' -~-.. !,.'--Is the sitesignifiCimtly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a potentlai ProbleIhArea?'", VEGETATION i. I @ yes yes no ~ 1/1# (j-; " County:'" .... ,.,', State: :; Wit L • ; • SITIR~ S~-/ 1''23 t-J /~ ....... 6. Communjty'tD:tJf!.;((tt~d p Transect ID: Plot ID: 'D r d:J; 2.. b Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator·, Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator i' HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ' ,.' .. Check all indicators that apply & explain below: , -~ ...... , ..... ~'-.. : ,":.-"." .>-~' . -_. ,", ... i,:."L ~ ~->irJ.:'·>,!~.ij;·:;1~iJ··~-J!i"-~~-tr/;:,,~t..<t1f! :~;'Y:f.d~,J , Regional knowledge of,p'I§t, cO~?~!~!~S ~ Physiological or reproductiVe adaptations . , '. Technical Literature Hydrophytic vegetation pr~ent? Raiio~ale foidecisioniRemarks: HYDROLOGY , , Wetland plant list (nafl orregi~~:i)"'£':, Morphological iidap~tioris Wetland Plant Data Base no. , : I . OTHER '. .' _ . ,~ -:! t'i t :! ~. Is it the gro~ing season? Based on: (,,; elen('1" ,,'i; , '~';;' .... , ::,,~o WaterMarks: (y~ no Sediment Deposits:. yes(hir (£>1 P '" t-1:'>1 ~'l: ,J.;, ~, ~~. I-:::-Dri:":·:':'ft;':L:-=:j;;'ne=s'::': ::':,-,: .. ~...l""t:,;.;. Yles~(jiQ)~o -+-=Drain'::':::·::':llag= .. ::':,e:':P::';att:l:e'=:rit::::'s:'::: .':';',""-. y' e'=:' s::.:.; rW5-in=o=-i Dept. of inundation: ~Ijnches \J Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes ~ Channels < i 2 in. yes (iiQ) Depth to free water in pit: ~jnches Depth t~ saturated soil: -dk inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photo!!raphs: Other: FAC Neutral:' yes e Other: Water-stained Leaves: ®no SOILS I J I .// ~'j,! /I/"~v..-Map Unit Name""lA .... t...:6 .... o,=cI; .... ·v,"",u.d....,f(u. /( __ .,.}~(:t.'-'-.... u..;::C/'-'<._ '_ (Series & Phase) . -.; , Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Monle colors ' Mottle abundance (inches) (Munsell'" (Munsell size & contrast, , ;~;. mOtS't) , "moist) Drainage Class Eo u >(' 7 :Pw ~ Field observations confirm Yes No '-',:-. rna d e? Texture, concretions, structure, etc. ,-' " , Drawing of soil ,; profile- (match description) 0-\ A,Dy~fj1.' .... Ifhi·;'~'// ... ~, ,,'," ~------~------~~~-----+----------~--------------~--------------~ h'B. t, I 2S7?f I~yv-J/ (, t ... S·' Jy I ... ~ , j 1-\' .... i I I I I I I I I I Hydnc Soil Indicators: (check all that apply ):':1" }; <'~ :'i',," ,'" , '" "" ", '. , " , . " " " , , I __ Histosol __ Concretions " ",_ ... _ " " ," " __ Histic Epipedon __ lIlgh Or~arilc Con't~iiCih' Surface LKy~rof Sa~dy Soils , . __ , ,~l:l~!1~ic g~9r,." ': ~~~j~ ~~jng in ~~?r, Soil~_ ,~, " ,-"v-~~:i~~:;'~i~;;;",: . .,~ ~::;: ~:~~;:t~~~.·;:~S~~1 .. ... ... . I , ;'~ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors' " ,.j, " Other (explam 10 remarks) Hydric soils present?-('~'riO:",;-.,,',,' _I'. ;,'" ' -"" "", I Z;:~40:::i~::~{;:re~~ ;~'~."j LO.J~r ~~f .. ~ . c~ ~d ~ ~::7:f.',~ ~'~.f ;i, ~.~ ~<_ ,,,,,,,,-,,,-+r:j-. t.o\.;-.r '''' \3.,. \\'z>'r~'""2.O"" (J-J',~ W"e.c!c;),.....·''"'''u,,~h.:, -~,du'f-e..~ ~ I Wetland Detennination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric' soiis p~sent1 :--1 Wetland hY:di6iOgy'p~s~rit? ,,' ,"'\" 1 "'. -';'~~<.- NOTES: Is the sampling point within a wetland? .}.- no .:,.: ";.' 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 DATA FORM 1·.',' 'Routine Wetland Defemiihaiion . (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or "'1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Projec!1~ite: SI~NDf:R VEGETATION'" "'~ '; ... ,'.-.. • f' .. ,_ .... _ ..... ~ 'f' - . ! Dominant Plant' Species .· .. lStratum Indicator' . Dominant PI.mt S~cies :1 \ : Stratt;m I~dicato~ H ; .~ £ACcl HYD~OPHYTIC VEGETATIOjlol INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL. FACW. & FA2?~i50"!r.~' . . f.:.~ .. ~,7-lt '~~~l~?, :t~~~):.:'P~~~~:i: :~\.t~~:~!~;.-~~~; .. i;::~ .~~!-:·~~·~~:·:.?;.t:;~f.ti;' !. -' Isidii.e growing season? ' . ~!i;' , :,.: :no B~~~don:~;jQ1~e. D~ ru;eO'lr ·6\~l'.f~~ Dept. of inundation: ~Iinches \.J Depth to free water in pit: # inches Check an that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photo!rr3phs: Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decisionIRemarks: Other: yes . ''';-'. --~' ... ~-.~ ! ' ; . < i:·~. ::I'~~-~1(~1!~i;']i ;~1 ~tj{li:} : ~~:i~i lzt~~.ti!.!·~:.1 !;:;·d, ,.,,~ ;-!, ~},~\~ . :{j,¥¥?~Jj~·L. !-.ti.,~.:q~~f?~~·.~~:-l~.:·~~!r 7 .. ' . '.>.f ;.' ·-;~F.H1-·t;~·.-. Water Marksr,~··' yes he» Sedimerit Deposits: y~-; nO) Drift Lines:';; •. yes ~-. Draiiiage Panems:"yer' ro\ Oxidized Root (live r~ Local Soil SWVey:,~·Yes./1i5'·.·.· Chimiids < 12 in. yes . ~ '-J Leaves:· Water-stained -. yesGJ . ' Other: ' ... ,,' SOILS MapUnitNarneLJ.,.lbll;[lL S"\~ LctLM" (Series & Phase) . ~ :;'~, .. DrnmageClassf"""1 ])~-J 'Fi~]d observations confmn Yes ~ rna d e? , Profile Description . \ ... : ' . ..: Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors ,MottJe abundance (inc~es)' ' \. (MunseJ(.:' (Munsell size & contrast:', , ' " ;;i moisi): ' moist) , . ' Texture, concretions, structure, etc.: ,,' , Drawing of soil -: :;O':profiJe ; (match d~scnption) . ',> ~~;~'4/4i~·"~' .".:": , : . '\OV;')/ . 6~5 --- S~r.~ IOyr. 'i/z loyf. %" 1; ~ r &.'1 (~ !.;~~ , , i i' Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes Gig:> HY~~c:'_sojisj~rese#t7,':;";:;; 'rvf":'O ',' no:',-" Is the sampling point Weiiaildh;drbi-ggyt;if~~~t7'\' '-",~::::J~;,0'i 'within a wetland7 yes ® :~~~?n~I~~~~rkS:;> : ":'" -'.", ,,!," . "'" (D .., 1,/, '" Vi C, ,;:. f(;t~ i;£.f~ ~de, 5 . ~e. boo e-l: ~~ . ; . '. .~ . '.-'! -~ ~ .,,' . . . ",:.~: -' ~. .!' "" .",.: .. ' 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 Applicant/owner: DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination -. (WA Slate Wetland Delineation Manual or ., ,': 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) I~v~st!'gatol(s): /c.'JjJ~;:'iZiw:'&.': ~{,J 6-. Date::. 1:,/10/°3' .' County: ¥IN(f","; siale:',~; w,.,-;'.'~; ... siTiR:'~~/~'2sN/ft ~8 Do Nanna] Circumstances exist on the site? is'ihg~it~'~ignlficantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a pOi~ntial Problem Area 1', .l CpTT~ity~: Lvek-(u '1, i_ q,. Transect'ID:. • PlotID: f)P #2~ ~ r ~.~, . } ·F":'· .. · '~'. .:";,"",,--.,, .. ,,~.-... ""'~ ... ' ". -' ; -:" Dominant Plant'Species --_ . Stratum Indicator f~C-- .. -.~--.,. ':.'--(~ - r-A~W ·>H·· -\ " -::':'<--- :..~, -, --.' t·- Dominant Plant S~cies; . , --, . ! Stratum Indicator HYDROPHYTlCVEGETA TlON INDICATORS:; '. .' . .'fO o,f ~ominM.l~s O~~ f~CW !_~ gA¢.:<J,1:tO tJ~;.-- ( ,{ ~::~~l·;;~.~~·~~ijji f;~ ~·~L~·~J.O;:~,l : wi~'~hH ,:~,dli'!~: i.:~'ti.; .. ~~l:)!~.~.i ~ ;'~ .. :' l::f_t~~t~:·:J~;·.; .. '~~.. .-r~~.~;t~ ~~~~~\J.if~~:~·.\~~~~;:~~.~~;:iJ~~'.r,-~~-Hi-~!;~_{:,>,t.~:J·t;t~:7~ -.. ~--~~~~~~~7-~~~~--~------------------------~--~------------4 Check all indicafors that apply &,explain beiow:: " . . Regional kJ{O{V~i~1g~:Jti12t:~~ti~·~ii~~--';~:::~]:t,·; Wetland plant list (nat'l o~·~~~i~~:~)"··:~:--'~,;,:,,'::l:.! .OTHER physiological or reprodricti\ielid~ptaH6il~:' ;~"'-' d' Morphological adaptatioris' ,:,_ ~.-" ... Teci;~i~allit~~hJre '.-.. Wetland Plant Data'Base"''''f':1f', __ -' -'-_":-"';'i;j'K'~i, Dept: of inundation: ~Iinches v Oxidize,d Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey:, yes' § -\4 Channels <12 in. yes """ Depth to free water in pit: ~ f. --f::I.-inches ;--FAC Neutral: '. yes (!!1 Depth to saturated sOii:L inches Water-stained Leaves:, Check all that apply & explain below: Other: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aeriai photo~phs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? ( ~ no Rationale for decisionlRemarks: 3<:...+~~'-l 7" k.<lto-..rl s~.\. sd~ c>~svrvc....1, Sc-~ .. ,", \\~J.I J.u"r""", \,Je..~O~Jrnc:i'-'\r !..-t --\'~ "\Vlv'\\tL"; 'S,~q,\OVl--'. ( )) U .J ; .- ~ no '1) SOILS Map Unit Name -I-l....:::c...:u !'l-F-d~~L".I.f-" ~'-f-....,.. ...........C.h.-=...;,,! .. 'f-, . ir"-Lo O=u;,!~' . (Series & Phase) J ,<~ .. - , .. -;~: ~ :.' , .. Drainage Class P P1', l' /) ~ 'tM...d r .. Field observations confmn Yes No . .. ~ -, .--" rna d e? Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color . Monle colors Mottle abundance Texture. concretions, Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell'; ., (Munsell size & contrast structtire,'~tc;' ' .•. ' . ,. profile· ~_" _: . ..:....' _-+ ___ -+'_1 ;_'··.:..:in.:.:07is?i)~· "..:....: _: t----.:.m:..:..o;;.;;i~st)L--_t-_'i·_:._' _--:-_-:-:---1-'-:-.'_' ";:-<:-,,,,"":,';"-.-1.:-'-:-:-"~-.-: "'\_~~_--I" . (match ~escription) . I Oy;'?/?-. ~htS~J7I~~ ", '" .. - . 0-~ A- \D r flit \ DYf-Y l t;" J , "'" ~ ~ ~ a: 'I \.,,:1;.," Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol __ 'Histic Epipedon __ . Sulfidic Odor " Aquic Moisture Regime ·~:·:a~~:;;~n! ~~W~~iJmk C~i~rs' , .. '. , Wetland Deiermination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? . Hydric' soiis presentl, ., .'.' '.' w~tiaridMdi-oi6~ ~~~eht? .' RatioIialeJRemarkS: ." . '-' -. ' ) I ': ~ '. ......... ,.,. ,.-.;"::, ·t"; j --C?P.c~c:t~ons~f< . dE;j~:" , .. j ' •. c· ,!~, : .• ' _,' .• ", __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils '. .' .;. ?p Listed on LOCal Hydric Soils List ." '. L!sted o~ N~tiona_l Hy~rc Soils List '. . ,; ;':-: i Other (explain in remarks) .' ", Is the sampling point within a wetland? =.-~. . \"~ :. i • 1 J~' 'I ',"', ',' l'f ~., :r~'t·· ~ 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 DATA FORM 1" ",' . ~', .' ~; Routine Wetland Determination ., .. , , .. ~ (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or ." !f987 Corps WetJand Delineation Manual) Project!Site: SII<~NDf:'R Applicant/owner: 'In~~Iti~i~J~s):: /C. ~~~o/' ":'&.' ~(;;';."" . ~ .. /~ .. : ;. . ,'~ ~ Do Noimal Circumstances exist on'the site? l,~,.).·~·,~·~r'<-l-·l~i:.-£.~:r· . • . . . ':. ,:. Is'the'site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area ap.,tential Problem Area? ",,~ :.(,.,:,': C?~~i~~:tJe.ttl .. J ~7/1 .. Transect ID:; , pi;)t n:>: ' Dr #' 2-9 -v- Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indlcat&r Dominant Plant S~cies •• , ~ ; Stratum Indicator H H :-·r ... ::.> :'~--".',-. ',. , : .,-, " HYDROPH¥TIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:' . ::' TtD} ~'-"'~aTl(~ ' .. % of dominants OBL, FACW, & fAC:' 'tJt:i~'r : :: i'; :~~'~Jf¥:'::~t!:~;;:q;l; ~ !.~U? ~(!!M"?fiU~,'~r;:1":!~~,"";2"',:,' "\ ,,~ , ~~ ________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____________________________ ~'~;~;t~'_.~.;·,~~~~~~~' __________ ~ Check all indicators that'apply&hplairi below: ," , ~.~f~.~-:,l.)f,F¥o:"~":~y ... ~:-,,.{ ~;J:S>;'~":':.~<~ ~ ti,!,:). ~~i!/;;'.;.l. -.,'~, Regional kri6ivl~g~ :brpltjt126~ii~'ri~~ !~l"){ , Wetland plant list (nat'l o~ i=~~~~~r :::ArXPc<~,;~,', OtHER __ ' Physiological ~r ieprcidil~Hv~'ad~pf:ltibris" '~~ 'Morphological ad~~~ti~n~',~"-"'~,;~:\::;: i'i', ~r~l';(~ ~l Tech~jcal Literature Wetland Plant Data Base' ,;.,.( , Hydropbytic vege.tati~n present? " yes d Q!:::> , . " , ' , . , " " ~. R~t~onaJe,for decisioh!Remarks: :'Z.;.,~·~; \~; c.~~' +·"~f;..\-=~~;:~L~t ~ '~~;:fAL~'~" ~~v:_':\'; J~~?~~1+-O.,.c.-~c.rs r~:'> S hl~V ~\ot \o~~ ~~\; lti'-~~\\'~~:Hl;~~~f~\~~~1:·PK:;;l!.~ii~+ HYDROLOGY , ,'>~, ' Is it the growing season? Based' on:£v; de." c.e. "rr. Dept. of inundation: -Al.-lt-Iinches '-J Oxidized Root (live roots) Local SoiISt.irvey:·'yes".~ Channels <i2 in. yes, \~, :",', '.·,1· !,! Depth to free water in pit: ~inches Check all that apply & explain below,: •. Stream, Lake'~r gage data:' '. '~'''' 'i" Aerial ptiotomlJ>bs: Other: ___ Wetland hydrology present? yes Cmt FAC Neutral: yes' ~ Water-stained Leaves: Other: ;t:/:;7J~~i":'";e::;'{4 ~ j ~ 'of,)'/ I ~ hJ _ yes ~ SOILS Map Unit NameUoal;hv,11t.. S; (f L6a~ ,.",.,:, (Series & Phase) . ,.,:.;",.,.,.", Taxonom Profile Description Depth Horizon (i~~c;~~st ";' ., " ~i:!;!.;:·~/;<~r·q~;· <': '. '.~ '! ! Wetland Detenninatioii"{ciicle) , __ .-..-_,"_ .'.: •.••. ~. '._--... ...... .,.~~ ,->-~., .# __ ,;-c;... . ..,;..;. _~ •.• _ ., ". ' .... -•.•• NOTES: ... ," ~~inage Class ",orr J)&o-iwr! F~e}d observation~ confIrm Yes ~ , .. --,: . rna d e? .,,;,.,,' Is the sampling point within a wetiand? ,'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 I I DATA FORM 1 , Routine Wetland Detennination (WA Sbte Wetland Delineation Manual or 'i987 Co_~s Wetland Delineation Manual) 30Uie:V/fR.1:{: EJ<T£1JS10,J Date: f(I/0'S Applicant/owner: \', &. 'Jc;( '" ci--' ~ . . Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? ",; :. no County: KIN if _> ' state:", LN"" '.. : " srrtR:s2.-S" ITi-SN ii.tfe,' Is'lli~ ~it~isighificantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a pOt~ntial Problem Area? ' i .. ,y~~ , yes ColIll1iunity 10: w~ ~ J 27 A Tiansed ID:-:'" ,., '~"-' , Plot ID: , 1> f <ff -:tJ" -u- VEGETA TION , ~. ;', .;' :., " , Dominant Plant Species' Stratum I~dicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum IndiCator' \ HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ' % of dominants OBL. FACW, & FAC: ~Od'''<' . i~~ ~i~: ~1. ~~ ... ~~~ {.~(.j~ .. I:::::,Q.1 !~';' ;:; ~..!·:f~:~.~ "!:~~,: .. ~~~.+~/ .. -;;{ ~~1-;~:.-r}~':! ,.,~~7./~~.", Check all indicators that apply & explain belo~: " -:':.).:.' ,1 :;i.~.:,-::~.f }:",~ ·r:.j:~!: ~;.~.~. ,:;/' .... !.~; .~ . .;.; ."~ ... ~:. ' ... Regional knowledie' ~f pllUli c6ihriiti~m~r;<' ;" ~, Physiological orreprodJcH{;eadapiaBC;li~" ,; -~'.; " Technical Literature Hydropbytic vegetation present? Rationaie for deCision/Remarks;, ", . ! ,.@> . -: ... ~ '~}.:~ ',-or \; .FJ~( t..-l , . ." --''''-1 .;.;:~~ !.-<~(L"i.:i ~ t·.·, i .:~·-~'_fFj \~'; .:>:-.;;~~('! .~;: ~' .. J.··.:~·,1J1(;:;;·~ Wetland plant li~t (nat'~ o~r~~;~~tl"·'.'~\ OrnER __ Morphological adapiatioris>"'~ __ "', , .. _. ''-~'; 'i Wetland Plant Data Base ;:':{ -' ' ,.:~ ~, --"..,.' ~!, '''::. : no , .~, '~~ lOO'>/ .. lc>~",-~..,f ~~~J ~ i~ fttc.~. ;-.'\ .'---.: -t·-.~. ;" ," j~~1~~~ ":·j:i:·~.i~~:!> ~f>~·~~ .. , :~~;~ii:l1{I<: HYDROLOGY Is it tb.e growing season? B a~~d on: (v~ del'! c.e. "r; Dept. of inundatio~: : r-.'. ~_- Deplht~ fr6~ w~ter in pit:. .1 {,;: \: .,i ,,~, t~':~~i tf,:'-::;' .('-,i;: .. <-.:'], ;'; -.~ oeptillO saiurnted soil: -fjJ.!i'inches , U Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: "ye;s. lnQ) , : .;, '. '", cbanneis <I2 in. yes ~" ' '",'; -j J':!..lL inches FAc Neutral: yes . ~ -~ .. _.'. -, ;". t '(J& inches Water-stained Leaves': Check alJ that apply & explain below: Stream, lake or gage data: Other: Aerial ppotographs: Other: SOILS Map Unit NameW." .. ,d;,\J;\lL S~\r \'6&._ (Series & Phase) Drainage Class e bo" 'r 1', ~\6 Q ;i Field observations con finn . Yes No '.: Taxonorn rna d e?' . ,"i.<i; ". Profile Description' Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors . Mottle abundance Texture, concretions. Drawing of soil (inc!JesL (Munsell': (Munsen size & contrast'·, structure,~tc. '; ,'. ' ""profile ; 1--'-,...,;. _-+-___ . ·,-+,_·'_f"'..:;m;:.:o:.,:i,;:.:st:L.-)i :_: -+-_:.:;m:.;:o:.:is~t)~_I-·_· . ....,<'_"'_. ____ --1-__ ._,._' _.r._,'._,~_,;_'_' _"'_'''_;;'_''~',(~:aich description) 1;~Pji lOr-'1/'1 ~S ~\-Ls..,J/~;'L";' , . -.~ Hydric SoilIndicators: (check all that apply) ',," . ",'0 --' -fHstosol -_ C~~~I.~~g~s '/. i\'\;J:' ;,,-.}ti';./";'-J ~t}~· dt-..'iui,;);-:;l, ; "d' l __ Hislic Epipedon __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Sulfidic Odor __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils' ' __ Aquic MoistUre Regime --'--Listed ~n Local Hydric' Soils List . Reducing Conditions .. ' , .' ~ Listed on National Hydric.Soils List. :" . ;,.; . .. -"-"~ Gieyed or i..o\{Lthffirii~ C,,101-5":'" :;, ",~ Oilier (exphiili in remarks) .:':::, Hy~ric soils p.r~e~t?" , C®, .; no, ;;:::'Y" -lO I'" r : ;';' .,;' • .'; . ... ..,,>jJ"/\~~ .~;!::F'.i\·~ :_:'~ Rationale for declslonlRemarks: ' '.' .. .. . .c:,·· ' .. ' .. ". ", > ""~"" ' • ",''';'.-i ;' ".: n ('It.drl'K. c.. ",~ ..... .J 1., t.i,\~ d; s -\~ ~c.\--r {j o'X --(~~'f'1!'5 fvese.,,\} ,~\~,,; -\L..~. ~''-~-t~~C>'''' . ( f,-\" (I ~t (loW ')oi\ S,) ~ '), -. Wetland Determination (circle) ..... -:---, ...................... , . RationaJe!RemarkS:-<:':'" , .' .... :j ,"" "'i~';" "';' '" "",;,,' " 'C ~~f'~L .~~~;~.' ."'.-4' .. ~'\(~~ F~.~7'~;~~ ~;l:l~ ~J. f'Jo ~~;L~ "L~,~ ~~:-b~~~,.(, 1~(~S(l",t , J; (~;L~.:'.~r~'---c>",ly. '.I>~~~;g ·~~"V'l;.J (!4O\1I\~~y,\ \-r4.~S S~"I£lJ ~:i~:~~·~/!.~Q~lltJ.."(c.")/, ~ •. ,"':', ... ," .:.. \' ':1':''''':':::;' -:;-'.',j._ •. j! i , ~~ \-,S-u) e.---t~~" 1 27·.A"~ ~;~.', ;~~ . NOTES: 1 \ c> -t 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 .',-.:- '. : ~ 1. ~:. . DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or . ,', .. ;,: .. " .. 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) A pplicantlowner: iriv~sdiat~~~: Ie. Atri~iiSE..v ~, . , &. ' /C.(;J /;:.' ,<:,. .; '.' t.· Dei Nonna! Circumstances exist on the site? @> : .• 1 Isilit~rt~!'significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes Is the area a poieniial Problem Area? yes no (]iCl> . ~ : .. _:'~ i Dale: ,/"/0 3:::':" .:~ ... County: ICIN 0"~~b'i;~:'" c: ;·T.'·'" . State:-:·. W If -.... ~:;. ; ~;: .--. ~.: :, I 'srftR~LSi~1 ~?'~/R-'tC" Community ID: (J &f1t:. ... J .2..7 fr Tr~s'ect ID:""-'" --·4-.-.'- Plot ID: :DF rP~ I ~ i":~' . --. -.. '< ••.. Dominant Plant'Species • ,< , i IndiCator Stratum' IndJ~'aior Dominant PI~i Species Stratum i' : ~ ..... I. HYDROPHYTICVEGETATION INDICATORS:" % ~f-~onUJlan.!s O~~!.FA,~~! & f,:~:\i{T9P/1 ... · ; "<' ";~.: ;r~t~i;~ ~i0. ~~~~~.?~ }~7JI·~~:,4.:r;~~~'~_~~~·J. ~.t~!,~.:~~~.~:.: c.'f~~t.~ -, ~ . i .( l'J~~ .1';;;; n ;~, ·:);;;;)·:·:::(~;:::~~t;t·~~l}i.-ft;,~~t}ii"!; " i ~L:'~·:l·~qd·' );Ut~~~~ ~ . Check all indicators that apply & explain below: ' ' .. ~~~~' .. ..;(", .. ~~,~;;;f .. ~.:;-. l., . .., t· ....... ~-: .::L:~,~':::!."·~:n:':;:'·c::::~·~);:Jlpt: Regional kriow~J~~;~~r~t&~JRi~i;:~:~~-:i " Wetland plant list (nan oa~gi~H1i); :_"._., ._.,._;-i~;:,1. 011IER Physioiogical or reprOdu~liv'eadapt~ticins: ... ;, _ .'-_ Morphologi~aI adaptatioris:':,!;c' _<_~_/' .. ,cJ.;, .. Tech;:~i~aI Lit~~ttire' ....... " Wetland Plant Data Base ,'j,'t:: "'l~H". ·':;"'-')'L·'~Uf "'. '-. HYDROLOGY :' .,c.,. Is iuhe growing season? Based ~n: t~tJ~.."e.D.rc Water Marks:'/ yes 1 n6) Sediment Deposits: y'eS(~ Drift Lines:· ,;., yes ~ Dniiriaoe Piirieiris:(yeS) no Dept. of inundation: Oxidized Root (live roolS) Local Soil SUrVeY:l;·yes ~ Channels d 2 in~ no. . . , , FAC Neutral: . yes mo.' Water-stained' .. , '-j Leaves: e ~J Depth to free water in pit: ~inches Depth tei sathraied soil:-'J!&. inc.hes Check all that apply & explain below: Other: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aeriai phoio!ITaphs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? (Yh... Rationaie for decisionlReniarks:' '-J 1l,r(.e.S OC6"7Je:>..V1 )lItd i'c..,j-uV S of (,/.-e,-{( c...0 1,.1 elk I 0> ':') 1 no SOILS Map Unit Name i-J 0 0 4\ VI 'f &. <:: (r Ld <. '?1 (Series & Phase).,. Profile Description . ," . Drainage Class f.· -7' p....; '" j . I i • ,- Field observations confinn Yes No rna d e? Depth Horizon Matrix color Monle colors ' Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Dr~wjng of soil (inches) ,\,:'~; (Munsell' ,(Munsell size & contrast' structure, etc. : ': .' " ,,;'; :, "profile; 1----+--. :_. _:""_'_' '_' f-:_"';_'ij,;.;,m,;.;,'o~is,;.;,·t,-)' _' -I_~m;.:.;.;:.o,;.;,is;.;"t)'---_+-______ --t-_~·"_'· '_'-,-:" _. _:_: ' __ '_"_"_' -I' :" (~ai~Jl description) .! ;: -; .. ~. " ~ -I,::. .) ~ .. -. I" " c. co ---'"' 0 "1 - . i . . . I I I I I I I I I Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) I Histosol __ C()~~re~on~, i;", 'i,;;, ,'"c.J:;: .,;:><>,'. _";,,,: . , __ Histic Epipedon __ High brganic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor . OrgiU]i~ S~«':3king in Saiidy Soils ',', I __ Aquic Moisture Regime ~ Listed on LOCal Hydric Soils List .i=E ~~:;;j! ~t~;:ri1~t~i~r~ --,L-tit~;~ (~~~:i~~~a:e~:~:)SOiIS List ,:., J:ly~ric soils pr~e~~?' _~. no. . c' ,,'.: "r~~;j~':' I RatIonale fordeclsloillRemarks: .' '~_ '.' " ,'.", ~ .,,";'.'ii;:·' ,'.'qJ> .. /ct " to /.V·c~...-t) 1M ...... lM......+r-;)c. :-•. f ... .rs (..J:~ eli s.f,'".,J ;~/~~. f~"'~!; r;:q~:,;, I· I~ ~-f/t,:"'lu" I l7-( {," hL(.>W' s~, ( s-u r-A.vu...),-" '" ,. ' Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? . .liydi]c',soils p.res~nt1v~'./;· ... Wetland hydrology present? :.J; .. - .RationaleJRemarkS:,j i •• ' ; 1: '.~ • NOTES: @>e.no ( yes' Fn<? .. \ yes ·,'no"" - ,,' Is the sampling point within a·wetland? .·.·,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 ProjectJ'Site: Sla~NDt:R Applicant/owner: , DATAFORML, :\ Routine \Vetland Determination ' (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or . J' , 1987 C~rps Wetland Delineation Manual) fu~e~tig~i6r(s):)(.'A}J~oiS:-eJ 6: ~(,./~/" " j' '1''1.0 J" , _ .. _ ..... _'. County:KIN6-:.:, .""; .. . S'tate',,;; Wit ':,'"., .. SifrR:S:L5-/'Il-~ /~'-\E.- @> no '," C=?~~~ty,~\; ekC •. ,.l Q:7-A-Transect ID: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? .: is'ih~~Il'e'''~i~iricantly disturbed (atypi~al situation)? Is the area a poi'ential Problem Area? ' .. ,' VEGETATION'.' ',", ~-. _. ,. : Dominant Plant Species " Stratum !; ":"::".,.~~ .. , sr-' ·T" 5 s \ yes yes .. ~:., Indicator , .. ! ifAt-J i. f Plot ID: b'? ~ ~ '2.. Doil1inant Plant&cies Stratum Indicator .. -... ). -. -., ~ .. ,--._-., i . , HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:'; . :--·n!l.k;;'::l.;(!~;!#:'i?,:<;-.:~:~b·l :i:i~:.:!}).~d7 ~. Check aJl indicators that apply & ~xplain belo\v.: , ~ .. ~.~;:--~ :.~:~i[~ ~~ -.. :~;>: ~.~;.;{_~;j.~ :.~ -:~. :,.;.:~.' :-..;.;: ~_ ..• ;:'L; ~: Regional knowledgtbfplihit~m~ilii[riiil~~';~>X"P PhysiQlogical or reprOduch~~adapl~HoH~" _._. :_'._ Technical Literature Wetland plant list (naq or~~~i~~il) :.:. :(.;;'~.~ OtHER __ I Morphological adap~tiohs:::"-. ~~,~ ;(i:: ' 1,\" ~'t ~ Wetland Plant Data B~se ,H. ." .. Hydrophytic vegetation present? Rationai~ fordecisionIRemarks: 75 ~v-~ .. f j <> "'" :"~(1 { HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? Ba~~don: (v;Je",,(.~ "rr ( .. ~ no •• -,. ..... I, S~·%. O:~~j_ft1C \' .. -,-....--' Dept. of inundation: MA-'inches v Oxidized Root (live r~. L~~I S .. o .... ~,I." ~ ... ~.· ___ ~ey:';~e~~ l -:;." ". Channels <12 in. yes triO)i: ~_ Depth to free water in pit: ,.&Linches FACNeutral:'yese? .' DeptJiio saturated soil: ft inches Check all that apply' & explain below: ':". i"~-'" '.,. ,....: -, . c" • Stream, Lake or gage data: __ . _ '" Aeriai photo!IT3phs: Other: Other: Wetland hydrology present? yes ~ Rationale for decisionlRemarks: ~AtcJ:.+c,f..5 c?*-ue.t\4~1 L7!'~\-»1 l~C: ~~ f -- Water-stained Leaves: yes , .~.: ' SOILS Map Unit Name WooL'It,1It i((e. 5; If LtJa,~ ';:.; .; .:., i (Series & Phase)'" ",.' .. "," -" Drainage Class -I'!J::...:6,,-O_f'--'-;!f-V~j.L..Q_~..::.....::.he"'"-1'~ I 7 :~·~";:"i-::;,:f·;:.·:' "~; ,;~.;.: .:"~;~.~ ".)" ~." ",'" . Profile Description : •• .'1" ~,( ',.' Field observations confinn " rna'" d' e? .". " Yes No' Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mott1e abundance Texture. concretions. Drawing of soil (Munsel(J." (Munsell, size & contrast structure: etc.o·· ,';' " .~." ':~~'profije; (~~.~~es)" " .. ,-~.~. "r"' ." :.' :j~:i+moJs61:1' moist) . :;,";':\f;'i'H'C;:,'" ". .;": • ","i, ' .. (maicl(dest;fption) ~~----+-~~--~--~~~~--~~~---r--------------+-------~~-----; -A c' d.sr3'il ." -~·..i:i,,~Jj(~u.., ii",~",:,:, ~---4--~-4--~---r-------r~~------~------~--~ 2~)/j6 IOff-01l: ;'1~:J~";;: tC1L~<-J.,/ I o~ "".' ':,,--J,:' . \7 ". :. ~.,,-. ..:': ~'-" ~J Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) -;:,-:'" '''''i'''' ' "," ..... ,.<.. , -" -' _'fI~~~oso! --C:9~cr~!io~s,.,p~,:;;",.(?},.~:';t: .'k':~;;' "pc; ,,,;,,,;::~'j.{>~~j. __ Histic Epipedon __ High Organic' Contenfin Sulface Layer of Sandy Soils __ ~:=;~~:.:~ R~~;me -t~~;~~~~~!~i~~~rilli~i ,,/,.;. _. _Reducing Co~ditions .' _.' ._, ,". __ . Listed on.~~~!pri~,Hy.<fi-ic,S~ils List,:~""" . _"_, ____ .j",~d (~ Gleyed or Low"::thtt;iiia tbiot!;) ,,'C,:", "',, other (expiaiii'Ifir~m;u.ks)"'· " , .. ",: -, .. ,·C' Wetland Determination (circle) Iiyd~ophytic :veg~t,lt~on present? ~ no ~~%1}tl~~~r£~~~f~i;\~~'~~-'?,l.: ~~~8~:~~~:; '. ei~~~nS::tii~:~int NOTES: . r (6'1 is vi-l i ( '\ " J "'. '." . ~ .' , " 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 il I il I ~ -, I ~I " I \1 I, I I I DATA·FORMI "\-!; . Routine Wetland Detenni~~ti'on : (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or ".' , i987 Corps Wetland Delineation 1\1anual) Applicant/owner: :j. . -. ~, iriv'~~tigatoi(s): /C.AN~~fdi;..J·~:' &. 'k=D,;:; . Do Noimal Circumstances exist on the site? ihJi{'sltc"signiflcimtly disturbed (atypicai situation)? Is the area"a poteniial Problem Area?' ; . . VEGETATION .,.; @> yes yes ,ff .. ;. . \ '\.:~ : no Co~~itytp~e:«(~ ... " ,27:15. Transect ID::' . • Plot ID: 'T'l'7 # ~ . ' ", ~:.'. :-. I . ," ',: .;.,...~ \. Dominant Plant Species Indicator' Dominant Plant Species Stratum StratUm Indicator '.: :-j' , ·H o~L $" HYDROPIIY'PCVEGETATION INDICATORS:;' % ~f dominants OBL., FACW, & FAC:j[·~l!j~,:J'H(;/ .... . :',,~' {~~;t,,;;,::~ttJ!:Ji:~'J;~~~fo5;J~W':~)!f"Ji/~);f',':f'J~~tI ~ ... . ~~~~~~--~~----~~~~~--~------------------------------~':~-:.~.~::~~------------~ Check all indicatci~s that apply & explairi_ beloVi: '. Regional kn.w1~~~trtflJt~~i~~~;,; ;;~U ." Wetland pi"" n" (n.1'I2';g~~~~if:i?"~";: 0iiffiR Physiological or reprodiictfve'adaptati6ns" ii', .• ~ "Morphological arlaptatioris-:·'., .. -,,-,:·-;~:'.c: .. c;.-.··. :.,1,. '.:' Technical Literature' . Weiland Plant Data Base n -,'.""'-"-l '.','~·',;I!c!, I, Hydrophytic vegetation present? <®, no Ratiortaie for deCisioWRemarks: '-',j ,>, '. ' ;-" ", :' i . ' '. '. . '." " ;. '-',', .. J 00 0 /. ~'f C/owri'1"d ~r~.,j/5~'eJ~L f7iL. <, ~t'i~~'~I;~ti.,~:'i."'X HYDROLOGY ,,.,.,~,~ Is it the gro~ingseason? Based on: ;:-\tI;J~c.t' ... ~ Dept. of inundation: Depth to free water in pit: --===---inches Depth to sariiililed soil:-. .. -~ inches - Check aJlthat apply & explain ~Iow: Stream, Lake or gage data:' '. Aerial phoio!rr3..£.hs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? {yes no Water Marks:-'~ yes (no 1 Sediment Deposits: yes, no" Drift Lilies: /'''. yes ~ iio) Drairiage Patterns:-yeS <Dei Oxidized Root; (live r~ Local Soil Surv~y:" yeS \€. Channels <12 m. yes~o,\ FAC Neutral: yd" "no\" Water-stamed' ~ye \, ..J Leaves: ~ no Other: Rationale for decisionlRemarks: ',----, S'l>'\~ ~C.-S~ \OII~IZ.~Dv-l '50\\ S~I~ JUV'lk J SOILS Map U nit NamM<-=60-=~'--'-'\,,.lUv:'i-1 ~=' ,,---SJ....;..i-t'-l ~_\AtI<='·:.=......WJ-I-· . t .' .. ., ~ (Series & Phase) :" . ~. . Profile Description ',~' . ., . . Z Wetland Determination (c~~cIe) ..... ~.~.,. .".~ ",,".' .-~ .... ~., .. NOTES: 'Y \ a\ . ~age classt "&<\7 ])vMl!)L,l .... ,Field observations con finn Yes No ·.~··~·a-;:-~····d· "'e?~ . :i:--'-:-Or.""," -;', ,'"" ";": .. : . i . i i .-' 1. ~;, i. ,_ .: >c~-:;:i~ ;;os-·Qhi - ! ' .'-/ ',;:. '_'f.~._ '.i·'i' '. ":'_,", .'. ~J)~ ~--~t~J.·, '_i\~;j. ': ~,. ~ -:. - j .' ~ -I. ,I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I * DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: SI«~NDtR BlJ.VU=:V,-irt.Di!' EX:rEIJ<:::.1 a rJ. Dale: '1\ '/ DOS-•• ;. j Applicant/owner: irivestigator(s): /C. AiiDt::.fZSoJ; .-&. }::.(N 6- t&> yes yes Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? is the sitesigniflcantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area aj!<>tential Problem Area? ' VEGETATION.. --' no ~ , County: ~/N G-,. _ ._,. State: ltV" ".:-. : srrlR: ~2S lri;srJ. J k'\ e. .. , ' Stratum ' .. J'ndicator Dominant Plant Spedes Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator fOpJ(u:> 6a-k~~ T fAL <;.J i ~ ( .... s j'e.;.",dt.---r tACtJi c,d/,'x. (,,;;e..~J~ .5 -.. rllc{") f- 'f2Upol s P "DCLVV 5 .. S filL U I " .. r". .... -" ~-. ." '. · .. ···1 IlYl)ROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:- % of domin~nts OBL, FACW, & FAc:'lS-D!:v .. ..;.-.·.1 .. :·~ ; ':·i:~l~1·:·;,,:~;;~-~~~~;·!;? ;::>~t~<::.t~~;~· ;.~ . ~~~~;!'.~. ;}.:l;T:~·,:··f,",-J ·~-·:-:!Jtit.j·:ft1:·~q!;·i;:~nJ~~J.·~;Y ~'l/o';.:.-~~~:·~:J~~fL.~~.' ,. Check all indicators that apply & exphlin below:' , ~;!.r .-; .. ,;,,~~;:?>·f·:-;~~_fi··'·\j.~'~.~.k::_ .. :~~ i ::,.!) ~ Regional knowl~d'~~~f~'I~h~~i.h:Iiies i .~ Physiologi~~1 _~r:_reprod\lctiye _adaptations __ Technical Literature' .... -." , Wetland plant list (nat') or regional) MorphologicaJ,adap~tion~·:;\·:_.~~. _ .. Wetland Plant Data Base:',,'~ 0 H¥qROLOGY .J I .. ~ OTIlER __ <. -" ~., . >..~. . \_1 .I:: ~ .,:.''':~ -'." .! ) ,'., '-'-.1;-"'." ': ,."',-:;,~-.\'.,, :-.;1 \-,(:".>;[';'u-1. [ ~",c, ,'no Water Marks:· yes I{O) Sediment Deposits:' yes(' rib) Is it the gro\Ving season? Based on: (v;Jenc.e. ,,~ t'"ue.", t-i;-)\Oli.\ -\-'" v-l>~ t-=-Dri--:'-:"ft--:L:-::i-ne-s-: --"--y,es-(nO)-;';n~o"-+--D-ra--:in-a-.g-,e""P-att""· e-·m"-'·' s-:.-; yLle-s-':-(i-7nOO;;:~-'-I Dept. of inundation: ~'inches I,J Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey:,., yes .'@. LJ Channels <12 in.),es ~ ~ inches FAC Neutral: yes ~O') Water-stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: Depth to saturated soil: ~ inches Check all that apply & explain belo~: , stream; Lake or gage data: " __ ._ Aerial photographs: Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decisionIRemarks: _ Other: Other: no <J c;hrvdi 0"1 ~ S <> d s cly~ i) I s e. -r-v e-el . yes &i I~ SOILS Map Unit Name {kcrI-<' '1 VHf S,lt [oc.;..VV1 (Series & Phase) Profile Description _"'.of;-- Drainage Clas~=c:AQ=.:· -r_l:....,y'----'-, ~D:.:..Iq.A~\JC~~:.!..... , I Field observations confIrm Yes No -".. -_. . d : i Dept~., Horizon Matrix color 'Monle colors Mottle abundance Texture. concretions. Drawing of soil (inches) ,',' (Murisell "(Munsell size & contrast structure; etc.:." :,'\ . , ,'p~ofil~: I-:-{-' _:c_. -cf-'-',....;\-. ~_~";.:...:J..:.:~.:.:'o:..:;~is:..:'t)!.-!...;,.j-l-_,.,;,m:..:;o:..:i.:..:st):t-.~+-_'_;'_' ..-:... ___ -+-._ ... ,,;,..c'...:."_'..:..'. ,,;,,,..'._., ,;,;,.; ..• .".: .• ,:....:'~..:.., .. _._. '_'~' . (match description) {),3 ,,;r· 3-{b. B 2,';(7/2-- LS7'~ (O'-YfY' -- 1 oV'Yl ,.., C> '-1 .... ~'~S"e...:' J.. ·f-..p·Vl C {- , : J (;JA.V~l{ f ,;' S 0..'1 d7' /tXt"'V/ • f ~ • , .- .. -. . . : ••. '. _." .'i;~"; :"~.;;." ;o:J ." .. . . .~ ....... i"~~7-"i".:!l;";::'[ 1::., ~ Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ," , .. , __ Hlstosol __ Concretii:ms '"f.'ie'·",,;/;·'.: '; ,:;;c;' " .. ,.".,:,,;)'J:;,:,;,,'.i ! __ Histic Epipedon _. _ High '()~gaiJi~C~~tentiri sJ;.ra~~ Laye~'~i Sandy Soils , ---'+-Sulfidic Odor' '. . _. _. Organic Streaking in Sandy SOlis .' ---"L/\--->.,r. quic Moisture Regime ~ List~d on Local Hydri~' Soils List .. ; -=x. Reducing Conditions, : i . ' __ I_~. Listed on~ationa1 Hydric,Soils List'" " -=--x:. Gleyerl or Low-chroma Colors oilier (explain in remarks) ":.'<"~' Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? fiidrlc'soiis pies~nt1!h, . '.Weii~d'iiYdroiog; p~~~rit? . .' . RatiorialeIRemarks: Is the sampling point within a wetland? no' ': Ir II , I' I; 11 I (I· i, JI II I. 1/ I 8 \1 ,I 'I' ,I I ~ ,.' ; I ,I ,I} I I t I: i I' >. ,ll, ,I' I' I DATA FORM 1 . Routine Wetland Determin':ition (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: SI~NDfR ' e,ouL..£VtlRl>" EXT£NSI ~ tI , .. " Applicantlowner: fu've~~ig~;~~s): jc.;A/JD~fdw &. }c.(,-.};' Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? is'ilig~li~"~i~ifi~antly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? VEGETATION.' : @> yes yes no ~ Date: h/\\l~.>' County:¥:IN6-:,,·!,: '1' "" . ~~~·~~t~;n~~/v-~~ , Co~~ity, !P.:~c..", !. a 7 'L· Transect ID: . Plot ID: 1\,{) ±1 3> ,5" • -U- : ,".! <:. Indicator Dominant Plant SPecies . '. Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum . '--' F\)~> ~~~\J~ .~. f(:""f\C.0,' HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: " HYDROLOGY Is' it the growing season? Based on: r ... ;Jet-'lc.e. Df' Dept. of inundation: Depth to free water in pit: Depth to saturated SOli: J!.ff... inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream. Lake or gage data: Aerial photo!!Taphs: Other: , , , :.~~~J_':''J~~'.hi;i:,·{:;~;''d . ..o:-' ... j;·\H~ t· . . Water Marks:'';, yes r.n~ Sediment Deposits: yes (nO\ Drift Lines:,. ". ; yes ,/fia\. Dramage Patterns: " yes' (fro' Oxidize~ Root (live rooiij',-' ~al Soil Sil~ey:" '~es ev Channels <12 in. yes" ~ v. , ,0".'''', c' '.! FAC Neutral: yes ~ Water-stained <=-' ,Leaves: yes~ -, -7> i '.-' Other: Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decisionlRemarks: yes ~ . ..:..~ J~cL(dv.,c .{ 1/1&1-(0.'1(,1 4r-iVP/O);7 (~'''7J oJ-J~ ?,ot SOILS Map Unit NamejUo4;hval/e 27(t Lccuh (Series & Phase)-:' ': . : .. ~ ~;, ~ .; : :, .' <~.~ • .'",' . ~inage Class &016; '(2a-dhl) F~~!d observations confirm Yes ~ ina"'d e?: '.' . . Profile Description' Depth Horizon Matrix color . Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (inches) ...... (Munsell (Munsell size & contrasf structure; etc»· d .' .. ~f·!profile ; ~'~':_'~_~_~_'~'~~~~<'~'_"~_.(_'~~m~o~is~6~'~:_'~~m~o~is~O~_~_·_··_'_· ____ ~_:_·_·_'_·-_~_'_~·_"_·-_'~'~~ti~~~oo) ',': .' .. :':" .. . ~ !< ....... ""; .... 1": j:: ' :-;~~ -. i . A-'" \Oy~s/L :~; : . ":.. .. .. : '. , ••. ,.J' .. ; .. ; ,.t" ... ::.«t: .... i ~ :;, .' I') , +-.-~ •• '. -: . .-:';:'-;-: HydricSoilIndicators: (checka1l.thatapply) .·.·.I,'·:'!,·· ;;':':" ".'.'" '.,. -' -Histosol __ ~on~r~~i~!ls ; ,,,.J .," . .,ijr,·!;;.i' i ;",~'I" <:'Ii.";''-·'''-;· ,'J __ ,}':l ; __ Histic Epipedon __ ' ~ig~ Orgariic Corllent iriSurface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Sulfidic Odor -. , Organic streaking iIi. sandy, Soil~.:·' __ AquicMoisture Regime +-LIsi'ed ol1I~ai Hydrlg soiis list' ";'~GRedl •• ~cding CL~nj.~gs"" C" ""1' '\''': L : ',',,'. ,-" --' LO' ithsteerd(Oenx";J:I"aal'!nJ9Iinn;'~!eHm}ar;'~k~S~)§OiISList" . -.-.... "-'~ e.1e or oW-\..IJl.0ma oors 'I" • .. .• , Wetland Detenriination (circle) , .! NOTES: 1 )<J-I i~ lb~(j ,'",J.5f,J~/LJ C{ 1J Vi e c...V' Slv '2-7 r~ ;tv.(... • i : ,'~-.. 3·" , I, { , I, 1\ I ;11 \1: I, 'I t :1' Ii. (I, II II' , 1 :1, .. , :1 I ;1 It lli " 'I II: '. 'il I' 'I I I' II 1\ ,I DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination .! ' (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Co~s Wetland Delineation Manual) Dale: . hi "/03. Applicant/owner: County: kIN~.:,,: .. ';,:., , "," Irivest~gaior(s): /C.Ak'r>cd-OJ' '6: Jei;·./&·' , ' .. ',-:' " ", ~W%·~·:~~~jT2~~/g 4'£': : Dei Noirnal Circumstances exist on the site? f/§i> no, i.'.; Is' thi;';~it€si~lficantly disturbed (atypic~1 situation)? yes -<Jnj> . C~rIm,lunity W: Wd/~ ., I ~7 j) Transect ID:'" ... ,. "f' .. , .. ,;, is the area a pol~ntial Problem Area?" yes ~ ..... I. ,,..' ,. Plot ID:") . ... ~ VEGETATION .. '--'; 1 Dominant Plant Species • Stratum Ii " ~.: ... }.; " ~ . Indicator "': ' FAW ! . "'~I(") AI.. 3'£, ,. '" ./vf> ~, .. "-" ~ Dominant Plant Species Stratum' Indicator ... j HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ' ';.i ; . .-",: -: .:LJ,? >-:·i'~\~ ... ~~~L· .. '~. r:;:=·J~~~l~~_·-",f;~ ~~~~ .~ ... -::-~.1 t" t'~ ~ ", '. . Check all indieators that apply & explain below: .. .l':.~.~',:f.:}.~\~'$){J~'~:'~~~~ ~i. J~~;.:~.,\,:;~".{;-.~.". L~"-: j. ~;:_:" . Regional kilbwJedge of pl~t cbiliriiUbiti~s:; ~ Physiological, or reprOductive adaptations . ~ Ted~~icaliiteratlire ," . Hydrophytic ~ege~tioD present? Railonii~ f~rd~cisioritRemarks: ' ' ' HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? Bas~d on: Q;dv"c.e_ "sr ,. "i Wetland plant list (nat'l orregii:,'riai)' )L Morphologicalada:i)tatiolls"~' '-' . Wetland Plant Data Base' .J, ,1" . OTHER . " i : :~ '-~~. i' i -; ), -.:, ~ . 6 V" Lxlkv-' "> " ._. ••.• .,' "'_~" __ "!,,,. __ ..:; I . '_ :, :~;!~~ ,~:U! .~.~~~~.~!) ~ ti,_.~·, ~<~t~~~~:~~1!:f>~} , i , :'._ :·.,~l~:~;~!~;,~;;_~~~~{~~, "':" ~: .. ?':r'i(;~'~~~ii-!.r. ~ Dept of inimdation: .. ~Iinches ': Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes" @) Depth to free water in pit: -lI.lr-inches Depth to saturated soil: Ji.lr.. inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, LaJce or gage data: Aeriai photographs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decisionlRemarks: Of,di led lr ~i "L°Jf~eV'~s: yes Channels <12 in.~ '. no FAC Neutral:" yes ~' Other: no Water-stained Leaves:. yes @ : J SOILS Map Unit Name fAJotxl'/Ilv;!1i ~'II Lt>aY; (Series & Phase)' ' ... '.: ',: .:.,. . .~ Drainage Class 706 r 1 ....... / ~ ~ e d... 7 Field observations confirm Yes No rna" d~ Profile Description \ •. ", ~, . . . :.~ : : •. ~. : i Depth.. Horizon. Matrix c'olor Mottle colors . Mottle abundance Texture. concretions. Drawing of soil (inchesy.~:~~L:, .' (MunselL· (Munsell -size & contrast"-.... s~c .. t~n~~,"e .• ic .. ,'_"'::"':;.~: .. ' ' .. :>·.:;'erofile: ~~~~~.~_~_t_,~_·~~:~':_r~~~~~~~~~.(_:~~~m~~=s~O_·~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~.~~I~~~hd~cription) S<L~J'(/ i) ;Z~' :'.;~ IVr--'16irz >/'L Iv y fL~-t 'IOt~1~ !; ~ .. :~" 6",', . . . . .' . :~ .. -~-, .. _. , __ .,. ~., T' t '. ,. ~ . ~-.• Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) __ . Hlsiosol __ C()Jl~f!?~~n,s; :-;~ \';;:(i~,;n\-·n~~i) ~ Hlr:;\I"'" .;;,}-;..,) i __ Histic Epipedon . __ H:igh' Oiganic,Contentin Surf(ice Layer of SandySoils Sulfidic Odor .... -, __ ._ .. Organic: Sil-eaidng in.sai1dy Solis , ,;;:i' ; __ Aquic Moisture Regime t<.... Lis~ed o~ LOCiti Hydri~ Soils List . ;:', ~ RGele~~eSdinogrCL' °o"PW<'~-}Ch!~~'ro?~m';';a ·C;';of'JI'o·L·rs.i>"~'·': '. -'" 'f -' --' Li~ted on !'fational Hydric.Soiis List' -X.... -J' ., .. ", Other'(explain in remarks);~: . .':"" Wetland Determination (circle). RationaleIRemarks:, .... ..,.' ., ','-, ."." '. Is the sampling point within a wetland? ,.,;. -',' A 11-Jhr,t<-{,,~jE~'~. , '. ', .... ~ i : NOTES: . " .:' '.-... ~ .:: --;~, ; ~ : .. I: II (I' II vi II; (I: \1/ II fl\ I 'I' ,,' \1 :, .J II It! Ii 1\ I )1\ ... : ,I! I ,~ I , • It' II' I II I I' I Applicant/owner: DATA FORM 1, Routine Wetland Determination (WA Sbte Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) i~~~s~i'~~t~~s): Ie. ANT>C~OJ.' "&. Jew Cr .. ~ -~ : " ~ Date:ffl!~,!',' " County:KII}!(j-,":c,;:, ,'~ ',~, ~~~::,~j5/r2~N /(llfi' Do Normal Circumstances exist on'the site? ts'ih~-~it~:si~ific~tJy distUrbed (atypical situation)?- O:>f!1IIlunity fI):t,;d/etIlIJ c:<7 £ Transect ID: ' Is the area a potential Problem Area? ' Plot ID:' D,P dl~7 ~ VEGETA nON ' Dominant Plant Species Stratum' Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator l,' I~ HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: . . ~ .. ~~~g~~~g~h~N~~,,~.~~!l~~lqq'/.i. Check all indicators ,ili.3t apply & explain below: , • "-' "#,_",,-,,, _ . ~ .. t' ,-' -.':' ': -." • -":". -. <-',,-." •• ' .J .,:i""'.'I,~~;",,·J·r} ,,!,;,.,.:\-.~~ .::" .. ,.~. t .. l-;·~:·:-.;;.·.!~·."'~/1f·~·*J;ijl;,;·di~:i ;.:'-f~'~' [.i.,/-; . -.. Regional knowledge of plailt coriuilUnities __ Wetland plant list (n~t'l or regional) x OTHER Physiological or reproductive adapiaiioii~ , _' __ ' Morphological adap~tions;:' Technical Literature Wetland Plant DataBase' .. Hydrophytic vegetation present'? ~ ", n~' Rationale for decisio~eniarics: ' . , ' ? b't"}. ..f j",.:,:J. a:t r f.;q--5 r:a;j'd ~~ (/r~.'r pet:,~ " ,,", HYDROLOGY Is it tlie gr6~ing season? Based on: ( ... ;JOlC.e. Dr; '.':: ~. ."1.···· -: , '-..' Dept. of inundation: ..fl.Llinches '-J ~i~.ized Root. (~~!:S?, " Local Soil Survey: Yef ~ Channels <12 m~:, no,,' '.: ""'),' '" ,( , ", Depth to free water in pit: -fI-h-inche~ Depth to s~tui~t~d soil: ~ inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream. Lake or gage data: Aerial photo!mlphs: Wetland hydrology present'? Ratio!l~~e fotecisi?nlRemarks: Ox rd, 2e ("h,2o'S pl-l~V'CJ Other: FAC Neutral: yes ~ Other: Water-stained Leaves: SOILS Map Unit Name /lbeJJ'v v///( s}/l /aa. ~. (Series & Phase) : : ~', .. wi; ~ " .' -., "" :.:'.' Fidd observations confirm Yes No ) ", • J~;~ .. Iil'a" d e? .,"', Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretio~s. Drawing of soil (Munsell; (Munsell size & contrast structure; etc.>" .' .. ;';·profile' .. I=-:"':'~,:...:;~_"_"_" _" -+~_"':--I_'-""i;:-.m:.:"·:.:o::.:is:.:.t)~' '..:".\ '-+_"--=m::,,:' '.::.~i:.:s:.t.t)t _---1I-_ .. _.::,,;.;,.: .• _', ____ +_.'_,.':_"_.l:_";~.~-':';...,.';/_"-.' _"'_"'_"--j'" (maidi'descnption) ;O'~;p-.-.inJI;,i,2. , ;.'\~! , ~~i~J;:')p;'~ !':"!',,: "fc __ ;," ':~:.~ (inches) , O~7 .11 {' I ~t . ~"'7-. ~---~---~-----~-----~---------+-----...:-------~ tbVlIHD'1 I P L / 7.-It .. B ,', .. I DYr-cJj~ 1" yfl 'lie ~'~1:~~'; If1l1L s-~ If 1 (~c-ti1. . ! \ : , .' .--, '-. -- Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)":';" .;;. ).'Hr'., ;,,1 ~q ;"'1·.'1 ,." " ,-~i" n ",',';., l' i --' Histosol --Cpl1f,f~lions \""""';' ';." I,ni : (h~',' .. ;,,~+"':,::;;~, .. ; , ..... __ Histic Epipedon __ High OrganiCJ~onterit iii Suffac,e Layer of Sandy Soils __ ~ulfidic,Odor .... _,__ __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils :c . __ Aquic Moisture Regime --L Listed'on t&ij Hyd~t SOlis List""" ,.' ~ Reducin~ Co~diti~~~", " . , , __ L,isted o~ ,~~~~~~~,~~.dr;ic,.S~~I~ ~,ist ,:., ,.~.: ,', ; ,:' ~ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (explaiii in remarks) , , i ~ .'" . ~ , ". '"" 1 ! ' f no .::, .<. ,.,~ '"1 : NOTES: Ij' : -~; ~i , ~ ; , ! I (I' ., It, 11\ " '1\ i (I~ I ... ,,", I~ II, II :1 "t 'f I ,' I : il I' '1' a " ,I y -'I .... 1 ·t " J : ... ; .. Project/Site: Sla~NDf:R Applicant/owner: DATA FORM h',.:, ... _ .. ,,',,---.... ,. Routine Wetland Detertn'i~~ti~n (WA State Wetland Deiirieation Manual or .... , 'i987 Corps Wetland Deline::ition Manual) i~~~~~i~~;~r(s):: k.b~iscN·'· &. ~{N6- . : " ~ Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ji'th~:'site;:~igrii~'~antly distllrbed (atypic~1 situation)? @> no yes ~ yes (IllY Community ID:Wbfla, 4 cI ,z 7· F T;~;;~e~tio~ , ' , Is the area a poiential Problem Area? ' Plot ID:' tf J:I ) fI VEGETATION ..... tt :,.;. Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indicator Dominant Plant S~cie's i· Stratum I~dii:ato~ 5 1-1 t ~.. '~", • . PI;j~F/5 ~~n./lfJ:It~c..~ H H ;J IIYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: 'Z~fg~mL!baw.~;g;k];~1~~~'~~ .. ~~£~~.:~:~.: . Check all indicators that apply &.explaill belo,w: , . ; ~",Lf:{:·: :':,::~:~~~ ~~:;~\~';f~t ~;~;., :;~,: .::~.,'~ .. Regional kri6wledge' of plan~communities .. _: __ Physiologicai or reproductive adaptations ." .... ~ Technical Lit~rature fA e.!' F~Lf {"lfeiJ rA6i. .. -" 1 !, ~·.l·~~ri~:'·" ~.Lf..rt:~~.){:?;')!q} ~~V{~:!_>:::1:bi!tg:·h.d·'}~(trth1i; ; ·;~.~=~";~~lt;,r :.._ ~\1'~~~~7~J.·}·':~';~· : ; HYDROLOGY ;'P~i ''';:ii~.' .. lrF~;~~jI-i r";';~~;)'1~1t :,':.~~(..::~~t~t Is lithe growing season? Based on: (,,; Je."'c.e.. -'2~ Dept. of inundation: JlLLlinches \J Oxidized Root (Iiveroots)., Loc, .. , .... al Soi.I .. ~.,u,.~.rVey:. yeS .~ .. ,.~ .. '. C··h··"'a·"'n··n··e' I's"<: I' 2 ·I'·n··".·~'e·'s;'-· D~'~\' V '.~!,.-!.; . l~ (!1Y" . -... ~~~ -.. -. " .. ' ".,. . -; . Depth to free water in pit: ..}JLinches Depth to satU'~ated soil~ JiL inches Check aI) t~at apply & explain below: . Stream, Lake or gage data: Aeriai photo~phs: .' ..'<"" 'Other:'''''' FAC Neutral: yes & Other: ~'. , Wetland hydrology present? .. yes ~ Rationale for deClsionIRemarks: . , '. . Water-stained Leaves: P:~cliC~ .J .. (.lit( &.~cl tId vz,/J.!JL /~~ d J~ f 6d he ~'~'1.. I ( J -.~ .. yes e) SOILS -.... .-.~ Map Unit Name:-::::t~~:=5Jd±;cf~~:tJ2~b:::- (Series & Phase) Drainage C1ass :to'yLl; Fi~1d observations confu4 Yes No ~a d e? r---------'--.". '. Profile Description ;:' Depth Horizon Matrix color Monle colors . Mottle abundance Texture. concretions. Drawing of soil (inches). .:. (: '1' '. (M~Ilsell~ (Munsell size & contrast '. s~~t,u ... ' r,e. :~t~~.:.,;~~,:, :,d'" "profil~ l---;"',~' _,. __ +-,_. '.,;.." "'_' .. ,_. _" '_' .;..: ,:+~!t __ :i!;.,;..';m:,;;· ~o;.;;;is:,:<:t):-··_; _' +----:m.;;.;;.:,.oi:,;;s;,&.tt) --1-'-\-:: :_.,' _____ +-:_;.,.,., __ ' ____ '--1 ' (match d~~criptjon) , ",', ,', . ,,' . c.','" S"-t:A""·"."'··' ).7···· "/t"{)'~"VJ\.:-"., , ".'".c.,"""'.' ','I,' '. "",," ','. , , --,~~~. l'~'~; ~~~J-:~;~Jtt,;.~ ~ -. ::.~. _ -f - 'A 19,(rlJ/z. -,; I .,,' r,''!,: .13, 205 IVY' "'" ~:::i:t~ ',,'i' ,',- { '.\.', " ~. ~~ : -," .-".---~ .r-~~~~~--~--------~------~J-----~~~~~~~~~~---~--~~~-----__4 ~ydric Soil Indi~~tors: (check ~]I that apply) .~,~~, ~ .. :" t (·k 4~·;.·:') -:;.":: .~~ -~ ; :--~ ,> , ~ '; •• ~.!: "'-'~,, ; ~~~~o~o, ___ C~~c~~~P~~.,:.", ·"Ur'.~,~;;,.:i'I' " ,.", .. i."-n,': h ',"~ ~ , . ___ Histic Epipedon " ___ HIgh OrganIc Conte"nt 10 Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ___ . ~ulfidic" odor, ... _"__ __. _ brgaf!i~ ~ireaidng i~ Sandy :Soil~. ___ Aquic Moisture Regime ____ Listed on Locai'Hydrl2 Soils list" , ___ ReduCing Conditions _' __ ' Listed ort NatJonai Hydric',Soils List :, .,.;',~' ,:.;J~m~() Gleyeej'(jj-LBw~chromrcojdrSc'l.' '\"Other (ei~piilil in rertlarksj'" ': '. ,:,:'> " Wetland Determination (circle) ;.,-" yes ,.~9h; , " -';.~'-J ~. {:-5· .. ·j ,I, t; '1\ \1, ':1\ I (I' ll: t,~ II' . .,:; , 1\ \' \t :1 ,II if ,II (I \..' I 'I' ,I I ( ~' 'I 'V 'I~' I " " , ,t il t DATA FORM i.> ,: '0, •• <, '. '", .,'1 ; Routine Wetland D~t~~liiati~n' -.. (WA State Wetla~d Delineation Ma~ual or . ;,. . i987Corps Wetla~d Delineation Manual) Applicant/owner: i~~~stig~i()r(s): )c.A~;D~fzso.l . ',' &. ~)c{N;"';" Do j\j'Ornlal Circumstances exist on the site? 'ts'iil~'~ittSi~iricantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a poteritial Problem Area? . VEGETATION " .. ;'; . r . . ~ Dominant Plant 'Species '," Stratum HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: I • ;. ~ • -• • • • < ., .. ' .. ' ': ~' ! . ~: ",' ,.'.. ' !~." Y .:; . @ .. no yes ~ yes (1191 " .. " ~. ". . ".! , '-. : D~e: b/'.V~2:;·: ,.- County: rlt:!0::~,\! i .", -, i ~~~:;~:,~1o!1!,-5 );Jgt;E,' ~?,~~ity.IP.:Wel.l.(tc(_~ 7-6:- Transect ID: l Plot ID: f) ? -IFJi ' ' -V j . Indicator ,Dominant Plant S~cies Stratu~ , Iridicato~ .-..... Check all indicators that apply ~ explaiiibelow: , \~}'\;.~.' ,,1:'1 '';;'}~L" .. Regional krici'~I:i~~'~;iiir~;~i~~1n~~:~::;"I' Wetland plant list. (nat'! of~~~:~ri~f~:{~!i:i~:1i OTHER __ ' Physiologlcai or reproducHt~'adapla'H~nsL,:~ .~: Morphological adak§tio~~.:;("··":~ ····';:;~.:,~<i·:i;i~P..~ :;;'iir{f~'l Technical Literature Wetland Plant Data Base . '.,' '" . '.' . '.' ,,,,,, . .-. ' Hy~~?p.~J:~<: r,~ge~.ti?,J1 present'!, .' ,,(.§ . no,. ,.' . ~rii:,<ri~:.~i"d-leji~:~~O· ar.;~6': ' .~.~{. " I~':'~t;~ :i-';' r' I~"J "'~'·r·:;·e'··r::'.,sc~, 2y ~,. ·,fo::;, .. ·· ,',' .',",' .. ' ".". ' <5 <.a...(<.r 11---,:>L. r~ ~ ""'....,~ -.uo-v ~""" ~ ..... '-' --....... f;1e. ~v wcl/...e..v. .. ! :' ;':, r;: ! .~~;'iJ,~i!i\;'~~~.~iiifE'~'tcl~}i J HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? Based on: £V; Je,.,c.e, ii Dept. of iriundation: Depth to free water in pit: Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: AenaJ ph6tomphs: Other: Wetland hydrology present'! yes Ci9> water Marks:';· yes @ Sedirrient Deposits: yes ~Q) Drift Lines:':~· yes·· ~ Dramage Patterns:' yes (jO) Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil SurVey:: yes' & Charirieis<12 iiCiet:@· ' ';~':. '~ '~-' , FAC Neutral: yes ~ Water-stained Leaves: . ..' . yes e Other: ~1~:~:;':rnIR~:;i~~J YVD/.:Jl C<V"-f~j .J .I«h-f/"i: Drainage aass fM.';; p.v~(L Fidd observations confirm Yes No . rna d e? ..... \. Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors (inches) (MunseH' (Munsell. Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure~'etc>' ;, Drawing of soil ... ··profile' ~·'·--:~~r·-··r' . 1:;. moist): moist) 6 -j A ~-/2l f;" )by;"Jjz Q-5/'V3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) __ Histosol . __ Histic Epipedon __ Sulfidic Odor __ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Reducing Conditions ;; ',1;, Gleyed or LOw-chroma Colors Wetland Detennination (circle) Hydropbytic vegetation present? H.ydric' soils presef:lt~. ~:;:' ;, , ~ , . Wetland hydfOiOgy'ptestnt? CLe5;> no , yes., . C!l1t>c c' yes' rfu:i"5 ' . ....... -(maichd'~scription) -'.r -,.': .. '. .-,. '.' ." ;;t· ~ __ Concretions .. ' c,:: .. " ..• :.. . ., ... : . __ Iiigh'Br'gaitit' Co~terit it' Stilf~teL~y~r ofS~~dy Soils __ Organic Streaking in S<mdy' ~oils . , __ Listed on ~:J Hydridsoils List .' __ . Listed on.Nati~.nallIydric.,soils List Other (expi3.in In rem;trks)' '.."' Is the sampling point within a wetland? . yes • ~, 1 ~ • :. ~; ~ ., diS .' RationaleJReniark.S: " .'. . .; 0,,7' "~ df'lk J{"tL e~~eI<r.s ~JL , .. :;: NOTES: II. t, " \1, (1\ .... ' \1 'I' .. I( I, 1\ \/ t '.~ !!i ,II ,1\ '-.,.' I; _1 iMI " f ~II ,II " \If 'I~ I II ,I Ii )1 'C"'J !", ,I 1 II J I 1\ "".J ,t I I -.... DATA FORM 1 " , " Routine Wetland Detennination (\yA State Wetland Delineation Manual or . 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: SIR~NDtR Applicant/owner: b;~~~~i&~;~~s2: '/C.'A }J;F:.flSO./" • &. It:.( tV ';", : " ". ,I Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? " @y is th{~it~"~i~ifi~intly disturbed {:iiypicaJ' situation}? yes Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes no ~ , , .,'-' .. \ {. VEGETATION ' -~ '" . -' ;. '._!. - County: /(IN(7-"" ' , .'" ' State:.!; LN",,"',,~ " SfflR: 'S 'It!J1 ir~}Jjf.SE C~)JIlrn,unjty ID: W £' l' ta,.~cI . 27 CT Transect ID: ' Plot ID: 'oF #~(\ ~ r Dominant Plant Species ';', -.-i; 'Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator H HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATO~S: ' ~l~[~~~~~~m(;~~t:!:~~~~~ ~,f~~t~1 B:A.~; Check all indic~ior~ ~<lt ,apply~, e.xp~ai~,t;>eI<?'Y:" ' ; ~lj.·,-i'·;;~fl:·;.:~.~:~~. ,~~~i;{ji-t:-~;.~:f.~~·: i;~~.~~ ~ . '~. l~;_ i ",;cl:~.~r.'.t _ Regional knowledge of plant c9rilinunities. ~ ", .. -", i!"~\.~~~ .. ': ·1·::,.!: .: .. , ....• !,.~" .. ~. .,. Physiological or reproduCtive adaptations" "_'_ Technical Literature, ' , fACtJ _,I. ".-.":: : ... ';'. ' .. ·.f . '·i···':~: L:-;,!lJ :,.> ;-.. ' Wetland plant lis~ (n,aq or regional) ~:", OTHER Morphological adaptatioris., " " __ "'_' ",;'-, "', I',;';',"; Wetland Plant DataBase' " , .~ no, ' Hydrophync v..~getaiion present? , Rationale fot d~cisionlRemarks: \ [) 01<> ,,:r J: '6 "'" <I !.i.,t..w+ ''k\OL~<;Sfec?eJ 'to,,"€. i-IC ,~l.~~t;t~y:--~,.;~~~,;-: ""-'~'~' "r": ~ '-. ",. HYDROLOGY Is It the gr~~i~~ season? Based on: Cv; Je."""e. 1Lrr_ Dept. of inundation: Depth to free water in pit: JiLinches Depth to saturat~d soil: JJ.A inches FAC Neutral: yes ~~ Water-stained Leaves: yes~ Check all that apply & ex plain below: Other: L Of..J ~ IJ 0 "'i ~f~; -I ? () s I-/l~ h.. Stream, Lake or gage data: . I ur v ~ I' I Aerial photopll-'phs: Other: th 1~,.Js ~a..p_e. SO ILS WtXX:/.' h v//le.. 5: /I /0 a..Sh. Ma~ Unit Name-ty { ,cit, (!Of" -I Ib.'!;J., , Drainage Class 100(1., p.r~~ '-Ie.J I (Senes & Phase)" /" '"',,'" ' , " ·~.L;li~ :tiS';(\'_:{1~::,< :: -i ~·r .". ~.: " Field observations confmn ;:·"'iha" d t e? Yes No Profile Description , •. ,1 .. - i ~.... ! :""C.'.: ;".' f' ; i , , I L~. Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ""r,j;<',~i,; nu)'1. 'J,/j'i !'i"':, ~'f ~,',Yi; \" H'T" l' " " " ',,; , , 'l-list'osol' Concretions, , ,'".. ", ,j : __ Hlstic Epipedon == Hig~-9i~~~Jc'C~~te'~tin"suif~~~Tiygf"~fsa~dy Soils s'uIfidic Odor __ brg~Jcsir~lng Hi Sandr' Soiis ~;"',' " " , ==Aqiiic Mois~~e Regime ~ Listed on t:5C'aiHydric sriliSLisF:1;'<'." " Reducing Conditions __ Listed on National Hydric,Soils List _! ,~:;nurX GJeyed or Low~Chroma Colors' ,,'/,,", ,-,,' , Otlief(exblahnri'r~ma;ks)"""~"'~""" < '. \Vetlartd Determination (circle) @ .. , no NOTES: . -"'': 1 .l. .... , ., ;,; , "., . ~ :,:..../~ . , "I J . -.~ -i.; .. .. '11 \) .. Ii /,~\ , 'I' 11 'I, :1\ \0""- r, II I ' \ f --- .. II '\ t~ , .. J II ',.'¥' Ii 1,\ I , \1) .:~ ,i " \1 t, , t 11\ I )1 ,I t Ii t -./ '. II I \ , DATAF0Rl\11 : .. )-. 'f' ". "'" . Routine Wetland Deterininati~~··'·-'·· ;.'- (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or "i987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Applican~owner: I~~~~ii'~~i~~s): /(.:A~~';:;';';;;/' &. -l )e(N;" Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~-:.~ , .• ,:''1...0;,. •.• '~.:.~,i;;':·:'" .. ·;; ~ ~ '. . ...... _", ."," ... -.., • Is the siie significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ,.. .' ,,-Is the area a potential Problem Area? ,.' VEGETA TION ,,-'" : \, ' Dominant PlanPSpecies., " Stratum T s HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ' Check all indicators that apply & explain below: , " ·.i:"';!:[:-.f.:;~~}.(.' ~'_'", .. \' ,''.' .. ":" 'c,.. •• ,~.,~..: ..' ; ~, .. ;;t'f " .. -{E:.l:r";,' ~f;. f~J~~J:l': It:l~.V.)~;''}:i ~~).:; . ;~.,: z .. -~ ~ RegIOnal kriowledge of plant coinmi.mities ~ Physiological or reprOdiitHv~ adapiaiio~s' Technical Literature ,@>.1,no yes ~ yes (flW -~ l'" : . '",.:i.::. County: 1<~l{cr'( " ,:;" ,,: Stat .'~' Wit ":", ,',;, ':' ,,',-:"'" : srr~~·.iS ~;/f'~N/~ SG' 9>rprnun,ity ID: LJd'io..'1d 2.7 H Transect ID: " PlotID:' D? ~~,' '~ :" ~ \ h ~ ~ . , Indicator Dominant Plant Species ,,' StratUm Indicator' .1:,' ; ;,~, " 'fA-c]' ':-' .. " .J:; i '., .. )_(~!}iL" '.;" ~i;i tf~:/,:5 .. ) ~;<J; .. :._·;~)_;~~~~.il!..r!. :h-ud C'J.':4: ;:.'f]J~-:: iii, ' !'; <'(~;: if! . . ~''':~~; .·~t"1-"i .. :.;.~.;.i I " ,;:,,-~. .' '. ::1!; "'. Wetland plant list,(nat'l or regional) _.It__ , .<?1lIER Morphological adap§tio~tt>~5" ' __ "_". :,!".; Wetland Plant Data Base"" " , " " Hydrophytic vegetation present? Rationai~ 'fordecisiohIRemarks:'" ' ,~, no .'~ .;; 'L . ~ ~ ... ' . 'CQ~l'.!~~i.~~.'~'\'J~~·i ~A~ ~ HYDROLOGY '; ~~) ,~, l~~ ?,~ ~;.~,,\"J1J¢;(r,;J~~'::"" ~':.~:i~~.};;~i.,r:.:/ ;!~} " , . ' : .,::~,: " " :; .,,~, Is it the growirig season? Based on: Cv; jeJo1c.e ,,~ Dept. of inundation: -blL1inches ~ g~:::::~ ~~\~oo~:;~: ~~,~: ~~~I su~e~: , ye~l;~ Depth to free water in pit: .lJ.iJ-.-inc hes FAC Neutral: yes ~ Water-stained D~Plh't~ s;rtti~~t~d s~ii: Jti. inches Leaves: ~no Check all that apply & explain below: Other: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photo!tiaphs: Other: J '" I SOILS Map Unit Name {1,,:I: S"'Y<:by. Lot'< .., (Senes & Phase) , ,l < . ~r~inage class~or1~N d i' ~. .:~ .:~. ", Field observations confIrm Yes No '-",-',' .... ~.' . . . .' .' i".'~: ; rna d t e? , Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors ,Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (MunseI1 " '(Munsell size & contrast" ,',' structure, etc." " .', .: profile; "~-mois'ir: '"moist) ;,< :,; " i; "(matcli d'esdlPtion) ~~~~~e~?:. __ , ' , .; ''-'''':" .:.:-;..... .' 0-1-I\-;2.s~~}I1-~~~ 'S~~ J.':f~~~:':~"·"~:'~:" f i "; -:-i ~"" ~---r----r-~--+------;-~---------+-------~----~ f(.,.vJ 1. C; t:'!F ) O,R-iii If-hY~ ! " Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ".;.'j{ ,,',} , d<i:'i.)! •. '. i, '" ,'.,h;,!" "i' "",'y"":;,, 'Histosol -_C?m:r.e~t<;>~~'";' ;,,','.,": ,,,;i>,i",,,,,,',,,'-' ,:,C' ____ Hi~tic Epipedon __ Hig~ 9iganic Content iii Surface Layer'of Sandy Soils __ ~ulfidic.od9r , __ Organic, Streaking in Sandy Soils" ' __ Aquic Moisture Regime --.K.. Listed on Locai HydriC'Soiis List" ,Reducing Conditions __ ' Listed on National Hydric Soils List , .:5;Hj( Gieyed or Lpw~dlroriiacbiorS Other (e~pialn In'remi~fcS)' ';"':' Hydric soils present? ~' no: ' , " ' ,- ,Rationale for decisionlRemarks: ',. ,:", , 'c: " , ), ~ , ". ,'~, ,,' ,ii ' Lt>~c~,\It)lM~ M~;X Cz>t6~ G41J' ved()X~~~'';'~~\<-~ ,~~~ :~~ .. , <tfe.(..\-\y \JV\~('I\~;,,1kA·-Hn'ril.b"" l2-b'..",t.W 'be.lovJ S~\\ "..l~0:",,·, Wetland betefinina~ion'( circle) NOTES: Is the sampling point 'within a wetiand? . '.~: . \. ~ \ .., " ' . . ' .. ~~. ~ , ~ no , , .~: /". ".: ' -:'!! ~ ,If \11 I' ,j, 1\ J I J' ,,' ~: 'i, I' ,-II II ~ ./ \'J '1\ " il ')\ ", t, 1\ I I, It t " I' I ;1' "Ii ,It ,'\ , Iii .. ' ,I f t 'l\ ,I! il· I DATA FORM 1 , Routine Wetland Detennination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Applicant/owner: in~~~~i~~t~~(s):; /C. A~'~~~~ :", &." )c(;:.; 6- Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? -i~ ili~~it~'significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? VEGETATION :: @> no yes '~ yes i· Date: '/1,/0 ~,' County: IC/N ct'" State:; Wit ',' " " .. i SITIR: 'S ~o /I1-~'N/f:. 5 ~ : Col1lIliunity rrJ: lJIttlc..~ ~ '1-1 H, ,Transect ID: PlotID:' ''Dr *-~L :; ~ ..: Dominant Plant SPe~ies ' Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator .-t.-. , i" H FA<.,+ HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION IND.CATORS:"'-.. ,,-,,' :,:) '. ~~~;J~~j,~:r.tl,1.j~::~L,<:;.t,L ~;~-lt·:!.~ . ; ;:'li~tJ~i.i·/~}·.: ! ; s~2r. i~~~~ts;g~};,'(r.~SYf.~,~~ASr:2~~£~--~; Check all indicatf:>fs that apply & explain, belo~,: , --, .. :.:::., .• :.:~~.:~ ":~':~ '..:'.''':'-"-":.::-.. :~''-!~''~-~ ~--... ~,,. :-,' " .;~·;ti_·;;···,:¥h·~·;~.~!~qi.:~J.i~t~·:.(\.~f;~". !-~"'':''~ Regional knowledge of plant communities ~ Physiological or reprOdu~tJVe'~daptaH6hs: :'_:_",_ Technical Literature - Wetland plant list (nat'l o~regional)' X, , Morphological adaptations" __ ' '_' ",)" , Wetland Plant Data Base Hydrophytic vegetation present? Rationale for'decisionIRemarks: '" ~ ~(;.."1 s-o a~ .D ,.~ no .-., .. ' HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? Based on: (,,; Je..,c.e. ,,~ OrnER ,'-.. ~~ Dept. of inundation: , ..l4-linches 'V Oxidized Root (live roots) L,o,c,al Soil".Survey: "yes <§) Chiinnels <12 in. yes ~.. , Depth to free water in pit: ~inches Depth to saturated soil: ~ inches FAC Neutral: yes ~ Water-stained Leaves: yes ® Check all that apply & explain below: Other: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photographs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? yes . ® Rationale for decisionfRemarks: ~ ~o 1~tU ~ of vve-\\£>.-\t\d 'v..'(~\o~ ~v~ ~.res SOILS M(Sa~ Un&it pNharne) 10~U 3i \ry CJ1 k.~', " enes ase ' , ',' "," .r ;;;.-> ',.; ... !:<~." {' :.~~~" "~f-;':': Drain.gee!ass ~7 ~",e.J Field observations confmn Yes No Tax on om . " :.;.: i,·"; , ", ~ . rna d t e? , Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color . Mottle colors ,Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, ])ra~ing of soil I-,_~~_~ __ :~_~~~_~,s,-l __ +-' ""_'",_, '_' "_' ,_,;..:.:;+-:~.;..~_. ~..:.;'~..:.~_h-,~),-:·...,.; _' +-(M_~_. n....:.~..:.;~'-lt;'-,_-t_S_i~_·_&'-,_c_o_n_t_ras_t_· _' -t_s...,.~ru:-(: '_: c_:~~_, ~_.,e..,.~;>...;~:...,.c_,~_,,_,; ---:-_i ,,' (lria~c$~~~J~PtiOn) '\ay';~:)jL , ~> ': ~'i, I;:~""; ;:;;"",":"" ,~:.;. ._/ I'':, f: I-----+------t-------+-------+----------+----~-----~_i I "\ vrut<..\ tv ,~~ ~, .. ,,, 1.r;1~ '["'."-:';' .',' io~f ~/, .. : .. ","'-,,' ,".-' ;;;...., .... .--.' .,.. .... :.,..~ ," .' .. Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) 'Hls~osoi __ i·listie Epipedon __ SUlfi.clicpdor --C~nc~e~~o~~,'!;,'Y' t:, 'iY".;,.,",Y , ,~~{:" ... ,,";,~;", ,:';,'1';,.1,';"';' __ High Organic Content iIi Stilface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Reducing Conditions __ OrganicStreakingin Sandy SOlIs, ., . ~ List~dcir:~Cocaj Hydric Soils List· __ ' Listed onN'ational HydncSoils List, .. ,'.';' :.n..:&. Gleyed or Low-Chroma Coiors • ~:. ," ~l .:.'1;;.;-..... ·~~~:?-";.:.!·!~l,j'.~ .• !.,··< '!I" ':': ... -." ....... : ,-. Other (explaui IIi remarks) Wetland Detennination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydnc'soils present? '-;:',': . ;weti~d' ii;'dfuiogy;pffsehh o :.';'· RationaletRem'arkS': ~. ~~, :;.~ ~\1~:';~:: ;",.~ -!S~ ~ ~ . ~!.; } .. :; _ .'~ '" i _ ...... .: NOTES: @ no :~eSs .. ":f:c"~\,;:,.,",,.',':.: .:.' Is the sampling point . }' Q9J.' ~ithin a wetland? -.. '.", " -." '.!'i : r."'.' .-''''t~·· :. ya~~eJe~~ .. : -'. ; ~ ~ : .... :./: .:', . ~ , ) ~ .~. -:' '! : . welfe. Wle+ '""t ;.j. ~" .. :f~' yes . . : ~ : ~, . "':p':.-. :~ : j, l , ','I .. : ; .1, tl I' I, 1\ .. ~! j I' \11 It' \,~ I' ' .. \1) I' , , .' II, I :f " t ,II " ~ 1.1 1 .... ~. ,I; ,t 'I"" 'i t " ,Ii ;1 . ,. ~I 'fl' I ,t, I DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Deterinination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or i987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) A pplicantlowner: in~~'stig~i6r(s): /{.A~~'r::.;Sl:Jv .. &. /c'W6-'! Do Nonna] Circumstances exist on the site? ~ ',' , ·';'·.-···~~)',-.1·' 'lq, • .lli.~ - . ., IS the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a poiential Problem Area? VEGETATION '" -::; Dominant Plant Species Stratum 'T s s t!§Y yes yes .,:'i', Date: e/,,/ 0 J County: ICIN(j..~ .. , , Sttte:,,: it\Ii·C .--:-. ;' .' SITffi.;'<i.o IT;1 fI If?. 5E COmmunity ID: LJe;t1~~d :I:. .. ," .. -.. ,--.. ----. ". 1\ . Transect ID: .l. r . PlotID: 1)1' W 43 ~ \1·'" ',:~, .' Indicator pominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator ~t\CJ/J . HYDROPHYTICVEGETATION INDICATORS:" , ........ :.:,' ~ l, ... ' .. c.· .•• ~·1,-,.~.~.,_i".,~.:. .. I.·i::<.·:'J~.·lJ.· f!i. !.H>tj~·.·;i'.~·:'.:.;.i-.L-.i •.. -\ ;:.J.:~"(:l .. ~·,~!··j -'.: '0), ~ ... -.t .• . "ii! ';-"'jl": ',.'. .~~L~g~~~:lt~~~~~:.~T~!!~f~£i\qQ.I1-li Check all indicators iliat apply & explain below: . : ~.~ \~, :;~~i~~~~< .. : t. .... ~ "':J':-~:1 ;.~.;i--~ . .:"~+ . i 1-:-{ . -. . ~ Regional kri6W,~~;:b;·:ij~t'g~~U~itfJ~.' ::~>i . Wetland plant list (nat'} or r~'gio~;]) Morphological adapi:itions ., . Wetland Plant Data Base .", .. '')t':'·,;:,,·· OTIIER Physiological or reprOductiveTad~ptaii'Ons' Technical Literature Hydrophytic. vegetation present? . Ratipnale fot decisiorilReimirks:" , .• '. " no IO~ O!'~5,'~"~~""' o-"'~:'1 \6-.,\ S·~ ~ a c.r o-v ~ HYDROLOGY Is it the gro'i,hg season? Based on: (:v; J~..,c.t" ,,~ ,'-r;-' ~. ; Dept. of inundation: ...f::l.A-linches \J Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil SUrVey:'yes@ Channels < 12 in. yes ~ Depth to free water in pit: ~ inches FAC Neutral: yes e Depth to saturated soil: ~ inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photorntphs: Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decisionlRemarks: -f f'(l, LJ ~tu :0 ~Su-v-eJ ct t Other: Other: no Water-st~;:Jed Leaves: ~no SOILS , ?OOY"ly, ,'" Drainage Class tPtf\ DVn 1 ned !. ,- ~ -' .. .~ . " ' f~~ld observations confinn Yes 1id .. -.... .". .. rna d 'e? Profile Description" .. F, ' -, _'''',1 . ",' . , " L , " -.. '-7, ",:';" :,; .. :::':::C' L~ ~;};; : Hydric Soil Ind~~ators: (check all ~h~t ~pply) . ~ .;, ~.~.~. : r ~.:.~-.. :.; 0 i ~ r . ~. '-' •. -.", " .• -; -. ~ ..... : i " ,,' "}hst~sor __ C0!1 .. ~~t?~'1~~N.~":4"Wr..,:;'~i jp'i~tj>":li,,;,,;;i,iiii(~,.;;,,:J ; , __ Histi~'Epipedon __ Higti Organic Content in SilffaceLayer Of Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor, oJ'" ' OrgiuJic ,S~e~irig, inSaridy S()lj~,;/:> '.' ,r,';' __ Aquic MOIsture Regime J( Listecfi:>ri LocaI Hydric'Soils t.:i~t " ". . " -, ' --LReducirig ~o~~i.ti~ns, , " •. ," ..... ""'''''-' __ Listed c)J~ff!~i,~,~,~NY.~ri~,~O,il~,;List~:",<,"'.)'-","~ i . __ .. ,'i~ Gleyed or Lo~-Ctiroma Colors ',""" , Other (explaiii iriremarks) "',, " " ,c' " ' Wetland Determimltion'( circle) NOTES: . . ~;~.~ ... " Is the sampling point within a weti'and? i '.:' -.,~-:-' :, .. -. ~.; .. ~;. ~ ';-.~ .. -: '1 ! 1 _ ~.: '. J,-L f-;: .-ri \1. ~' I, I' \1, 1\ I,_,.J '., ~ I II' .~ ii' \il 'I' f: /1'" , \ \ '. 'II, , .. ,t :f, I, t ~' I 'I I; I I; I f ': It .> • ~-..1 II '1\ " f I I I ',1\ a, DATA FORM 1 1.;'.-: Routine Wetland Detennination . (WA Slate Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Applicant/owner: I~¢~~tig~tor(s):' /tA~~~rzS-OJ &. ;c.(~'~ ,~,' Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? i~:i.h*'sit'~ si~ificantly'disturbed (atypiCat situatiOll)? Is the area a potential Probl~m Area? ' VEGETATION'; I Dominant PI ani Species Stratum , tS"t.JL>hlJ~A.. yv\e,\'\~tc::,;' T HYDROPHYTI C VEGETA nON INDICATORS: ' Check all indicators that apply & explain below: , ;.,:~:_~: :.<!-ro',.-.. ",. ~ '.:. f:-.. ' -' -. ~;;;~~. ~. ,::~;,.., :"··:':':~~~~~"'i; .• :<)·:·{."f~~·~.~ ',1 :~"" f' ',.,: .. '.;I Regional knowledge of plant communities, Physiological or reproducti've'adaptations' Technical Literature . ,'i: :,'f County: KIN. (j-;. ;:i:"'~:'-!_ ";.' .~' State::>: wtf, ';' ,~,i,: i' SfflR:'<; ~O/123NlI?.5E.·' Indicator Dominant Plant SPecies· ,.j Stratum Indicator f f'IC-U' I: .~ . .... -, __ .].it~~.~~.~!;Ht{:~~·J,·:;,..:.·;~r\, ~';-:;;' ·~~.)~i~.H~ : i ; ;-~'; , -i -' ~ i '.:' . ",. ~:; ~ -'. '.; • .': t" ;. ".' " . :~;-:- • : !."!~ L.;:;P~; ;:~: :.1;11 ~ ~~,; j .;:1 ...... ,._ . Wetland plant list (nat'.l0r regional) X, .:.. OTHER Morphologicalarlapfiiiions' ',i __ ' -':";'l. ;i(1'.C?,.in~ "'.il;; Wetland Plant DatifBase , '-"c.';'c,j.- ... : ::' " Hydrophytic veg~lation present? Rationale for ciedsiorilRerilarkS: ye Y(e..>1~ 0 t Jo",,~.,~t Sl-0es +~ -0'~~, t .A(..ov~c,~?~.s l'\o-\: ()c.<l.-J~'f 50% -, '. '. ,:~: ::.,t:':_~,J..:, .. i;::';;~~~.J,;~;!,~E~;~~.~T HYDROLOGY ",.'. j Is ii-the growing season? Based on: [,,;de"'lc.e "S; .'&--: :no I-W_ci_te;.,;;f..,:;M=ark=s;,..: _-L::.. yles=--....ltmli;,;l-_~Se:..:d;.;,;im=en~t-=D:....:e~·iX>· ..;.;!s;,::.it;,::.s.:...:J..;:.;. 'J.Ies;,..' _-=~~ fe..c P ",t-~i;;J;;.t-~~J+i, Drift Lines::':, yes 'i3i Drairia~e Patterns: yes @ Dept. of inundation: ~\inches '-.J Oxidized Root (Jive roots) L~,al Soil Survey: yes l!9 Channels <12 in. yes' t@ , ' , ... ,,' Depth to free water in pit: ~inches Dt;pth to saiu~ated soii: ..JM.. inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photo!mlphs: Other: FAC Neutral: yes-~ Other: Water-stained Leaves: 'yes ~ SOILS ?Vj~f );({.7C17l0~"h Map Unit Name tv W ~ 6t:;) $; It l(){j wI ',' (Series & Phase) '," ,:: ," , • c c',! to. ~~" ~ .. ; : .~"'.-: i.~ >_' i.; ... ~; '. \: ,': Profile Description Field observations confinn Yes No. ;-1," d e? Depth Ho.rizo.n Matrix co.lo.r Mo.nle co.lo.rs Mo.Ule abundance Texture. co.ncretio.ns. Drawing of soil (Munsell' (tviu!:lsell size & co.ntrast . structure. etc; '" .,' ',' i';profil~' . \-._. ,._ .. _"'_ .. ;"... -+ ___ ...:.....j:.....·~...:..:::....T::.:.m:.:o..:.:is;,;,t)~·~ _. -t---' ....;m..:..:.:..o.i:..:;s::£,t)_"":'7"'t-_-'--____ -+_·:··_i.-:' ,,_,,-:<_ .. _'j _. :--...,."'-:-'/_" ---i :'(match descriptio.n) i" _" ~~'5:iJ7IO~wI ,,',:: (inches) . o-~ A f3, " i ,; •..•. ~ • ~j.,t )Q...,Jt 'DIt."'1"·': ,., ".:': _. :; :." .~ ,.. 'I' j ;. .,"" ' Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) __ Histo.so.l _'_' Concr~tio.ns "', . ' . .. ; ,,~".. . ",., "_ '" , " '.' 0;-HighOrg.mi2C()~tent iii suri~tb 'i:~y~t;;f S~nd~ So.ils __ Histic Epipedo.n __ . _ SulfidiCQdo.r __ Aquic Mo.isture Regime __ Reducing Co.nditio.ns .. '.'1';::;', Gleyed'or Low-Chroma Coiors __ Organic Streaking in Sandy So.ils, :. '". -.2S-Listed on Loc:il Hydric Soils Usl'" ,,' __ . Listed o.n Natio.nal Hydric.So.ils List . Other (explain iii remru-ks)' . . Hydric soils present? ' yes '" CiiD>'~" .. '" '" Ratio.nale fo.r decisio.nlRemarks: . . .' ,;' "':'i '. ;"'i;'~/ LOirJ t'r\u.+ri}C. ~~VI"O--"""" J re.J<>Il1~"'" f ~ <--t.;i.~ : ~i~! t\b r~ t..o·';"" l'i-If; 1~~f.S b.e\.~ ~>p",r-~Il""~ c.0 . Wetland Detennination (circle) :.;"; ;:-," ,.:·r· Hydrophytic vegetatio.n present? Hydric'soils present? :~;: .Wetlahd hydroioiYp~se-rii? .,'c~~ yes yes yes Is the sampling point within a wetiai1d? RationaleIRemarks:'" , i ~J~~l :f~ t \~~ r~~:;-!w;i' ~t!;+. ",!-. . ." --, . ", NOTES: ':, ~ ~ , .. ',' '.' 'i ; . .; ':.".. ~ ,I • iI' I I' \1, t I; \ " t ,I II t \1, I I, 'i' i 'I' , ·11 ,tl 1 I'" , , " II" \ J 'I ,I; ,I 11\ II, 1\ ,Ii "I" I; '" ,II '" I DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or " ': 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) ProjecuSi~e: SI~~NDeR ,BouU£.vllrdFExT£tJs/at! Date: '!I\/~ 5' ApplicaIJuowner: County: KIN G-~' " '," " State:' 11" ' ,;'" , " " i srrlR:s~o 11' 23N 1~5""£ Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? is'ili~~We:'~ik'nificantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? VEGETATION ,~ @Y no yes ~ yes ~ ~ . ~.. - Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S~des s H ,! " U .... \it.r-dio\c-Ol--r\ ~p..c...t HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: "",,' Check all indicators tliaiapply ,&explain below: , -, : .. '"-" ~ . , Stratum Indicator \-\-" NL ;\J ". : ..... . :~.: :';~!~~-V·~:~~: .... :~i;,,: :"::t;.:~-·;.: <. !L' , ... _~-!:;.:':'~ Regional knowJ~db~of pl!int;~o~Ghiti~s : ~ Wetland plant lis~ (nafl.or ~~i~~~)'E ,'; , OTHER Physiological or reprodticiiv'h aci~ptatioris' '_'_', _"'_ Morphological aci~pta'trons " Technical Literature Wetland Plant DataBase' Hydrophytic vege~tion present? ~ no Rationale for decisionlRemarks· , ' ,', ' Gnc..-\Ilv \"-"c..", -501. ~t. Jl>v>'\;~~:~_"r~c:---"'-\-S'r~~~,,/~-:c-e.. tA,~, 0" \rlC2;\kw-:- . ., .. ' HYDROLOGY ',' Is it the growing season? Based 'On: (ve"' Jen('e, D~ Dept. of inundation: -lllA-linches ~ Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey:' yes' ® Channels <12 in. yes @ Depth to free water in pit: .!iA-inches FAC Neutral: yes ~ Depth to saturated soii: ~ inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other: Stream. Lake or gage data: Aerial photo!rraphs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? yes ® Rationale for decisionIRemarks: ('Iv ',,,,MlA-h<s e\ we.-\"\c...v-d k7dl<f)\Oj/ af~ i>{'C!S"~+. Water-stained Leaves: yes §) SOILS Map Unit Name {1l')U $il~l cla.llba.~::::. Drainage Class 10D' d" , l>D!.1.,.e. d • '., ,'. '.',,;-,; '.".j'" { (Series & Phase) . ,,':,.~~ . -~.~ r. '-; ,.. '; t ~ : . -. Field observations confmn Yes No . ,.j . _ ; ~ I '. i -: ,.-... -........ , ... ,. ··m"'a'."· d' ,,:c"e' ? ." ; ~',. "'.i ," .¥':: •... -. Profile Descri pliOD" i Depth Horizon Matrix color Monle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil Q~~~;S.t ;~,. (MuDseIC: . (Munsell size & contrast '. structure, etc.' :,;", ..,; • p'i:ofile : ,' .• .1" ~L~~~oist) 1 ' moist) <,,'w ,.,i\',,, ','~,·~;,';'C ;6natcti'db~'ciiption) 1--~-'-'--+-'-'---':--':'~4"':' . .:....~=.::1., .~. -f-....:.;.:=~-4-----:-:-----:-~~. ,,-. ~,-. -,----;-~--I 'c',' ,.". ';", ! . 1 !-l.f-Y;::'~~·!:.:.·4 : ID1~:3Ii . r; ~ 1 <.,: "!'- ; . .... :.~~, {. ".,'. '." .; 0 ,L f' I .. Lj :":.-', .. Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) . , Histosol __ C~~~r~~~9s;i,,:i;' ,),),d;}i ;ce, ~"."';,. '''''i'i"i",H:t,; ;.l;:.<r l __ Histic Epipedon . __ High OrgarllcCoritent in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Sulfidic Odor,., . _._ O~!?~J;~~!~~~~ngO(~,~~~t~p,~I~ ,;",.:" ' \ __ Aquic Moisture Regime -f.-LIsted on Local Hydnc SoIls LIst __ Reciuc~ngConditions ,... ,', __ . Lis~ed on,Na!ionalHyciric.Soils List",.", . )};tU',f:' Gleyerl or Low~Chrom~ Color~! f';'~·t\".·;· . Other(e~pia1;}'in remru-lcs) : -.. ~:t~;:~o~~r~:~:~~~markS:Yes' .CPi~i~~~:~;L'!.:W"" . <.'_ < :>. ',,> •. !~~:~i:·:>~ ",','< LOIN C~~<MA. S"~~! Ma--\r;.;~,_~Cb\.~J'_ ;;-~,~ .. ~~d~:~;~~,~f.~i<;-k~4:,~.s. k~~~ ',~<. . 501\ p~\~ ~LJI\t< 'j)r~'~j ~il ~~(!~\n' f'~~e~+. ' , .. . "'j. 'Vetland Determination (circle) NOTES: .' . .:" yes,G, .:: ' ) ". ,: ';.', ." , . , J • " I,· I' \1 I' -' .. -1 j' \1, (1\ \1 .. I': \1, ;1' ii, 'i' II, '1: ,I ·11 , '1' \j \1 'f :11 '1\ "'1' ,f " 'I ~ -;-.-. : ~ ; ": ',~ , 'I "I ,t /" ,I I i 'I' ,./ I, A pplicantlowner: I~Ves~igat~r(s): • fc.'ANDd.~CJJ DATA FORM 1" , , " Routine Wetland Determination' (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or ; 1987 Corp~ Wetland Delineation Manual) :.< .. ~:; . · .. ·:·.:';.:~~·l:. ':.., .~:""",:'. '-"", , 6: '~{N6-" ,,: J,.; :. Do Nomial Circumstances exist on the site? i~'ili~'sit~·~i~lfit.mtiY disturbed (atypic~l situation)? Is tlie area a potential Problem Area?, ' C()~~ity Ji,>: W~l'c..141~ T Transect ID:, '~"l'" Plot ID: 1)f ~ ~b ! VEGETATION .. "n"" Dominant Plant Species : Stratum ' , ;Iridi~at6r 'Dominant Plant Species Stratum , , i ,,·"F Ac..' '.,' I " t;.OI.\c)I.. \O\S\;~y#- ~' ... ,~ .. Lorhvs ~£~ic:o('''- : : , , HYDROPHYTICVEGETATION INDICATORS:) ; ~ . .';-..; ",-" ~ !. ~ ;;A;,!~'~~;";"'" % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC::" fO (Jo/~. :. f~(~~~<:J {) l~ i:~~}i~~~l.:r:~1f-V~.~~4 .~~~-~~;.~ .~~:l:;·~~'~f~ 7+~~~f.: .. -~'~:. : ~~--.. ' ~~. '., j. .'-' ;. i Indicator -"':,- Check all indic<lto~th~(aPJ>!y~eip~ai~~]~~:'..; ;;'<li"l"'/;;~;':i':" _"', Regional knOit~J1~ii1~1~~~J~t~~:'i.;;t~:: Wetland plant list (naf] o;i~~~~~~j) 0 X,;L",; -OTHER __ Phy.sio,]o";c, al or",reprodu~tivtrad~p' iiiibhs' :/ ,',:." Morphological adap'-tati~ns,",'~·,'-.,;,,:' ':' , ' .. ',:, .. ,', :, ,:" '-; I:r" , -'-' ,-_~~:':'~;..1 fi.~~~,;.:.z.,)'t-.t\L~~; Technical Uteritture Wetland Plant DataBase H ' , '\"\ Depth to free water in pit: -UA-inches FAC Neutral: yes ~ Water-stained Leaves: Depth to saruratedsoii: tJI'1r inches Check aJl that apply & explain below: Other: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aeriai photornphs: Other: SOILS Map. Unit Name rll~t <;)\.\1 d'1 'D'f-~ (Senes & Phase) , ," " Field observations confIrm Yes No "rna" d" e? Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors ,Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Dra.wing of soil (i~c~5?s) , (Murisell (Munsell size & contrast structure~ etc~' ,', " ,: ~ profile, ' I---~r-'.:...' .:..." '_' '_' _f-:_;';_::'.:.,:m.:.,:o::;is:,::t)t--·' _' +---=.m:;,;o:,:i.::.:st:!,.) _-+_...:...:..' '-----1--. ,'_;i_;t_:,_,"_,' '_;'_' " ___ '_' '-1' .. (rr;atcndescrlption) ~ -: 0-2, '< ~ -• '&', ; , ~_""'c>" t.;~.\ i ';'d' ,,",~Ji)l"'" Silt lo~ .... ; " :-.<:'," '-' .. Hydric Soil In~icators: (check all that apply) , , " .. '," " ; . " ' :,' : __ Histosol __ Con.cr~pons:: :,'..'ji ";:;~~/',+:\i,,;';":-'}"""~"~ __ Histic Epipedon __ HigJlOrganic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Sulfidic Odor __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils " __ Aquic Moisture Regime ~ Listed 0,1 iliCilj Hydri~' Soiis List __ Reducing Conditions __ ' Listed on National Hydric,Soils List, ~ ; " . ' ' '~Gleyed or Low-chroma Colors' oth~r(expl.ti~'in· remarks) , . ,".i" ' Hydric soils present? " ~' , rio', ,,', " , . .' ... ; ;,i'::;;:; f°;j~~:"':fmfk~,:t h j;41~.~~tJ:~;";;~f~; Lft~~ p r~ fekf~ ';:tar ki ~~ ~t. A ho.vi't.c>h. (2.~ I, ~e-I.:> ..... .)0\\ s".r~ Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? 8 no HydIi~s()il~ Present? c, '1' j ,::eses~' \:~' nn' ° 0 , , ,wetland hydrology ~reseni? ' 1 J RationaleIRemarks: '-./ 'All' 4~~~fa'~~efeY5 t,J~Y~ ~eA. NOTES: , ,Is the sampling point within a wetland? , . ~~ I -:. ," ~ ," , :. no >',' ", .: I I -' Ii fl' II, la- I, , II \1 -' \1, ii' 'I" I' I 'I' ... ,.- I 'I ,I l' ,I /1; 'I 'II ;·11 , 1 .. : . . J 'II : i ,II 'I' t. I ,I 'I ,Ii ,~ .Ii 'I' I Project/Site: SiRl\ND£:-R Applicant/owner: DATA FORM 1-'" Routine Wetland Det~rJiiin'ati~~ .- (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Bo'U~V/rrU>':'Ex:rrN"SI{) tJ -.-,,_.', ,;" ,;,:;-.<,-~!" Date: 'Itt /o5-~-- County: !fiN, 6.:_i":'::' •. ~-;:\::"";':' State· '.'" wit·;,'·, "",1'-:-:: SrrtR:"'3 2.' S / T 1 ~ rJ It ,,' t:. Do Nonna! Circumstances exist on 'the site? is'ili~"~'it~.'~i1inlficantlydisturbed (aiypic~' situation)? Is the area a IlQtential Problem Area? VEGETATION,' "j, :"' ..... . . , :' ;. :""'.;;:",. ,,-.' j , Indicator D~minant Plant SPecies Stratum Iridicatot ' Dominant Plant ~.cjes _ Stratum \. HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: Check all indicatorstljalapplY &.e;q~lai~ beIo~: : . Regional krid~I:J~~!:~i;~~f~~~iidi~~'>;i"~-:- Physiological or reprciduiHv~-adapt~tio~s' _-.-_ Technical Literature Hydrophytic vegetation present?l . yes Rationale for decisionIRemarks:"'::! ~! ':' .. . -'': ; . . ' ! , -, - \ ~,~ .. _~~ i'~~ i ';/1 :~. ~ ~..;':'~ ~t;-,:!*._i.~d:. ,.:. t"~-iJ~ttl~J~~;~ ;. liil/:~' }(:i~ttt~~:' ~ .. ~:¢:~~{~:i-I~~ j f :{:;"" '.'~f:¥(};';;i~ii" -)_'·;'f:'~,;W;:;·:..i Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) ~, OTIIER Morphological aciapt1tib~s _" .~ - Wetland Plant Data Base ' .. , .... -... ':,-.:.', .:"1.; .. o V\\, '?> ~ ·/~_ b~ dD'M\Y\C-" 4 . ~ \0..,,\ ~ ~~ec(es ., .' '~-"~ . . ,L~:i~::-:#<!l;LL} HYDROLOGY Is it.t1-growing season? Based on: (.,;Je""c.e. Q.~ Dept. of inundation: Depth to free water in pit: -rlli-inches i5~pth t(rsaturat~d soil: ~ inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photo!rraphs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? yes ~ Drift Lines: . -' yes @ Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels<12 in. yes@';'; FAC Neutral: yes tj Other: Rationale for decisionlRemarks: ]:V\d.1 L<>t.-t-nr ".c vJ{"~\~,,J "'-yJ'''{)\D':::>Y \Q('k1VJ:J G."t d,,-~ rIot Ib(~*io~-. Local Soil ~~ivey: yes ~ .. . -~ -_ .... :' z· l Water-stained Leaves: ; yes 6Q) SOILS Map Unit Nam.1vy t siH1 cJa1Io"-",, (Series & Phase) , . ".", .. ' -,-:'. .-.-,;','.: " Drainage Class '\->oorll.I d@~"e d I 7 9 '-,. ': Fjeld observations confirm Yes No ,',,! rna d t Profile Description· Depth Horizon Matrix color Monle colors . Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (Munsen .' . (Munsell size & contrast structure, etc~ ,; :"", '.~ :/"profile: ";-.-' "'i·;!.~;~:moistY~', m~ist) ,;{;..; .. , .' ,',,, :' (ma'td(descrlption) I--....:---=~-..:.--"-'-t-;..;.:,:~'-"---t--;;.;,;..:~~-+--------+---.------.---~ :.i', ... '" ,",., ;,:': ;, i (inches) 'i-. . .~":~.(.3. ~ ': ,,~~, .• ~ ;-; 'J, h':·· 10 iF-3/> ~ . c. ."'" k.:> '" y...~.L.'\J"'" ~ "ti~c.r " -/,', "; . ~ -.' ": .. ' " :i ,; . _~_.:' t ' .. , i' " ~ , '.:.-' •• "1-.. !. ' Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histoso) --C~r!;r~,~op.s,.,/ :.,~;,,, ;' i,'·,:;;ii};";,.,;.,,,:);;>,\, ~ ..• c:1 . __ Histic Epipedon __ HIgh Orgrullc Content III Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ ~u.ifJdic Odoc.... __ Org~icStreakirig in Sandy' Soils" __ Aquic Moisture Regime ~ Listed t>ril:bCai Hydri2 Soils list"" ;.: .. ;. __ Reducing Conditions __ . Listed on National Hydric Soils List ~; .• ; r: ;',: ' . G)e~ed or Low-Chroma CoiorS .; Other (exj;jainlnrefl.i~ks)' ',;', -.' ,':' Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? .. lIy~p~.,~~H!.er.~~~~~Jif;;';~>~; ·Wetland hydrology present? " RanonaletRemarkS':,"-,'.' . 'tJ:;'n e.. ,."" ~;Co:' .~\;~ i ,.~~ t.,t NOTES: ...... '.,-: '"", Is the sampling point within a wetiand? . tc:t.Irtt.."\.1ek."s~l.,.;u ~ Wle...t . : ',:_:J,.!., • :: 1-~ •• ,; yes '.' G9 i.,.,."" ,. '·:L~.I; ", ~ :-' . . ' . -:~'., ,.' .' ,I I. I' I I, t, \1 I' ,I , II II, t, \1, I' \1/ I :1 'I I, I ,II , '1\ II 'J\ ,1 "'I If ,I, " t, .i , DATA-FORM 1 , . Routine Wetland Deterinination (WA Sbte Wetland Delineation Manual or '}987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: SIl<~IJDeR Boin.c:V;Jrtb'L EXT£IJCSJo,J;':' , Date: ,/,'/fJ3 A pplicantlowner: In'v~sti~aio~~): fc.A~~'~rz.re';· &. '~(NCr Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ." irth~' sht~ignifi~antly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is die area a potential Problem Area? VEGETATION .. ~'I:> -.. f· {'> E •. ·.;;-'~·.t.: ... i Dominant Plant'Species . Stratum T \ '" ... "'~ . <;~ \~ ~ S"\"c.L,~ns'~ s " S"v \Se.:W~:&\""V~II\c;\1. \-\- HYDROPHYTIC VEG:i!:TATION INDICATORS: ( . . ~"f~·~g.~.~;J1~s:8J.tk~,~~5:;;:~t~,,~1~&,:Jf8?%,ri ;. Hydrophytic vegetation present? Rationale for decisionlRemarks: (~ Indicator no . J CountY:KIN~: :,. ' ~~~;'. ~~5 /Tt3f1/ j..'t & " ... : :: . CO~llflit)' ID:(,le.-t:~~JR. .. : Transect ID: piot ID: nP {F 4S ~::--- Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator _t:o '~'~~"'~-lt;,~:;~i1,~'{~ , ,.: .. i").rj·~·.;t :.~)~~ ;':;';'ii<~;p~1:;,!?!.'\',;'b f : ." :.:~ .. ~":-{" .. , l~' ',. OTHER __ !DO ~/, ..f ~~"'-~"'t ?l"'-\tr 5~e~tS o... .. ~ f,,(. ...... W·ctt{..v:- HYDROLOGY Is it the gro~ing' season? Based on:;:-;;c"Je.i-tc.e ,,~ Dept. of inundation: . ::·-:i -', 7 • ~': -.,' < Depth tofree water in pit: -·~-·~·_~;~-\L:f,~.. 7} .' tv ~ I~nche~ ~; ,":,:'>< tH:~~~j~ ~fi\~IG;!r)~'.·.. .;~al Soil s.,~~e~: . Y~s,'~ .l!:!.h.-inches ..... . FACN,:eutral: yes:-.' no , .. ,. ... ' Water-stained teites:....'··· Deptli to saturated soil: , : ~ Inches .. ". ' .. ' ';: .. yes © SOILS Map Unit Name ! u~e.\ S\\47 Cl ... y l.? a.~ (Series & Phase) . ':: ... , . . : .:' ! ~. .. .'; . '-'r ': ..... : . . Profile Description '. Drainage Class fOOY \v dy""t~;"tJ ; 7· Field observations confinn Yes No ,.<1 rna . d e? Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors . Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (iIl~~~s.) '~, : ',': (MunselL (Munsell size & contrast· structure, etc.'" .., .:' pr~fiI~, I----'-.....:..-j~--'-~+_' '_', ..;;.:m~o:.;;.is;;;.:t~)·· -+_....:m.:.:.o=.;i=.;st)~_+-_ .. ·_· ' _____ +-... _ ... _,, __ ,_ ... __ .. _.,,_ .. '_',.----1' ,(match descnption) .: .. ; .. -r:,:! .. ..:.~:' ,;.; ;.:P>T ",.,,>,.: -; 0-<0 A ; '6-\b ~, \0 y(c,J/1 \0 YP-'t l' i~~:':: ~~\J~ ., j', I .,. ,', " ., ~.: . !: ~"~"" i Hydric Soil Ind.icat~rs: (check all that apply) Histosol __ Histic Epipedon Sulfidic odor, , __ Aquic Moisture Regime ~ Reducing Conditions. . ' .. . :::~ Gleyerl or Low-Chroma Colors '.'j Hydric soils present? -.~ no' .. ""~!~" Rationale for decisionlRemarks:' .. ,. to:. ~<.' .r'::'· . • ., l-' ' •. -• ;' ~.; I 1 .!.. # •• ~; , ~" ..,.-',; > --~~n~r~~9I!s.'h:' i' .. ':~', \';,,'" ; i;~, ;<";,:oi:;t""~:' 'i;",':1 : . __ High Organic Content in Suiface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in SandY,S9ils" , "+ Lisi(;d o~ t&3:1 HydngSoiisU;r' , __ . Listed on~l:'ltionalJlydric.Soils r..ist,; Other (expiahl in remarks) ,'. . . .' ., -.;, ;~; . ;.- !f~.~~nale!R.!!Jt~,~~7,I!/l.1-~~~;Y ~.~i fifJ t..JU<' m e.. +~ , . " ,.' '.. . Hychltl!J(,.,'~.1~;~~r..r:.;~~~i~'~~u~~: ~e.k. J b~r ~,t~ I~ fA~f. o~~'n:'fjc..-hoL, (JIJreo... VJhl,:.e: ~ ~J..'I1., CJL~VI"" cj yYt tJ4..7 J"es..w... c..rto..1t J C!A ;c-v ....... s~ C-«J whert- .jJ I I' '1/ 'I \1 I ,I .' (1\ ,I 'I ,I, I' \1 , \1, 't t 'II ,a I II'" \ . j: :1 I .,1 ., 'I' ,a 'J' ,I 'f.,-. Project/Site: SI~NDf:R Applicant/owner: DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Deh~rlnination (W ~ State Wetland Delineation Manual .or '1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) in~e'stigit~r(s): /(AN;~~c.J 6: }c.("';;"" Do Ncrmal Circumstances exist .on the site? '··'r""' '': i . :,:' ~-,r'", 'r! " -, . . Is ihftsiie significantly disturbed (atypical situaticn)? C~~~ity ~:~~~d. ~. Transect ID: ; . @i> nc .. , (~ is the area a poi~ntial Prcblem Area? .'. VEGETATION" j ,~ ... " Deminant Plant Species , Ph '~v ~ f\7.... -\-£.~e. , 0 r SiUIM ~ o...~v~",")e.. Stratum T Plet ID: Dr -¥r-~'" yes yes ; .:. ~. ~ ~ . \1,· "," "!.t:." .,' Indicatcr Dominant Plant Species; Stratum Indicator ,,: j FAL ;-,., :;::.: Ff\t.V I="AW t HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ' ~~:;'l~~'~:~J~tJ~ lt~Ji~-~iJ~l!·oi.··ll ; ;:;~,)~i'il ' Check all indicai()fs iliai'apply & explain bel .ow: : . u,';;:.,j~,;;·,:;·'.',~;:~::,: ;,~ ;\;:i;~;:'; .2~; ~', '::: ~"ii Regicnal knowledge .of p!ari~ coinIJi~mue.s ' Physiclegical .or reprOdiidl~~ad~pi~tiOlis' Technical Literature Hydr.ophytic vegetation present? Raticnale fcr decisic~emiU-ks:' yes .~ f!! ... i~,JffiL~i\,.') .. Wetland plant list (nat'lcrregienal) Merphclcgical adaptatJolli ' ' .' . Wetland pi ant Data'B~se .') Le..55 t ~Cl."'-SO 1D ... 'f J l>,,",~~"-{-<> f 12 c.( e. ~ o-. ..... -e., ,'''-'-,', OTHER . ,-I'" . -, .'"-~ ,;"~ ',: : i • >: -," -'~.~ ~ ''':.>' !t~,.l~ .. :('~r.~:',~~ ·~·:~:~·~;1;-:.~j . :l .' HYDROLOGY Is It, the grewing seasen? B~~d en: (v; den c.e'_ "F Dept . .of inundaticn: Depth te free water in pit: -&inches Depth to sarurated scil: ~ inches Check all that apply & explain bel .ow: Stream. Lake .or gage data: Aerial phete!mlphs: Other: Water Marks: t, yes !iO> Drift Liries:s .. yes ~ Oxidized Root (Jive roots)' Channeis <12 in. yeS.: ~',:, FAC Neutral: yes ~ Other: Wetland hydrology present? yes ~ Ratienale fer decisicnlRemarks: 4~'(..'""-lr:-.5 .£ V·e\-\4.,,,,.!. '-t yd."i>tOj7 ~~ l.\.' l\f>J \0 e.C<.fu'l\ . I Sediment Deposits: yes ~ Local Seil SurVey:'yes @ _ .. _,'~', "i" . ',' , f~~ , ~ Water-stained Leaves:· ·yes~ SOIlS Map Unit Name \>" 'jd 5;\\7 c\~-f I"",,;. (Series & Phase) , ./. , .'" .. 1:"", ':i . Drainage Class Field observations confirm Yes rna d e? Profile Description Matrix color . Mottle colors . Mottle abundance Texture. concretions. Drawing of soil (Munsen (Munsell size & contrast structure. etc. ." profiie Depth Horizon ". -1.) ".! ';,'moist), moist) ; ,;L~:", "'." "' .... ·'f.' ,;'(~alchde~diption) I--'---I---'---t----';,:.;,;,;.;;..~;;.:;,: ,~. ;'---+-..:.:.:.;:;.:=."'----t---------lf----------i. :,~\!" ". ; .".'" • (in~~'~s), D-S Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol __ Histic Epipedon __ Sulfidic Odor _. _ Aquic Moisture Regime __ ReduCing Conditions '" . .. ' " ;. " i " '. Gleyed or Low:'Chroma Colors • < . ~ ,.' . Hydric soils present? yes . (n'?l , Rationale for decisionlRemarks: ",~. , .;." Wetland Determination (circle) yes (OM""'" Ji"sn'nt.A- ~~'Wu."" 2f)"')'\~ -faA" t 'c-o~y.Je. .... • .,.-j:. -' .: '". '.' ~ ;:.~ l,-" • ~ ~ ..:.; ~ . ,'J. _ . > -.-,'~:.--• --<:.?p,~r~tions,.lt, .. < ·,fi!~;i;':'.:' ;f,','.;"";';'<;c",:.,.":>'·. +,:; , __ HIgh Organic Content in Stiiface Layer of Sandy Soils __ ._ Organic Streaking iii Sandy Soil~ . ~ Listed oirtocai Hydric Soils List __ . Listed onNational Hydric.SoilsList . '. :" Other (ex pihlri ; Hi' reriia~kS) '," . f··.· , '. Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hyw;c' ~~H~ pr,~~~J,!t;~~~",r , Wetland fiyiliol(jgj 'present? yes, d'. riQ J'':: yes no ,." Is the sampling point within a weti'iiiid? yes .. ,,~· .. RatioriaieIRemarkS: ., . No~~ '~f +be.~f"~ io-~'+1efdS ~Y'4l. me..+. ".:,-. .: .... )'. '.: .' .', . .-r NOTES: .:: , ' I, I, I I, )' ,I " ,I \. " ,I I ,I 'I' I: II I,; ,I, t: .I. ,II 'I :1 II ~ .- f I ,I " • ' I, I: I 'I' I I I I I DATA FORM 1 , '" : (,' Routine Wetland DetenniiJation (WA Slate Wetland Delineation Manual or • ,,', 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Applicant/owner: 'Iri~~~t'i~ai~r(s): ·1{.A;;~ctlsOJ' ,', 't ; }c.(;J 6-" ,.; " '\"'; D.0N.~~~.prcumstances exist on the site? ®V k'the"sile'sigi,ificantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes is the area a poib:niial Problem Area?·; .:'.' yes' VEGETATION .. " ., -'7·- • ,no . ',. ~ ,-" ,-.! , i; Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator l-+ ; .. " HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: .. ~ ; Check all indicato!'5 tJiatapply & exp.lain bel()~: , , ,,' ~.,~~ :L:~~~IT{:~:,,::'~i~~~!,~~kt;;~L ;::':,: ~,.~ Regional knowledge' ofplruifcommiJilities'" ' Physioiogical c;>r.reprodu~tlve adaptations" Technical iite~aiure 3 d .. ~~_~ .. ~ fi~ ·:?~tt~·~~~~~i.t-~i~~i <'i?';-!:;\f}J ~~l': r ()~·~j·t;;;Jr-;_ . :' 1 ,. I -. ~ ~ ; Wetland plant list (n~n 9.~;~'~i~~~h'«:;<·.·, OTHER Morphological adaptations ;;.~>". .' ~';'~l':J" i .. ",hb'i;'(') Wetland Plant DataBase :,"" H}rdi-op~ytic,vegetati~n present? @. no iUtiohale for d~cisioritRemMk~:' , . ,. . :~ f;i r"' :'< .. ,.~.: :' ,,' ~ c) 0°/4 .~ J4>~~""''' t n~Q.s ~ (' t;.tc. ~ t-J<.~..-. .-" ~ .,""" .. ,-' HYDROLOGY Is it the gro'Yirig-season? Based on: (v~Jen~~ ".v Dept. of inundation: Depth to free water in pit: .J!1r..inches Depth io saturated soii: ' . ~ incli~s Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photographs: Other: . ; {-t~} *t<·-~.£s.i!i:l!f:! J~:t,·,:.:·,:,~.ti,~t~ J:{ { Water Marks: ~. yes (nO) Sediment Deposits:"'yes (to\ Drift Lines: ".i"<J ves., fuO) Drainage Patterns: (ye) no Ox!1,ifed R?9t. (Ii~oo~i,_, ., L"ocal ,~O~I<:U,"~,' JY:"Y~@) Channels <12 10, te~ no<, ''-' ';",'" .-.J ")" r, FAC Neutral: yes <i@) Water-stained Leaves:---yes ~ Other: '-:, ~: . Wetland hydrol~1?' present? . W ,no Rationale for deClSlOnlRemarks: ~ ~ I 2; u.. J ~ "" I -w > ( \~ SOILS Map Unit Name (Series & Phase) Nw~tvj c;~\\ \I'\.W)' -'- Profile Description '::T.:,'";' , '-t' ; I ._ J~ . <"', t,-t, c:-, •• -:".':' ,'2 . tl ,0 : ~ ... Drainage Class Vt,I\ J""';t)tl Field observations con finn Yes . ·m:'~C-'.:· "(j .:~ ~ 'e?" . ~:'\ .. ""'.. ,·~I.·;!''' Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) - -H-lsioko~ __ c.~~~r,~t!~ns'i.:'~F'.<\ ':/'Ij.';:;? ,i ;tlf?'!!;-r:i~;;flE:'i~~';;~ A ' __ HiSlit Epipedon __ High" Organic'Content in Surface-Layer of Sandy Soils Suifidic odor .. --__ Organic S!i:eaJcing iii Siilidy Soils -~,,' " ','_:_". ,; __ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Lisie~ b~ L&:ij Hydric Solis List' ' -, ~: !,'.i t... ~~:;~n!I~~~~fi;JRtfcoi6rs' ::;'\1'1'-'" ,--' ~~;:(~~£1i~1R~~~t~~:~:~j]SLi~~_:'~~'_1 ,,: ';: Wetlaild Detennination (circle) Is the sampliri'g Point wI'th' 1·0 'a wetlan"d?" .. , .. -,,~. :: .,: RationaleIRemark.S:.' .. ~ .f ',:;. " .:-;; w.:<-<ij" : " A.\l'_\~'rlI-P:~~-rS'_:;~.,~e:b~' r:. ~ ~ ._"~ 171 -"-<-/' .. , ", . • . j . ;. -, '. '. :'~ ',""C >.~;'}!:{,'~p.~q~:~.,! . . NOTES: " i~ ~!, '.' ~ .!' . '_ 0: \ j" .:~·f . .;~ ;-;'~:;. ::.:.'/;-~~"j' 1 I I: I' I I ,I, .' ..' ,1\ (I> ,I 'I' \1 'I' , , ,l 'I' I fl, 'I"> , , I I ,a, I' I, I I 'I I I ', " \ II I II DATAFORML , ; Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or , 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: SIR~NDE:R b/"/p,i " ' Applicant/owner: County: ICIN(;""" " :, staiC;:"';Wtf i,.', ( , srrIR.:' s.z ~ IT 2.3N/ ~ LfE no Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? " @ is th~ site signifi~anily disturbed (atypical situation)?" yes; ~, Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes " ~ , Comrimnity ID: (}.It.-~\';'''' ~"T Transect ID: Plot ID:): \") P ~ 5\ VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species . Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator " J.J ~ VJ7 e.+fv .5~ ~,(:'" ItCW HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: , ;, ;,;,~.;=;;.*-!.i~, ~ofd9rni!l~ts Q~~.fACW, & FAC:\-()tj}/~ , ?~.it,~·:~·l'r.~;~""::G ~'~1··~fl!:·;"\:·.'"-~.~:~·'.:'~!~5_~-.. ·t)· Check all indicators that apply & explain below: ' Regional knowiedge of plant communities Physiologicai or reproductIve adapbtions Technical Literature Hydi-ophytic'liegetation present? Rationale for d~cisionlRemarks: HYDROLOGY 1-l.; ; .:; :~~ .. ~ ·./1 Is it the growing season? Based on: [v; Je.., c.e. Dr; • ,,,~,:: l h. /; L:";~i~f-"'_" ;;·1. :.,. ~ ~ .. : '--".~: ... ,"-., ,:,;,:'£F .'t.,. I,';' .-.. ;: ~-;' -~ ':' _ :; ;-',~ ':.._·ii~..J~':' .;: }rf·.;~5',,:/:·~ ~etland plant list (nat'! orre'gional) f'~:;' -, brirER __ Morphological adaptations.'l·,n'?"i ' <J<~": Wetland Plant Data Base '" , ,'i-?L~J"< ",' " 'l .,i : no ov-O~L. :~.; ~ . I ".:....-: . ....~ .. . ',' (\: . ',:j,' ,,:7 ".:.:,j ,"!. ; . ~:'.:.'< ~.~!::._: :-:---...:~~1··H:·! Dept. of inundation: ~\inches \J Oxidized Root (Jive roots) Lpcal Soil Survey: yes ~ "'" di£~~~ls<12 in.'~~~' ~' Depth to free water in pit: ..N.A inches Depth to saturated soil: o inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photo!!Taphs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? FAC Neutral: yes fO) Other: no Water-stained Leaves: . ;:-; SOILS Map Unit Name (Series & Phase) Taxonom . ,."'.-.' .', '.,' •. 1 .. "' ',.", :- Drainage Class .. -.'-., i . .. . Field observations confinn .. ,'-.:-.. '~ '/-::~. '.i ,.r-.::~': d t e? . Profile Description .... Yes No Depth Horizon Matrix color . Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil l-"r ... ~::. :' ,', i ~ (inc!l~s). .'.~ , (Munsell; (Munsell size & contrast.;. structure. c::tc. ".', profile: ~"'-":,,:-,,:,~,;,,,~~_:::",,:,':'_' +:-·..,.. .. ·-.. ·-·-~···----·-·4..:.+..:.::·-=· m::.:··':.:::o::.:is:.;.t)~-_;_· +-._. _. m=o::.:is:,:t)L---':"-I-'-:"·' :.;... ... ..:..-,_._~ _,,-_ ... _-_."_,,,,_. -_ ... -+"'-~·~:.:.·,·.;;.~·;·i:...'i:..:..:~~_'_.· . .;.... ,_~ . ..:.~._ ... ..:., . ..;::,_-:..." .. _'_. _. -I . (iniuch descnption) 10 y ~ '1/ ,{ ~~:;f'"t;W't~:';:;'',''' "';';~'fl' . ~ 't :.;-: . -..... ~ , , . , ..... 0£ .:,,' : ..... :" , . .... ';. .... Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) . · .. ~;I~Yf.(:.;~tlF l:A";·;i}L;-:"~;;V)~''':~i'rtj;'/.i\ '1 fijn:JHi ' : __ Histosol Concretions __ ·,t-:~I1i-_ .. ;:.... _. .:- __ ~istic Epipedon __ lIigHprganic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Sulfidic Odor Org~ic Stre3.kinlfiri Sandy: Soils .. -.. . -~ Aquic Moisture Regii-ne' +-Usted on i..~al Hyd~.~ Soils List, ..... ;,,~~~:;;!n!~~~~:macolors:.;\!;,. ,c.!;""-;---' ~it~;:(~~;:i~~:~e:~r;)·~:~ir~:~i~'~:~i' .. "r,!~>,"j;'" Wetland Determination (circle) R:itlonaleJRemark.$: '~' .. :. : .' . ':". ," .i.~": ,-.:.; , .: . ' . ". .,..., ,J. :~.: .~>. A \ Y:-' :;t\A:~i(l~~",l.~.r~· )~~.% Wt~. .,' -...... :.'·i. _0, ' NOTES: ; \ ~ .. ~-'-~ . , ,;,'. .r .• -,'. . .,'. .1 • , . I . I' ,I, I) ,I· " . 'I' ·1 '1 ,I \1. ;11 .: .1 I I I, ,II I' ,I II' I I ,I, ,I -I, I ,I 'I' I! I, I I' ,I 'DRAFT APPENDIXD ,Ecology Rating Forms ,I I I I I ,I ::::c:fJ.: 15kT4 4:;!,;' ~~;IIW ~J.~ b C ;,:; ~ kJ 'nJ Department of Ecology. Wetland Rating Data Entry Form Western Wash in ton p.u~~~~aJio ~~II~~d N~~ ." A';"·: :. ;' GO~:L J;'ri1dictionof W<1land: Tuj:; IN ,. 1"'- sii~' . ".:' .. ' .. . ' ...... , .. Localion D ., LV ~ (' %..: . -. 0 Localion: ~~',~f ~,:,,:; \.,,~~[~~i~.~T~~~~~ip t~'~\C~ange':tL Sour«S or Informalion: (C~'ck '.U· sour«' Ih.t' apply)' ',':>:.',.", .' Sile Visil ~ USGS T~ ~ap.a. 1'!"'1 Map.at .. Aerial Pholo Ql..Soib Su",.y Olher In(o" . :.:.:-.. ",':<'<':<':'. ":>.~':' '.. . " ' .. . . When The Field Oala . "; Caiegory II CJ . .' form is ~~:~~~ ~:~:I!tg07 I~al~~;~~ 1:"1 d ~"I~?' Score 2nd. Edition 2&.3. Is Ih. veg.lalion a mi.lur. of only herbaceous planls and Sphagnum mOSSeS with no scrub/shrub or foresled classes? Is lhe area of herbaceous plants. Sphagnum. and deep organiC soils> 112 acre? Is lhe area of herbaceous plants. Sphagnum. and deep organic soils 114 -112 acre? .' . ". . Q.2b. Malure foresled .. etland. -; ', .. 2b.1. Doc. SO~ of Ihe cover of upper (orest canopy consist ' Q.I. Higb Qualil, Nalural W.lland;·~' ", '. . .• " ..... of evergreen tre.s older Iban 80 yelln or deciduous trees. Answer Ibis 'question ii';~~ ~;'';e .#<it~l~ ini~ti~n'or .xperi.n~ 10 do ~~~ If nol old.r Ihan SO years? Noi.: The size of trees is ofl.n nol find someone wilb the expenis. iii answer lb. questions. Then. if the answer tei'" : a measure of age. and size cannol be us.d as a surrogale (or queslions II, Ib and Ie are all NO, eontaClthe Nalum Heritag. program o( ONR. ag. (see guidance) .. " '" ':'.'~'-""" ... '.' .",' "." ,,' , lL Human raused: ~i~;~·~1:~~·c~~~~~t\~~tF.~:~ ;2::::~'.·:~i'{ ::':'/,--~~n~':"~~:: .~ .. " .. " 2b.2. ~s 5o" of me cover'of rO~1 canopy consist of Is Ibere significanl evidence of b'ullWl-caused chinges 10 topography or. evergreen trees older Ihan .sO y.ars. Al!.I2 hydr~logy O(lhe weIland as indic:oi~ tiY:IID(~r.lbe (oliowing condition.?,..;,..;,., i. lhe slructural diversiry of lhe (ore.1 high as ConSIder only changes rhar may bave taken place in the lasl S dceadcs. The impacts of characl.rized by an addilional layer of trees 20' -49' toll. changes done earlier have probably been .Iabifized and the w.lland ceoSYSI.in wi Ii be shrubs 6' -20' laU, and a herbac.ous groundeov.r? clDse 10 reaching some new equilibri~m .thal.may repres.nl a high qualily wetland. 2b.3. Does <2S'ilo ~i rii~~~1 cover in' the' i','" " .. ,', \ ... f{~:~10~ '''~~:\T ~;.~. ·~;.~r~/:· .;.:.' ... ~:: ~~::;:~r:i;~·~~ hctbaceouslgroundcover or me shrub'lay~r ~~i1Sisi ~f . DYES: Calegory I o YES: Cate~ory II o NO: Go I" Q,3 . DYES: COle gory I o NO: Go 'io 2b.2 ,", ,. .,' o YES: Go 10 2bJ o NO: Go 10 Q.3 o YES: ·c.I~gory I o NO; Go I~ Q.3 lal. Upsueam walcnhCd >i2~ imPervious. , ... "".... '" ~Y~si Go 10 Q.1 invas~veJ .. olic planl species (rom the lisl on page 19? 1.2. W<1land i. dilched .ncf;;;il~ Oow i. ';'01 obslruct.d. tJ Yes: Co 10 Q.1. t-----------;....---------------------- 103. W.lland has been graded. filled. logged. jji:I'Y"i, Go 10 Q.1; Q.1e_ Estuarine Weiland .. 1a4. Waler in w.tland i. conlroll.d by dikes. weirs. <1c. TI Yes: Co 10 Q.1: 2~.L '1. tl;. wetland lisled as National Wildfi(e Refug •• laS. Weiland is graZed:"'-' ..".-,--':f'?'V '" ''',.i',.''" ~ '. 0 Yes: Go to Q.1' ' National Park, National EoIUary Res.", •• Naturai Are. o YES: Calegory I i.6. Olber indicalors.oidi~ru~b8~'ce'·disl bel~) ':' " 0 v •• i Go to Q.1 Preserv •• Stott Park, or Educational. Environm.ntal or . "'!:' ",,"'.' .. ",:, .. ,~ '._'. " ...... """"!'i.!"'" Scienlific R.serves designaled under WAC 332-)().151? o NO: Go to 2c.2 , r, ,'" tP'N?: Co 10 lb. lb. Are Ib.re pop. ulations of, non:nati~ pl.an .. ~ which are. eurrenlly':~yES: 80 10 Q.2 prese?" cov~ morc th~ I 0'iI. o~ the w~l!a?d; .'!~ appeai 10 be.. G' NO, go to Ie Invading narlve populo .. on.? Bnef1y dcscnbe any non-native .." ,,' plum ~ulationS and J"fo~atio~;jou;.Cecs):·::·~t·:.~~;H~ 10 ~:',,;,::-' ; •. ~::;.~. ,.), .... ;! -.:>;. 1;:~~i1~:;:;!2{iitA'UJ' ~}$itJ" I e. Is rhere .videDce of huin:ui-aused disiurbiUx:ei which have 0 visibly d.gr.d.d water quality. Evidena: of tbC degradation' . YES: go to Q.2 of .walerqualiry incJude;.dirctl (untrcaled).runoff (rom roads 0 NO:'j'o"ible Cat. I or parking lOIS; presence~ -of hisloric evidence. of waste -.. contact DNR dumps; oily sheens; lb.' smell of organic chemicals; or livesrock us.. BrieOy describe: Q.2_ Irreplaceable Ecoiogi~~i, Furieil~;,. Docs lbe Weiland • have at leasl 1/4 acre of organic soils deeper than 16 inches and lhe werland is relaiiVely uirdiirilrbed; OR·.:"."" , ... (If !he 'nswer is NO becausC IhO wetland iii dislurbed im.oy· de,cribe: .. 'C'·'~' '}f,."~':: ", ". '." , Indicalors of diSlurbanc. inay includ.: OR • W cd and has been gr.rded. fi lied. logged; ·Organie soils on the surface are dried-our (or more lhan haifor!he ,e8f,;(! ,;;, ;,;,(..'. • Weiland receives direct stormwater runoff from urban or agriculrurirl an:as.); • have a (ore, led cia .. grealer than I acre;.·, OR . • have characterislics of an esruanne system; OR • have eel grass. no. ling Or non-floaling k.lp beds? • !+," ~(NOtoail; go 10 Q.3) o ·YES go 10 2a o YES gOlo 2b o YESgol02c o YES gOl02d 2a.. Bogs and Fens :'.~ ;I~·.-.\, .. " { . Are any ollhe three following conditions mel (or the area of organi~ soil? 2a. I. Arc Sphagnum moss.s. a common ground cov.r (>30%) and Ihe ,,' cover of invasive species (see Tabl. 3) is I ... Iban 10%? Is Ihe .rea of sphagnum masse. and dttp orgonic soii;~.112 acre? 0 Is the area o( sphagnum inos.es ;'~-d eke;' organic soils I/~ -112 ~cr.? 0 > " 0 2a.2. Is lber. an area of organic .oilwhich has an.irierg.nl •. .. "~",, CIa .. wilh .. I ... i·one species (rom Table 2: and cover of invas.iv. 'pe6 .• s is,<IO% (see Table 3)? Is Ih. arca D( herbaceous plants .nd deep org.nic soils> 112 .cr.? 0 Is Ih. area ofhcrbaceous planrs and deep organic soils 114 -112 acr.? 8 YES: Calei;"") YES'-Cate gory II NO: . Go 10 2a.i , ,-. .,; ., .. ; ...... YES: C.t.gory I YES: Category II NO: GOlD 2a.3 2c.2. Is lb. weiland >S .eres? ....... . NOle: If an' are. eontains patch.s o( soh lolerant vegetation that arc I) less lban 600 (m apan and Ibar are separaled by rmrdOals Ihat go dry on • M.an lowlide. m 2) separared by tidal channels rhai arc Ie .. than -. 100 (.<1 wide; all Ihc v.g.taled areas are 10 be considered logether .. in calcula.~ni.~ ~et~luu~.~eL_.:7t:tJ', ,,4':; '. '_:::.:'~l o YES: Category I ;,-" ~] , •. ~ t .\._ .i'"Jt7"i;j:; I~·L', . .!,,;., or is the w.lland I-S-acres? ................................................... 0 YES: Go 10 2c.3 or is the we!land <I acre? ...................................................... 0 YES: Go to 2c.4 2c.3. Does the weIland meet Ulc:asl 3 o( Ih. following 4 cril.ria ......................................... .. ~minimum exjsri~~·e~~~~c o~ hu~~ rei~ed dislurbance such as diking. dilching, filling. cultivalion. grazing or Ihc presence of non-Dative planl specie. (sec .. guidance for definiti.~n);i.<:_: .. :!:1~ ,·",U:'~f'. ••. ,:.:-_ ·surface Water con~lji)D ~ith tidal' fail~at~ or lidal (r.shwaler; •• , ,", . -at i~a'l 7S'.lo o( the w~H~~d ~;i&'''' ;"'rr~ or .:" o 0, NO: Cal.gory II ~ .' . .•• P~-. ungrazed pasture. open waler. shrub or fOrest;. :0" • "," -has al 1~13 of rhe following features: lOw marsh; higb . marsh; IIdal channels; lagoon(s); woody d.bris: or ::,'i-t~~~ contiguous f~5hwaler wetland. ··~i~; . <":~t7J'-I 2c.4. Does the wetland meet all of rh. (our crireri. under 2e3. (abov.)? >"":"'> Q.2d_ Eel Crass and Kelp Beds.. . 2d.1. Are e.1 grass beds pres.nr? ........................................ ; .. 0 YES: Caregory I .:..:'. ~ . . '.: 2d,2. Are Iher. noating or nDD.noaling kelp bed(s) pres.nl wilh grealer Ihan 50% macro algal cover in lhe month ,0 1-10: g~ 10 2d.2 of August or S.pl.mber?. ........... ; ... ; ...... ; .. ; ................ .. O. YES:. ,Cale~ory I o NO: Cal.gory U Q_3. Calogory IV .. ellands. 3a .. Is rhe weIland: I.,,:han I acr. iIIId hydrologically ISolated iIIId compnsed o( Dne veg.lar.d class Ihal is dDminat.d (>80% ar.al cover) by one 'Peci.s (rom Table 3 (page 19) or Tabl. 4 (pag. 20) 3b. Is Ihe weIland: I." than Iwo acres a~;;. j,yW:olo~ically isolaled wirh on. v.g.,a,ed class. and >9O'ilo of areal cover is any combination of species from Table 3 (page 19) 3e. Is the wetland excavalcd from upland and a pond smaller than I ~re withou( a 5UrfOlC~ w:ater connection 10 streams. lakes. rivers, or other wet13.nd. and h:as <0. J acre of vegetation 1··· ~ YES: Category IV o NO: gOl03b DYES: Calegory IV o NO: gOl03c DYES: Calc gory IV o NO: go 10 Q.4 Q.4. Significont habit~1 value. " Answ.r ~I q~s.ioiis and en.er dala·requ~s.ed. 4a:' To.al weiland ar.. . .. ,. .: .' .. ' Oed box that qua1i1ies "'""' = >2U11 0 fi 40. 19'.1.99 0 ,- 10· 39.99 0 Es.ima.e area, selecl from choice. given: 4b •. W.lland clas •• s: Cin:l. m. weiland classes below lha. qualify: · ':-' , .... · Open wa.er. if the area of opeD wa.er i. > 1/4 aen: Aqua.ic B.ds: if the area of aquatic beds > 1/4 acre · Emerg.nl:. if !he'lrea of .merg.nt class is> 1/4 acre Scrub-Shrub: if .b. area of scrub-shrub class is > 1/4 acre" i=ores~~d: if area' of forested "class is > 114 acre: .. : "." ", ,.- 4c •. Planl sped .. diversi.y. . •.... - ',,(: ',', -.::' .::. For .ach w •• land class (al right) that 'qualifies in' 4b above. count the number of differ.nt plant species you can find that cover more Ihan S,* of the ground.' .-., .... , ... , ... : :,,' ? ·,_t -... You do nOl ha~.;.o name them.. · . Score by checking boxes a. right. ' ,·9.99 0 1· •. 9'.1 0 0.1-0·99 0 <0.1. q • orc1iU5C1 Onecl ... 0 Twoclasses 0 lIIroO cb.sses 0 Four~I~ 0 f;w:~I~ 0 .spc:aes . in dill I ''2'0 3 0 >3 0 I 2-3 0 4.' 0 >,,', 0 I ',;'-,:-;-"' "'j. ,-'.f' . 'sCrUb-Shrub 2' 0 3-4· 0 2 I o o ] 10 Score 0 I 1 ] 0 I i 3" 0 I ''"'::' '''.' _-,-__ ...:>4-:-. -;.0.;---:-_ .... I 0 'f ~ . '. ~ " . 2' 0 ).4 0 ~' : . 0, .... ':~~ ... ">4 0 , .::-:;~~' .. ' . ~ .•. -.. ,_ 0-.'.' 4d. Structural Dlnrsitl ,-.;!, ..... ',,' .' ", .. ' W· ;,. If .he w •• land has a for.s •• d class. ·.dd I 'point if .ach of .he following" .,.' classes is present within !he forested class and is larger than 1/4 acre:'; ".'" . ~:;:;: ;i~~· }~{"";I~.~.·.~~~~~~~~~~~~:::~::::::::::::::::::::=::::::::;:::;:::::~:~::;;;{ : o· o YES 0 ,.YES .. o -herbaceous' ground cover .. ~: .... :::.: ... : .. :·.:.~: ...... : ... : ......... :~ ............. . ··~·sh~-bl:::~::: ... ; ............................ _ ............ ~:.~ .. ~.~.:'.: ...... : ............... :: .. Also add I Poim if there is any ~op.n water" or ·aqu;,ti~ bed-. class immedia •• ly next to the forested area (i.e. there is no ,;; scrub/shrub or emergenl vcg.lation between th •. m) .. '·::;.. .. .:, ....... .~·-·i . -,". Hirh 4«. Decide from the diagrams below wbCthcr in •• rsperSion;· ." belween we.land classes is high. moderate. low or none? ., If you think !he amounl of in.ersjicisioti falls in between the diagrams score accordingly (i.e. I moderalely high .' amount of interspersion would scOR. 4. while. -ro'. -,.-,.~ me,dera',.ly low amouni would ,cOni' Ii 2)."" ,,-'" Hi~lVM_ 1>40..... .. , .' C~r LowlM_ Low Nune --bi ... 4r. Habital. Fe'.lures AtiS;;.;J ~~~sti~ns below. circl. features that 'pply, and score to the right: is t~re ~~id~';"e Ihat ~~;;~' ;,,::'''.''. '. ~\anding wa.er 'us cauSed by beav.n?:..................................... . YES Is a h.ron rookery localed wimin 300'? ......... ; .......................... . Are raptor nestls loc'led wi.hin 300' ? .......................... :~ .......... .. Ar~m~~~ ·~tl~~i 3 standing dead ~ee~·isnags) per ~ci;," . greater .han 10" in diamcl~.~~reasl ;~.igh,t" (DBH)? .............. .. Are there .t I.a" 3 down.d logs pef ~cn;' wi.h ' .,' .,. ~,~i.me.~~ >6" ror at I.a~t 10' in ~~ng~~?. ................................ .. . . Are lhere areas (vegelaled 'or ~nvegela.edf wi.hin the wetland Ihat are ponded for at leisl 4 months "i .. of the Y."', and .he w •• land has nol qualifi.d as having an open wa.er class in Question 4b. ?. ................................................... . YES YES YES YES o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o Scon: Scun: , 0 ." Department'ot' Ecology"· ..... . Wetland' Rating Dat~ Entry Form .' .. ' Western' Washm ton Po'~ 2 4,_ Connoclion 10 Streams. (Score one answer onll.)·: :.i.. ;,' ," .. ' '.' .. 4g.l. DoeS the w.tl";'d provide j,~bi.~ ior f.sh·'," ~~~ ti;;;~r .h. year.. Seore . 4g.2. ~{£:::;f;::;2~~·S~fZ~;1~~1~:i&i~~t:[t .. ·~.~ 0' 6 . have a seasonal surface water connection to a fish be:uing stream ... YES 0 .. 4g.3. Does the wetland function to expon organic man .. through" a surfa~ water connec~ori at DI~ times of the year 10 • ~.>' . per.nnlal str.am .............. .: .. ;: ......... ; ... ; .................. : .. ;·.; .............. YES 0 4 4g.4. ~;he we;i~nd fu~tion ;~~xpor1ci;gairl:i: ,;;;,u .. ;~Bb, • .' a surface waler connection 10 a sU"cam on I seasonal basis .............. YES 0 4h. Burrers.. -': t~z\~~~;, .:.!}..!'( , '-'--f':::';~; .: . .;~ ~:~~~.~'f:.:::1"~?'> rr.?;:fi;1~!;!'·;· / .. ::' Scen the uiitinr buffers on alClk or j., bU:d on the ColloW;ft,C;"" cicscnJllions, u the condition or the buffers do ""' .. ..,tly matclll/M: description. scm: eilhcr. point lU,her 01 1_ dependins COl whether the bufCm an: I ... or '"""' dcrnded. . .-,'- Fores," scrub:n~li~c g~sla~d ilr"oPc~";:atci burl'e~,';!<"::· are present for more than 100' around 9S,* of .he"··' •.. : ..... .. ~:j~~m.~~:~i;:';Tc:::E1~!£f~~:~f{s;~~r;;:'i;~!~;:~,';·.'·· '-; Fore.~ scrub; native g.a.sland or open "ater buffers wider than 1 00' for more .han In of the we. land circumferenc •• or 8 fores," scrub; grassland .. Or open water buffen for more lhan SO· around 95'* or .he. c:ircumfa-ence. ;iiF.::r ·f.f~h!"'; r·· ,;::,',.;' FOrCSI.;~~' native grassl;:J~·~;~'~a;~b~rren • wider thaD !OO· for more than. 1/4"f the :!"e~land . :.,. drc\lmference, or a f",est, scrub. native grassland. or open wa"'!' bUffers for more than SO· for more .han In of the wetland circumference.. .:. '''","'' ;.-........ ., E, . -"~":'. '.:". . . No roads. ~ildings ';r p~ved 'areas wIthin' 100· of the w.tland for more .han 9S,* of the w.tland circumferenc •. ;..;";,.; :-~~,., . ~ ;::~~ .-.~::::~-~:~:.~~~:. : _.:~~.-:~.:~._.~'~:f~:~·~::;·::.::.~:,4·:.;,..: "-- Seon: i ' P ':1. YES 0 , ~:.;:;. . -:--. YES 0 YES 0 1 YES 0 No rolda,.buildingl or paved areas .!,j.hiD15j. ()~ the ".: .. we.land fOr more .han 9S,* of thci wetland i:ircumferenCC;·' . JU ~ ;J ·.;ij1_;;.tri.~.-~~·-~~~~'f~~~WLf;:~;lj_~,.f~:rf::y.f.(,.r::~.-. ~ 0 J No roads. buildings. or paved areas \vi~iI SO' of~e ~~land .. :~.~. -.. '~'" for more than In .Of ~ ~:tland~~\~~~~W.fryf~li'C~.;:A\\:;!( Paved area .. industrialareu Or residCntial·coasiiuc.ion· .;-c·,·:· .,(' (with less than SO· iict_teD houses)'1ii: leSs thiii 15' rrom YES 0 u the wetland for mon. tluin 9SIIo of !he cirCumf.rence of' • the wetlaneL ~ -, .. ;t~:.J;;' .;~?~~ :~'''~~ '-' _ .~.~_:. '~::,' ~ ., :,,:. 41. Connection to other habitat .reas ,"". Select the description which best match.s the si.e being evalua.ed. -Is the we.land connected 10, or pari ';f. a riparian corridor ot Jeast J 00' wide connectin& two or more wetlands; or. is there an upland connection present> I 00' wid. wi.h good forest or shrub COVer (>15'* cover) connecting it witli • Significaill Habi.", ' Area? ~ . , ~,;,t ;!i";-:;;':-; . _ '!F :':';'-; ~ < ." <," -Is the weiland connected to any other Habitai An:i with ei.her . I) • forested/shrub corridor <IOO~ . .wide, or 2) a corridor .l>3t is > I 00' wide, but has 8 low vegetative cover Ie .. man 6 feet in hei~hl?' -". ; •. / '.,' . " .. ~-:,; :'; !~ ,~ _ .. \;\t~:"}~ ·:.~~~;:,~:~;-~~,~:1: r.'" ; -Is the wetland connec.ed .0: or 8 pan' of; a rijiiuiani:cirridcir berwccn SO' • 100· wide with scrub-shrub or foresl cover' '. connection 10 other wetlands?-' "" .. -Is the wetland connecled 10 any olher Habital Aiea"with . narrow corridor «100') of low vegetati~n «6' in heigh.)? -Is lhe we.land and its buffer (if !he buff.r is less Ihan SO' wide) comPl •• ely isolated by developm.nt (urban. r.sid.nlial wi.h i densilY gre.t .. than 2/a=, or industrial)? Sc .... YES ~ 5 ",',::- YES 0 0 Projecl Weiland Name I~!e.r 6 t> • .J\~~'" J c.,....~<r~:bJ Il......-...J,A~_--' OesiCn b,. Scott T. CI.y.Pool, J; i I I ( , I I .. ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Na~e of R~~er t: 4i:!tI1 e., r>:!e~ou~ry t/u., ProJeClN""!,, .-.~ __ i3/vJ.· . ~?'<'J." Weiland Name . ib '. ·'.',GOY·L Jurisdiction of Weiland: T\.)b.J~\ a. « Si.e ... -. ,'" f-u _: Locarion vi t. ..-. ~.:..m~ o~~~i~n ~!~~?S~ir~,:.~angc'i~ Sources of Informallon: (Ch.ck all sourctS Ihal apply) ';'i:',.\·,c·" ,,,:,~,:,\ . Sile Visil Git USGS!~ Map Ii" ~ Map)Il. Acri~lP'ho-,o ():..Soils Sumy Orherlnfo···-· .. · : .. ...,'.. . .... "., .......... , ..... '. r::~~~~;~~~: c~i.l:o~1 .C~! •. ~~~ .1.1 q. Cai'i~;" iv;.', '. Ca.egory here: c::::J -Cai~g~~ IIJ' . '. C:::L;. Scor. Q.~. High 9uII.il' Nal,~~~~,~~~I~~~;r;.,\ ',.:, ': .. ;;:,;; :",:,2.::~~~:/;:;, ::.: ; Answer Ibis qucsrion if 'lOti haye adequale iDroimarion or e,jierienCe 10 do sO: If nOl find someone wilh lhe expertis. 10 answer Ibe queSlions. Then. if !he ·ans .. " io·;·,- J :e~,:o,:~ ~~:s:i ~~:i~!£~eco;nf~t~ !:,~,ural H~::2~f~;~~"~~o,~~, Is Ihere signilicanl evidence of human-caused changes 10 laPography or "'.' \0 hydrology of lhe weIland as indicoted by any of the following cODditions? .... , " Consider only changes Ihar may have laken plaCe iD Ihc lui S decOdes. n..: impaclS of changes done earlier have probably beeD slabiliud and Ihc weiland ecosysl~m will be close ro reaching some new equilibrium Ibal may repres.nl I high qu.lity .. erland. · -, :;::Y;:~~:~r;j~~~(':~' .,' . --·;·rj·:y:~-,~t :\:~-~.((~~;: ~ ~ra . hI. Upslf.am watershed ~j2'" impcrviou~ .. ",. " " .. ": "K1 YtS: Go 10 Q.1 1a2. W.rland i. ditched ind wal~ now is DOl ol,;':;"c'lcd ... ' ~ !. !s= Go 10 Q.1 I a). Werland has been graded. fill.d. logged. • Y .. : Go 10 Q.1 la4. Warer in wetland is conlrolled by dikes. weirs •• re. Y." Go 10 Q.l ' laS. Weiland is grizid;·. _ "".'.y'" ., "", .: •. ':) " 0 V .. : Go 10 Q.1 h6. O.her indicaro,rs ofdiinurb~~~ Oisl belo~»)' "': .. '-.> q.r~;}o 10 Q.1 1------------------.:-jF,' No:' Go 10 Jb.· '.~'. -. lb. ke Ihcre populations ofnon-oative piBnIS which arC cwnnIlY\,,. '0 YESJ"go to Q.2 . ~csenL. cover more rlian 10'ilo of !he weiland. and apPcar io be·n. o NO: go ro I c invading nalive populations? ~~eny describe any DO.narivc. . I '-l. .. plant populations aJid Inro~~~~:~~~~rr.-~\t~-~'t1fi~-r~2.;~!:~!~;;·~ ;.tt,.~ .• ~,~.'.'-.:~,' ,I' Ic. Is lhere evidence of hu""",:,caused disturbances which haW:. Yisibly degraded wa.er qualiry. Evidence of Ihc degTadatioD of water quali.y include: dirca (unlfeared) runoff from roads or parking lOIS; presence. of hiSioric evidence, of waste dumps; oily sheens; Ih. smell of organic chemicals; or livestock use. Briefly. describe: ~ :." . :.~" I "'p'. ;'.: •• ;, •• Q.l. .rr.placrablt Eeolo,i ... F';nClions Docs !he wetland .·1 • have al leasl 1/4 acre of organic soils deeper thao 16 inches ':,.'.\Ti ::,.. ;-~ d YES: go 10 Q.2 o NO: Possible eai. I coillacl DNR, .... .:~ ; .. and lhe wetland is r",.rivel, undisturbed; OR " .. . (If !he answer is NO bec,use !he wetland is disiiiibcd ";;eny -• if~o;J; ah;· describe: .... -". .. . . . Indicalors of disturbance may include: . OR • Wetland has been g .. dec!, fi lied. logged; -Organic soils on Iht surface are dried-out for more Iban h.lf of Ihc year:. . .. ,.. , . '.' i" , ..•. • Wetland recei\'cs dirrci stonT1'walC'f runoff from' urban OJ agricultural areas.); • have a forcslcd class grealer than I acre; OR '. ':0,.": • have characlcristics of an estuarine syslem; . OR . • have..,1 gra.s. 11O~ling or non-floating kelp.beds? go 10 Q.3) o YESgolo2a '.0 YESgol02b d' YES go ro 2c o YESgoro2d 2a. Bogs and Ftns .. i. Arc any of.he Ibree following condirions mel for rhe arc' or organic soil? 20.1. Are Sphagnum mosses a common ground cover (>3011» and .he .. cover of invasive species.( ... Table J) is less Iba. 10ll>? Is t~ arca of sphagnum mosses and deep organic soils> Iflacre'! Is Ihe 'arca of sph.gnum _mo.ses and deep organic soils 114. I f2 acre? 2L2..)S there an arca of org.nicsoil which has an emergenl , ..... '-'cl~sswirh .,Ieu' one,species from Table 2; ond cover of invasive s""ci." is <101b (s.., Table 3)? Is the area of he;baceous pl.nrs and deep organic .oils > 1f2 acre? . Is rhe arc' of h.rb.ceous planlS and deep organic soils 114. 1f2 acre? o o o YES: Calegor;.. YES: Caregory II NO: Go to 2L2 o YES: C~i;;gorY I 8. YES: C;,egory II NO: Go 10 2a.3 Department of Ecology _ . Wetland Rating Data Entry Form Western Washin ton . P,u9b~~c:,aJlo 2nd. Edition 2L3. Is lhe vegeralion a mixture of only herbaceous pion" and Sp~gnum mosses wirh no scrub/shrub or forested classes? Is the ';:"i of herb.ceous plan ... Sphagnum. and deep organic soils> I nacre? Is tire ar~a of herb.ceous plan ... Sphognum. and deep organic soils 114 • 1f2 acre? .' '.' .... .' '. Q.2b. Malurt forosl.d ... nand. . -.~ '1~ ...• ~: ~ -. . ~ .. ~ ,: DYES: Calegory I DYES: Calegory II o NO: Go ro Q.3 2b.l; Does SO'ilo of lhe cover of upper foral canopy consis!' 0 YES:' Caregory I of evergreen ITees older Iban SO ,cats' or deciduous !roes . older IhlSD SO years? NOle: The siu of Ire.. is ofren nol 0 NO: Go Ii> 2b.2 a mc&surC 'of age. and Sile. cannol be used as a surrogate for .ge (sce guidance): '.' " ,.,'..... ".' "";',,, , .'.. , •. i. 2b.i 0;;,;, SO~of rhe·cov'; or foresl canOpy consisl of eyergreen lreel older rhan 50 years. AIiQ is rhe shUClUral diversiry of lhe foreSl high .s characlcriled by an additional I.yer of ITees 20' • 49' lall .hrubs 6' • 20' tall. and a herbaceous groundcoy«? 2b.3.· D~s <25% ~t;~ ~ieal coyerin'~~·?~;;:.-~:' .·X;:. i herbaceousl groundcovor or Ibe shru b layer consiSl of . . _invuivel.,otic planl s""cics from !he lisl on page 19? -.' ,.' .~.:.. Q.2e. ESluarin. W.'landL 2c:i: Js' a.;, weii;';';j listed as Narional Wildlife Rrfuge. National Park. National Estuary Reserve. Natural Area PresCT'Vc. Stale Park.. or Educational. Environmental or ~ienlific Reserves designaled under WAC ~32.JO.I51? o YES: Go io 2b.3 o NO: Go ro Q.3 0" YES: Caregory I o NO: Goro Q.3 o YES: Care gory I o NO: Go ro 2c.2 2c.2. Is rhe weiland >5 acres?....... 0 YES: Cat.gory I NOle: If an area conlains palches of sah roler.nl '1egttalion thaI an: I) less !han 600 feet apart and that arc ,eparared by mudll~l~ Ihal go dry on a M .... Low TIde. !II .' 2) separaled by tidal channels Ihat arc Ie .. lhan 100 feel .. ide; ... >!" all !he vegetated areas are 10 be considered rogelb.r; .1 •. : ... Or is ::c~~:~?lJn~r ;;~r.~.=~~ .. ~:~.~.:.::.::~.~~:~~~: ... '.: ..... : .. O·':~~;Go;: ;C_l of is !he w.rland <I acre? .............................................. :.: ..... 0 YES: Go to 2e.4 2c.3. Does !he wetland meet a1leasl 3 of the following 4 crileri .... ~ .................... _ ............... .. ~;·~.:··.:.;··;·~,1-7;:.. :'" ,.,,"',<-·.~t' .. :', -minimum existing evidence of human related "J' disturbance such as dikinl. dilchin&. lillinl. cuhivalion, grazing or Iht, presence of noo-nalive pi .... ,,,,,cies (see . guidance for definition): '~'?'''"~':9.{ ?!i;;;'1:d:t:~·-,;. .:... . c.f-.. :" ·sudace water con~6~t. ~i~h ~i~i';~~te~:.:'·;· """ [] YES: Caregory I o NO: CaregOry 0 or tid.l freshwater.' ,.; ~::'::> ... f. .,._.; ".' ~:: •. J. ;"', ·alleasl 7S~ of Ibew'~l~~ ~'~j60l t,;;tfd~i '-"', .. ungrazed·purure. OpeD waler. shrub or .forts.: ..... :._ ,: ..... ,.~ ;;- ·has ar leasi 3 of Ihc following feacu~: 10;'; m~h; hi~ .. ~h; tidal channels: lagoon(s); ,woOci~,,j~i"s; ,,!:~{:,~., . contiguous. freshw3ltr wetland. ...;;.,~;;,~~;. ';~~.;iJ!!-: 2e.4. DoeS Ibe weiland meel all of doe four cril~1 under 2c3. (above)? ... \.)//;, .' Q.2d. Ed Grass and Krlp B.d .. 2d.1. Arc eel grass beds pres.n.? .................................... :._ ... 0 YES: eale&ory I NO: go'lo 2d.2 2d.2. Are Ib.re noaling or non·noaling' kelp bed(s) presenl .. ilb grea!er Iban 5011> macro algal coyer in the mon!h of August or Seplcmber? •..•..... ::. ••• ~.:~: .... ;~:~.:~~·.:~: ...••. : .•• Q.3.. CalfgDry IV ",.lIands. '!,,' 3L .Is !he werland: less Iban I acre II1lI hydrologically. lSolared iIIllI compri.ed or one vegelaled class Ihal is dominared (>SO'iIo arc.fcoycr) by one species from Table 3 (p.geI9) or Table 4 (page 20) . 3b. Is rhe w.rland: less rhan rwo acres ~~d. h~drologi~aJly i.olaled wilb one vegerated class. and >90'1. of arc:>! Cover is any combination of spc:cics rrom Table 3 (page 19) 3c. Is.he weIland ... avaled from upland and a pond' smaller Ihan I acn: wilhoul a surface water connection 10 streams. lakes. rivcn. or olher wClland, ::md has <0.1 acre of vegclillion o o o YES:C.,egory I NO:" Category 0 o . YES: Category IV ~ NO: gOl03b dyES: Caregory IV R\ NO: go.o Jc DYES: Calegory IV ~ NO: go to Q.4 Q.4. Significa;,i habitat Yalu~. " . ,e : Answer 0111 qu~S(ions and-enl~ data requested 4 .. To •• 1 w.t1and .... '. ,', Estimalc area, selcct r~m choic~' giv~~: >200 40· 199.99 o o , '0-]9.99 0 " S-9.99. 0 , ' ••. 99·0 0.1:.;;1' ~'" 6 5 • 3 Z 1 o 4c. Plant speci.s diversity. ,'''' . ,.,' , ,Cbss. . ; .. ~ Scuc ":~"""------;-;I-' "Mr-~o;;--'-I For .ach w.tland class (at right) th.t qualifies iD " , ,":r" 0 1 4b above. count .... number of differ.nt planl . ;""'Iir: Bod ] 0 ." Z species you can find .ha. cover mOre than 5'i1> of. ..,'. ',' ' . '>j '0 '] lbe ground ':'.:"'::': :.\ :":;;.~, ;"1:! ~ . You do nOl have to name th.m. Ema.... . . S ~ Z .. ' .... ·,>F 0 ] Score by ch~king bos.s al right. .., J' , 0 Scrvb-Sbrvb '. ~ . -> •• -.::. .... -: .... ,-'.:",:.4.- 4d. Structural Di¥trsity ;;., .. ~'::" .. ..,'; ;'; ,i-':'" C /-•• : i' ~,l:~·~,/.;:--~t~r~~r: If.he w.tland has a foreSlcd class. add I poinl if .lCh of the foliowi';,' '"'" .:,. class.s is pr.sent wi.hio the fo=t.d class and is larger than 1/4'ac:n;:'~v:'i·· 2 1 , <,~·tr •• s :>'·30' I.II ........ _ .............. _ ........................ :.~.:.:_ .•...•• : .. :.,,-:,;,,, ns, 0 -tr.e; 20'P-4'9' tall .................... _ ........•••.........•..• :~;:_, ....... L .. ,~:: ... ns ~ -h.rbaceous ground cov.r : ...................... : ....... : ....... :.:................... ns 0 :shrub.;:.? ••••. : .. _ ................................... ::: ... .:. .... : .. :.: ... .:; .• ::~.::: •••. ;. ns 0 Also add \' poi ill ifth"'; i. any "opeD WII""" "acjU~~~· bed-- c1as. immedial.ly n"l to .he forested area (i .•• there is no"...· '.,.' scrub/shrub or .merg.nl vcg.laI.iOD bct,:WCCD th.m).~: .. ;.:.:: ..... ;:· ns 0 ,) "," ~. Decide from the diagr:uns below whc:thcs-interspersion' between weiland classes i. high. ruocIcRle:. low. or none? . If you .hink lhe amounl of in.ersPersion falls iD ""iWCCD.', lhe diagr.ams scor. accordingly (i .•• a modcraicly high ." amount of inlerspersion would seeR • 4: while. -" 'inodenll.ly low amounl would sCor" a 2). " ,," ... ;}. Scan: i HI;b 0 ,,' ., Hi.bItoIodmOI: 0 , Mo.ImIo 0 " *,..-. . ;: ~ I LDwlMocknIe 0 .,d' Low, ;( None 0 ~.""""!'''il . . .. .-=." ~. . . . .... .4r. Habitat F~.tuns A~;"~'que'lions below. circl. f.alur.s Ihat apply. and scor. 10 the riglll: . . _. ." ... i., 1\' .• ~": '.1 !:a~t:ge~:::~a~~~~oii1 i:l~~? 2: ....... ::.~ ... :. ...... : .... : ..... ::.:'· ns o Is • h.ron rook.ry local.d wilhiD 300·, .................................... . Ar. raptor nesl/s loca •• d within 300·, ................................. _ .... . '. Are ltiri" all~1 3 sl.ndin&dead ire.. (s',,;,gs) per I~' gre.l.r Ihan 10-in di.met.~.~, ... :"b,' •. as!,~eighl-(OBH)1 ........... : .. :.: AI. ,h.re al least 3 downed logs per acre witli ' ' a diameler >6',' f .. al I.asl 10' in I.ngth?" ... "" ......................... . Are there an~ (yege,aie~ ~~··u~~liL~~~:~ -:~:hin the we' land .ha. arc pond.d for al I"asl 4 months out of lhe y."', and .he w.tland has nol qualifi.d as having an open .waltt cl~ss in Question -4b. ? .................................................... . . ns 0 yEs 'f;( ns 0 ns 0 ns. 0 • , 0 " ' 4h~:::u.;~;;::::~~i:~':!".!'~~;~!·~~. U .... condi.ion ollhc buaers do ...... C1Iy rnalCb Ihr description. JCUO ei ...... point hi,her Of Iowa drpendin, ... _Ihcr Ihr buITm _I ... Of .... drpdrd. ,. . Score Forest. scrub, Dative ,~laDd or"OPeD w.ler buff ... " "';'7': " . arc presenl rormOre thaD 100' ai-ouncl95'i1> 'or me'.'::' '.'"0''''''' . YES 0 S: "~r;:?~1~~,::~~,::~ ':;~:;;:: :; ~'~~!Fr,¢iiLY: (~,' For ..... saul;; iiativ. grassland or open waier truffer ... wider thlUl 100· for more Ihan 112 of lhe w.tland circumference:. or • f"",st. scrub., ,r.asslands, or opeD, water buffen for more than 30' arouDd 95\\ of lhe ' . }; ,: ~ir:rIr··',::, '.': ···!1:~;:;~~,f~!;&ii~:;;, .~;:~;':.;.~ , ,,:. \ Foresi. saub. Dalive grassland or OpeD w.ler buffers, widu than 100' ror more than 1/4 of lbe .... land . clreumrc:rc'ncc; or a forest; scrub: riitivc' "ass land: or OpeD waler burrc:is for more than 50' ror more Ihan' 112 'of thoi "'.Iland circumference. . " .' ,-'·:C.· ,,: -. 'j. ':"""".':':".';;'. No roads. b~i1cii~'S~; p~v.d~as·~ilhiD 100' of !h. . w.,land for more: Ihari 95'i1> of the weiland circumference . YES 0 .ns 0 2 . ~'-~~.~ '~.~:,+'~ ~"~4'~':~~#'~-:":~'" r._: ~"f~=:J~~~.t~-:,;"'-:-:.-::·.;::~~" .:.... ~. ; :-. . .No loads, !>uildingl,~ paved areDS .. w.ithiD.~· of the>. ,,',' ,', , .. ·~elh.?d,f"f ~J~=-·i~~-'1~~~c,:l:~~1e·!'~·' " ru-/I 1U .~.,!W-~fo:~"'t·flit-~'f~~'!' ~"!1'~r,·~ ~ ... ~~ J.t.1.f., ,.,. &'-, bf.-.... No roads, buildings, .. paved arcas.withiD 30' of the weiland. , " ";~~",>, . for more than Il2,ofthe weiland cirC,jmfcRnce:;:i~;,:';: . t~", ,-::" :.····:~:.:d. .• L •. : ... <. Paved ar.as, industrial arcas or reside;lIiai coasiiuClion (with .... the SO' bctwecD houses) arc less lbaa 25' from the ...... nd ror more tb; .. ; 95\\ of lhe ciieumf.reii. 'of ';'~::~"";'J'" ;~. _ the wetJand. . X~~~~~~;r:~~~;:~~'~~./'~:~~:~~:~~.-,;7'~:···-.\ ,·:·f:; •. ;;;_ A. 41. Connection 10 othtr habitat arral Select .... descriptiOD which !>Cst malch.s l..e site bci ng evalualed. -Is the Weiland connec~d 10; or 'pan of. ,'riponan ~orridor II lcasl 100' wide conneain, two or more: w.llands; or. is lhere ... upland connectioDpfescni ;'100' wid. with good (0';"1 or shrub cover (>2.5\\ cover) connecting it wilh a Significant Habim ' Area? .Js the w.lland connecl~ciio ~~ 'otki'Habiiai ~ ~i.h :i;~~ . , . J) I forestcdlshrub corridor <J 00' wide. or 2) • corridor thai is> I 00' wide, bul haS • low vegelative co,;e, IcsS thaD 6 feet in heighl?; ,.,:' '1,~~' ",' . '" " ~; .' :' ;'.': : b ~~\ ~ .. ,:!~:';.~~~~~.i{.;~ :~~:.~~~~.' ,,_l-' ·Is the w.lland connecl.d to: or a pan of. a riparle' c..ndor between 30' -100' wide with scru~shrub or foresi cov';'··' connec1ion 10 other wellanm? ·Is .... Weiland connecl.d to any other H.biial Area wilti . , narrow corridor «100') of low v.getalioD «6' in heigh!)? ... -.-? .:::'T : ,:. .:":;;o~_o< .• ";;~~'-<'::: '0; '. .Js lhe Weiland and ils buffer (if the burr.r is less than 50' wide) , . compl.lely isolaled by d.v.lopmenl (urban. resid.nlial with a" densi.y grealer than 21.cre. or indus.rial)? -i Score ns.D nsO nsO Proj~cI " . ", w~ii.~ci N.ni~ I Si'«tk~ We!.ttiv-d h:k1'\Sl'l> '1 II 5" Dosie;' by $;,011 T. Clay-Poole I I' I ., J I I I I " ·1 I " .- t I I I. I I I ,I. .1 I I I I I I N.,~of~a~~L-tln*JfA.?ale#lf Counly .t:0'j ~roJeCl Na~25;'~Qffi"..l .' £.)1;.\0, 0 ~ Wetland Name'C-. '::"GOY'I: jurisdiclion of Wetland: ""t t >\-:'Y;\ <>' .. si;~' .. c.,. t· ....... : .. : .... , ":".:':.: . Loc.tion """""'~ e.J~t.. cf uP g ... ,\\''''O<U! Loc.tion: -BE:.. -/4-o~~ orseclion'7.5. Township 2.lt!. ~ange':l.L Soure<l oflnform.tlon: (Chrck _II sources Ihal.appl,) c::;{'r"', :c' ,'. :,' Site Visil Xl USGS T~!",,~ ~ .I'IW) ~.p fot. ~~al Pl!0to Qqoib Survey Other Info . '." "'. 1 ".," ., ".' ,.', '.... When The Field Data fonn is complete enter Caiegor; C.legory here: 0 Q. t. Hi',h Qualil, Nalural' W.lland A~swci Ihis question if yo~ ha'~~j~~ate i~j~tio~ ';;':·~~;;;,rie..;;'i~ d~~. If nol lind someone willt lhe expenise to answer lite queslions. TheD, if lite answer 10' ,,!: queslions la. Ib and ~.~ ~ &111'10. C~nlael lite Nalural Hcrilage program of DNR. IL Human (Bus.d· disi'u~bi~-;~rt'~::;::;::::·';~.:::~';:~,:: 'i:':>;:::O .:' ',:':'., .. Is Ihere signilicllnl eYidcnce ofhuman-caus.ed changes.lo lopography or. hydrololY of lhe weiland as indicated by any of lite following coDditions? ., ., Consider only changes thai may hive'laken place in lite lasl S deCidu.' The impacts of chang.s done earlier have probably ticc:n slabilized and lite' wetland rCosYSlem will be close 10 rcaching some new equilibrium thai may represent. high qualily wClland. .. ' · .. ;.···'~4\i;·.~r-·~m~;.~·.~:;;:~;,~· .. :::·r:~:;.}. ':.~,\~rp.,-;' ~::~~'~k ~n 101. Upstream walershe;'>lii'jm~ciu~:' ' .. ".:' .' :."~ .. :' Go 10 Q.l la2. Wellandisdilchedlndw~t~nowi~·ii·otobsl:;"~~ed.· 'lJ i-.. ; Go 10 Q.l la3. W.lland has been graded. filled. logged. ~ Y n: Go 10 Q.2, la4, Water in w.lland isconlroJled by dikes.wcin. elc. 0 Yn: Go 10 Q.l. laS. Wetland is grazeci.: .' ..•. ~, ···i:c,>,.>!"..' .' 0 y." Go 10 Q 2 la6. Olherindica,orsor~';i~;b~ri~~{1tj'i~bciC;'w)' ;'. 0 vii;' Go 10 Q:2 '.' -":: ~ ...... ~ : .. 'i . ";:-'.' " .... :. . . t " ".-. ~'" l;.,. ~ f-------------~-.:..---r.~,;: Go 10 lb. Ib: Are lIten: popul.lions of no..:Dlti;e ~!iinu wllieh arc. c"""nllf)i' O· YES:'io to Q.2 ~?1. Coy~ more th,,!, I 0% ~ lite· well,,?d. arid appear 10 beY 0 . NO, 0 10 Ic tny~ding nauye poPUlalJon~? . Bnelly deKnbe any non-natiye ~-., pJam populations anc! In(o~~~:~~'~~~~~;':~:~~~:-~'r: :~-t~t:·;.· '. ~:', :\~.'~~~ .~~-I ." . Ie. Is lhere eyidence of burma.caused dislurb~ which h.ve yisibly degr.d.d water qu.lity. Eyidince of IhC degradalion of. water qualily include: direCl (untreated) runoff froni roads . or parking Jou; presence. of hisioric evidence., of waste dumps; oily sheens; Ihe smell of organic chemic.ls; or o YES: go 10 Q.2 "0 NO: Possible CaL I conlact ONR . livesloct use. Brieny describe: : .... .' .. r----------------'----~' '''". I . ~:. ' Q.2. Irreplacrabl. Eeoio,i~"1 F,;~ctioni Docs lite wetland • have al least 1/4 ac", or organic soils deeper than 16 inches andlhe w.lland is rel.tively uodiJlurbed; OR ." , .. (If lite answer is NO because the wetland is disturbed brieny describe: ,. . --." ., Indicalors or dislurbance may include: 'f.. 7-Wella~ h.~ been ,raded. lilled, logged; ·Org.ruc SOIls on lite surface an: dried·out for. , . more thon h.lf of lhr yOar: . . .' ' .. ~~-Wcll3nd receives dil'tCt SIOrTnWatcr runoff (rom urban or agricultural a~as.); OR • have a fon:sted class g",aler lhan I acre; OR • have characteristics of an esruarinc'systcm; OR • have eel p.ss. noating or non-noaling kelp beds? .J'.' o (NO loaD; go 10 Q.3) o YES goioa ~ YES g~lo2b o YES gOloZc o YES go 10Zd 2:0. Bogs and F.ns Are any of the three ronowing conditions m~t for the ar~a of organic soil? Z •. I. An: Sphagnum mosses a common ground coyer (>30\\) and the cover of inyasiye species (see Table 3) is less lItan IO%? Is lhe ar.a of sphagnum mosses .nd deep org.nic soils> 112 acre? 0 , '" Is the;;"" of sphagnum mo;ses ~d deep organic soils 1/4·112 acrc? 0 ~ YES: C.legory I YES: Calegory II NO: Go 10 ZI.2 2 .. 2. ,Is lhere an are. of organic soil which hos an emergenl . -dass with at least one species rrom Table 2. and cover of inyosive species is <lOll. (see Table 3)? Is the area of herbaceous plants and de~p organic soils> 112 ;licre? Is the .rc. of h.rb.ceous pl.nlS and deep organic soils 1/4 • 112 acr.? o YES: Calegory I DYES: Cal.gor.y. II .)B,. NO: GO!o Z~ .. ) "'0 ." 2nd. Edition Department of Ecology Wetland Rating D~ta Entry Western Washin ton' Form Publlcatlo .93·74 2a.3. Is the Yegelation • mixture of only herb.ceous planls and Sphagnum mosses wilh no scrub/shrub Dr fo"'sted c1.ss.s? Is lhe ar~. of herbaceous plants. Sphagnum. ~ deep organic soils> In acre? . • ' Is the arel of herb.cOouS plailii. Sphagnum. and deep' organic soils 1/4 • 112 acre? ", .• ,. . ' Q.2b. Malure forultd ", .. land. 2b.l. Doc. SOt. of Ihe cover of upper fon:sl canopy consisl . of eyerg..,.n lrees older than 80 yean or deciduous ms older thaD SO years? Nole: The sizc of trees is ofleD not • measure of age. and size ClMol be .used as 1 surroglle for age (sci: guid.nce). '. .,,, c. ' .• " _ •••• , .. 2b.2. ~s SO ... of lite cov"; of fomi canopy consist of eyerg..,.n trees older Ihan 50 yean. ANn is lhe structural diversily of the foresl high IS characterized by an Idditionallayer of trees 20' • 49' lalL shrubs 6' .. 20' 1.11, and a hcrbaccous groundcoycr? ' 2b.3. Docs <25% ~(;~.~~ coyer in ~e;;::: ':. i. , herbaccouslgroundcover or lite shrub I.yer consist' of inyasive/.xolic plllni species from lite Ii" on page 19? Q.2c. Esluarine Wellands. 2c.j, Is lite wetl~d listed as Nalional Wild6fe Refuge. ·::l National Park. Nalion.' Esluary Rese",e. N.lUral Area : Preserve. Siale Park. Dr Educalional. Environmcnlal or Scientific Reserves designated under WAC 332·3()'ISI? .2c.2. Is the ",etl.nd >S .cres? ...... NOle: If an area conlains palches of s.lllol.rant vegetDtion thai a~ . I) less lhan 600 fcci .pan and thai arc s.pM.led by mudlla .. Ihal go dry on I Mean Low TIde. l!I 2) separared by lid.1 channels Ihal are less lhan 100 feCI wid.; all lite yegel.led arc.s a'" 10 bO considered logclhcr in c~lculali~I_~~ :wel~and area.",: 1':,:: < •• ~ ~!.h -~;..;. ".:"' : o YES: Category I DYES: Calegory II a NO: Go 10 Q.3 DYES: Calego'ry I ~O:G~ii2b2 o YES: Go 10 2b.3 ~NO: Go 10 Q.3 DYES: Calegory I o NO: Go 10 Q.3 O· YES: C.legory I o NO: Go to 2c.2 DYES: C.legory I 0' . ~ !-;. :: :: ::::::::j ~.: :;:e~.::.~".·.~:::::""""":"""":;""":""""::":::::::.~::=.-::·8 YES: Go 10 2c.3 YES: Go 10 2c.4 2c.3. Docs lite weliand meet al Ieasl 3 of Ihe follow; ng 4 criteri ........................................... . .' ..... t .. ·!-~ I.. ~. '""' -minimum exislinl cviCtc;~Cc of h~rrWi ~J';ed ", . ', .. : disturbance such OJ dikin&. dilching. fillin,. cullivalioD,' ,razing or lhe presence of non-native planl species (sec guidance for definition); ';.', .. , .. :.:, .. , .. ',,' -sudaa: waler con~ri~'~~-~tri~ saJi~~~er:-~}~1 or tidal freshwater;"''" .... ........ " .. ~ •. ' ·alleasl 7S~of lit. w:;l~.i ,:;ti'oo"i,(;ir';" Dr o YES: Category I o NO: C.legory D ungrazed pasiu",. open w ..... shrub or foresl; , , <', . ·has at lcasl 3 of lite following f.aN"": 10;' inanh: higb , marsh; tidal channels: lagoon(s); wOody debris; or '\" contiguous f",shwBICf wetl.nd. .: ",':i:, .. 2c.4. Docs the wetland meel all of the fou,' cril~a under 2c3. (above)? Q.2d. E.I Grass and Kelp Beds. 2d.1. Are eel grass beds presenl? .......................................... 0 YES: C~legory I .NO: go 10 2d.Z 2d.2 Are lItere no.ting or non.ri~aling kelp bed(s) pn:senl willt grcaler Ihan 50s!' macro Bigal coyer in lhe monlh of Augusl Dr S.ptember? ................... : ....... : ....... : ........ .. Q,J. Cale,ory IV ,.cllands. 3a Is lite w.lland: less Ih:m I acn: iIIlI hydrologically isolaled iIIlI comprised of DoC yeg.taled class Ihal is dominaled (>80% areal coy.r) by one species from Table 3 (p.ge 19) or T.ble 4 (page 20) . Jb. Is lhe w.lland: less than IWo acrcs and. hydrologically isola.cd with one vegctated class, and >90~ of areal cover is any combination of :species from Table 3 (page 19) . 3c. Is lhe w.ll.nd excav.ted from upland and a pond srrmller th.m I acre without a surf~cc WOller connection 10 streams. lakes. rivers. or a.her wctliU1d. and has <0.1 acre of vr'gel.uion o o o YES: C.legory I NO: Calegory D DYES: Calegory IV ~ NO: got03b o YES: Category IV ~NO: got03c . 0 YES: C.legory IV Pll NO: go 10 Q.4 Q.4. Sicniricani habibt .. Iu •• '." Chcd boa IhII qualifies Answer all quesrions and enler data requesled. mg >200 4a. TOI~ wetland .,e" 40· 199.99 10· 39.99 Estimale area. select r~m choices given: S·9.99 1.4.99 0.1·0.99 <o.i 4b. Wetland classes:. Circle the ,.etland class .. below lhal qualiry: Open ;"~Ier: ir lhe area or "pen wBler is > 1/4 acr. Aquatic Beds: ir the area or oquatic beds > 1/4 IICJ'e Emergent: ir the area or emergenl class is > 1/4 atn: • or classes Oneel ... Twodasscs Scrub-Shrub: if Ih. ar •• or scrub-shrub class is > 1/4 aen: lbnE classes ForeSltd: if ';~i or for.st.d class is > 1/4 acr. FourclWei Check lhe approprial. box for Ihe n'u;"b.ir or ';'~II.nd c1'~I. Fi .. ci~ ... PI.n' sPecies diversily. " '"",.: .. ., For each wetland class (al ri~) .h~I'q;.aiifi~iD 4b abov •• counl the number or dirrer.n, plan" · .pecies you' can find ,h.1 cover mon: Ihan SII. of lhe ,round. . .:,," ., ... You do nOI have 10 name lhem. . Score by checking boxes al righl:' , •.. : ..... , ':! >] I 1·] '4., I .,: •.. F ........ '.'].4' .,' >4 4d. Structural Dh~rsil1 .. "',1.' ~."::.' . ;~~:.·;lrJ;~:<~~:~;;~';t~~\;' If lhe we,land has a roreSled class •• dd I poinl ir each or the foliowin," . .',;'" ', .. classes is presenl wilhin \he ro",sred class and is larger than 1/4 ocre:: " . - 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 = 6 S 4 ) 2 I 0 o ] 6 10 Scon: 0 I 2 ] 0 I '1 ., ] 0 I 1 ] 0 I 1 3 Scon: · ~"ecs >_.50: lal~.; ................................................ :.; ......... ;.;; • .;....... YES ·Irees 20: ~ 49' 1.J1 ................................................ ~~ ......... :; .. ;: ..... ~, YES ~ '·herbaceous ground cover.:. ................... : ......... : ............. :.~ •........... : ~ .shrub~:::.~:: ............................................ ;: .. ~ .. : .. :~.: ..... :.::~ ....... : ... , YES Also add 1 poinl ir Ihen: is .ny -ope'; "'ala" or "aqu~tic·b.d" class immedialely nexl 10 lhe foresled area (i.e. the", is no ",., O· o scrub/shrub or emergcDI vegetation bct~eeD Ihcm)~~.:... ......... _ YES 0 40. Decide from lhe diagrams below wh.lher inlerspersion . belw.en weiland classes is high. moderale. low or none? . If you Ihink lhe amounl or inlersperslon falis iii bel;'~ri:· lhe diagrams score accordingly (i ... 8 moderalely high amount or inu:rspcrsion would score • 4: while a moderAlely low amount would scor.: a 2),Y" ,,~ " Hirb 0 ,. Hiri.iM~1C 0 . F..:"" .J". :~ .•.. ,-e.~ -.... 4r. .Habitat Foalurcs '. Answ~ q;;~si;o';' b.low. circle realure'-Ihal apply. and score 10 the right: Is lhere evid~n~. thai .h.'~~~ ';;;':~'.,: ::' '. . '. . · siandinl water was caused by ~ayers? ............ ~ ........................ . Is a heron rookery local.d wilhin 300:? ................................ " .. Are raplor nesr/. IOCAI.d ,..ilhin 300·? ...................................... .. Are lher. ai leaSI 3 sranding dead lI'ees (snags) per acre gre.ler Ihan I~ in diamcla ~''breaSl ~ighl" (DBH)? ........... ; ... . Are Ihere al l~aSl) downed lo~s per acre wilh ' •.. a diam.l.r >6" ror al leas, 10' in l.nglh7..-................................ .. Are lhere ar.as (v.gelal.ci or unve'gC"i~i~d) wilhi. lhe weiland Ihal are pond.d ror al leasl 4 inDnth. oul or lhe year. and lhe wetland h.s nOl qualifi.d as having :in open waler cJass. in Question 4b.? ..... : ................................................. . YES YES YES YES YES 0 0 .. ~ J! ~ 4 ) 2 o Scon: 2 . Departme'nt'of Ecology Wetland Rating Dat~ Entry Form . . Western Wash," ton Pa e 2 4,. ConnrcUon 10 Slr.ams. (S ... re one an.wer onI1·) C"',,, 4C.i. ~ Ih;; ';'~llaniprovide habil~ i~r·fi.b al .~y Ii';" of ~h~ j~;'; Sc ... ~ does il have a ~.nnial~urf~ •. :""lei con~li~~ 10 ~~sh .. . b •• nng slr .. m ... : ... '-;;;:.: ... ; ....... '-' ....... ; .............. ; .. : ... : ..... _ ........ YES 0 6 4g.2.. ~ d,e wetl~~ provide 'fi~h habil~l-seas~~an)' AHD does it . ". • .. \; have a seasonal sunace waler connection 10 a fish ~nl stream. •• YES 0 4g.3. Does lhe weiland function 10 capon orsanic maner Ihrough" ; 8 surface wala connectioD al aD limes of \he y_ 10 I . .. pereD.i.1 str.am ...... ~ ... :;-L.,~ .......................................... _., ...... YES 0 4g.4. Does lhe "etland fuoclion i .. capon organic mana Ihrough I surf ... wala CODnection , .. I stream OD • seasonal basi._ ......... YES 0 4h. Bulter .. Scwc the cxistin, bulTcn on ...... oll·' bL .... on .... fon""';;'. roar clcscrip.ions. U lhe condition oIlhc butJen do noc exactly match me descriptiOA. JC'Cft eisbcr I point hi,bet or Iowa dcpendin,on whether tho ",,"en ..., less or '""'" dcrndal .' For .... scrub. nalive gTassland or ... pen·",aler buff":' arc presenl for rnon: than 100' around 9S1J1, of the ; ..... circumferen~i~~-:":,::'~::' ~,i:j" ;;.'-.. l: "0' .-;·~~t .. ,\.;,~~, .' ~:,:'.;. ' .' ... : .. ('._. :::~ ~~~1~~~L~~·~~':·:~i: .'~:~:~-.. ~;::.';~:~.-:~.~~~.~ ... ;:'~:~g:~{ t1t.;:~~'· For .... scrub. na,ive grUsland or open waler buffers wider than 100' for more Ihan 112 of lhe w.lland ciJcumference. or • ro",s" scrub. grasslands. or open wala buffen ror mon: than SO' around 9S1J1, of lhe circumference. ."<~-: .). • ~J'" _._.' :.i.... • , For .... scrub, "Iiv. grasslatid or open waler bufrers wider thaD 100' for more than 114 of lhe weiland circumference, or • r(R~. sciub, naove grassland. or open wal..-burfers for more than SO' for mon: lhan 112 or the wetland circumference. . No roads. buildings or pav.d areas wilhin 100' of the wetlaDd ror more than 9S1J1, or lhe wetland circumference. .,' .' .. Paved areas. indus'trial ireas or residential coDsINctioa (with less Ih.D SO' belween houses) arc less Ihan 15' rrom the weiland for more lhan 9S11. of lhe circumference of the: wetland. '". "':;'''''':, :,-', .-.>.' 4i. Connection 10 other habilat areas Select the descriptio. which be .. malch.s lhe sil. bein& evalualed. ·Is the "'etland connecled I ... or pan of. a riparian corridor "' leasl 100· wide cORDeCtin& Iwo or more wetlands; or. iSlhae an upland conneclion present> 100' wide with goOd foreS! or shrub cover (>25~ cover) conneCling il wilh a Significanl Habil.1 Area? .Js the wetland connecled 10 ~n1 o~ Habil'IArea ~i.h~ilhe~ I) I rorested/.hrub corridor <JOO' wide. or 2) 8 corridor thai is > I 00' wide. bUI has a low veg.laliv. cover less than 6 reet in heighl? .Js \he wetland connecled 10. or ;, p~ of: ~ rip'~i';;;' i:~d~ between SO' -100' wide with scrub-shrub or rore •• cover connection 10 other wetlands? .'Js the ",etland connecled 10 .ny olher Habilal Area willt narrow corridor «100') or low v.getalion «6' in heighl)? ·Is lhe wetland and ilS burrer (ir \he burrer is less than SO' wide) compl.lely isolaled by dev.lopmenl (urban. residenlial wilh a den.ilY ""aler Ihan 2Iacr •• or indusrrial)? -f'".' ScOR YES 0 S YES 0 YES 0 2 ~o YES 0 0 mO YES 0 YES 0 Not .. C'''r'''}' II ~ 22 pIS. CIlCrory JD < 22 pIS. -_-.-... -.--.-... -__ -.. -_-_-_-.. -._-.-.~-~-.~-.-.-._=_:::.:.._-.-.--.. -:-... ---.--.. ;:.::: I:: CJ TOI:I_S~: tru Proj.cJ W.il~';d N.m. 11...Io<~-=' ""-'~=--..Il?.p.<Oc:..:>J.c»<=.::()."",-~l"--,-£X"",-,-,,kn~s iL-U.·lJh-=---,1I ~ c ... Desir> by Scoll T. Cloy·Poolo I I I I I I I I .1 ·1 I I I I I, I I I I, I I I Na~ of ~~~er Uh f~ . DaI.~ou.nlY /d'11j Department of Ecology • ,:o~eClName ~i;;?~J(B,J ~51~" Wetland Rating Data Entry Form W •• I~ N~me j),"~' ".-Gov·! .. ~uris~ct~onoC\V.lland::rl1bN;\a... 2nd. Edition Western Washin ton. P,Ugb3".c7a4t1o Si." ' . " " , r----------~..:...::..:.=.:.~.-.:..:..::.:::.:..:.:.:.:.,;;z,::.::.:.:..-..!.:~!.!- 'Loc"ion,.Jl}-c.",? \cfC.~*--7 ;f \J r gQ',\.az;;:cl , '2 •. 3. Istbc veg.lation a miuur. oConly herbaceous planu and LOCarion:~ #. ~C ~ '\", ~f~'i~~ !!,Wnship~~,R~g. 'i C Sphagnum mosses wi.h no .crublshrubor Coresr.d cl ..... ? Sources of Informabon: (Chtek a I soure .. th.1 apply) '",c',",:>!."'~l; , ' 1,'Ib.;' ar~'t or' h~rbaceous plants. Sphagnum, and deep' Si •• Vi~it & USGST0"t'M~p ~;, ,:,,~~ap (j: "~i.1 ?Ja0'o J:(,SoiIsSury.y Jll ,orianic soils> In acre? 0"'., Info ' ","',,':, "~ "", "',,'," '. ,C,', ,'_ ' ,.' ,', ," is.he:areti.ofh.rbaceoilsplants.Sphngnum,anddeep' Whcn na. Field Da'.' "''--' organIc .0110 114·112 acre? "." : ' , fonn is compl., •• nter Ca'ogory I f·I .• '~~y, J1~.. Cal'gory IV, ,--, . .--, Q.2b. Malure foruttd ... tland. DYES: C.,cgery I DYES: Ca •• gory II o NO:' G~,oQj· Catcsory here: L..-J. Category IJI L...:.-J ~,:.: Score "j"'" it.',;···· 2b.1. Doe. 5()'l(, of .he cover of upper for •• t canopy con.isl 0 YES: Ca.egory I No':' 6.; 10 2b.2 Q.I. High Quality N.lural Wolland'·':.,"'" ," of everlreea tr •• s oldu than 80 yean or deciduous trees -0 Ans';''' ihisq~~;tio~ in~ 1.~;;.'~J.q~~ie'i.;r~~i~;:~'~~·~ri~~~i~' d~~;;' Ii not _ older than 50 y.aro? Not.: The size of trees is of I. a nOl- find someooe wi.h lhe expenis.toanswer the qu.srions. na.n. if the answer to':'· • mcas"'; 'of Ig., and size. cannol be uOed as a sUlToga •• for . qu.srions Ia. Ib and Ie are .n NO. eon.act!he Natuf31 H.ritag. program ar DNR. . Ige (see guidance). '" ',," "0,' , "" :: ,',"'" .' ,'", , " I •• ' Hum.n rauud: df~;~;j;~'n;~~:~':;·';·:.,~~:,:'~:;)i~L:·:;'~ ;::"/,, -, -~. ". :;. -2b.i· no.;i SO ... of th.'coverof (0;';'. canopy consisi of 0 YES: Go 10 2b.3 Is .here significant evid.nce of human-clused changes 10 topography or .vergreen lrees older "'an 50 years, AND 0" h dr I f L_ . di is lhe structural diversilY of .L_ forest hI' -~ 05 NO: Go.o Q.3 y oogyo ... "wellanda .. n cDI.dbyanyof.hefollowingcondirions?" ',,', .n; 6" Consider only chan!.s .ha. may have •• k.n place in the 105' 5 decades. ' The impaCIs of ch ...... teriz.d by an addi.ional layer oC trees 20' • 49' lal~ changes done .arlier have probably been slabilized and the w.lland ecosYs •• m will be shrubs 6' • 20' lall; and a h.rbaceous groundcover?' c1os. 10 reaching some n.w .quilibrium thai may repres.n. a high qualilY we. land. 2b.3. Does <25'i1o ~r ~'~~I cover i~'~:.~~':·':·';::,::. ,:" o YES:. Cai~gory I ; '.' ;'\~:.~ i~.~'l;.:.;;.\;-:.t;~~-<·.~;4~,~~;~.;.:;::;:·;:··~~!,·~~~\~/ .: ..... ~·AnswcB. herbaceouslgroundcovcr or the shrub layer cons is.' of I I U .L-d '1'2';'" . ~ Y • i.nvasiv,,~, ."o.,·c plant spec,' •• 'rom .L_ II·s. on page 19'. o NO: Go 10 Q.3 •• pSIl •• m wa'er~oc > ,. ,mpervlous. , ~ u: ,Go 10 Q.1 " uoc la2. We. land is di.ched ~nd ';'.ic'r iJei;. ii nol ~bsrrucled. 0 Yes: Go 10 Q.1 la3. We.,.nd has been grad.d, filled, logged. ' fKV." Go 10 Q.l' 104. Wa.er ia wellandis,controll.dby dikes. w.irs •• Ic. 0 Y •• : Go 10 Q.1, laS. W •• I ... d is giazeil:./.;;~:;. :i:?}:Y~;,,;.,.;:· 0 y,i: Go 10 Q.1 i.6. Oilier indica.ors ofdisl~rbanc.: (Iisl ~Iow) .'." . 0 "oi: ~o '0 Q.l l==============:jr N~: Go to lb. 'b. Are !here popula.iono or:nciri.-na'i~. piimu which are cumn.lY",,· 0' YES: go 10 Q.2 , pres.n." cov.r more .hOll< 100000"of the wetla.id; aiad ijiPeai-io be' 0 NO: go to I C invading nrui\'c popu~ations~ B~~ny ~escribe any nol)o.nativ~ . . ... ~ plant populations' and Inronn~~~~;~~~~:~}~~~~!:~.~:,~!jf~;~~,~~;:'::. ~==~31 I c. Is .hcre .vidence of human·caused distwban.:es which have visibly d.grad.d waler qualily. Evidence ar ..... degrada.ion "of water qu.lity include: direer (unlf •• ,ed) runoCf from road. or park.ing JOIs; presence. of historic evidence. or wa~5Ie dumps; oily sheens; .he smell DC olganic chemicals; or livestock use. Brieny describe: Q.2. Ir«placr.blo Ee~lcigical y;;'nclions Does .he Weiland • have •• Ie ... 1/4 acre of organic soils decper th.n 16 incOO and lhe w •• I.nd is rel.'ively uiaciislurbed: OR' .~, :',' . (If the answ.r is NO brcausc: the w •• land io disturbed bri.ny describe: ,,',,,,,. ",'" -,', '" ."" ., ' Indicalors of disrurbanc. may inc Iud.: OR • Wetlaad has been groded, fi lied. logged; .Org;mic soils on lhe surface arc dried-out for more .h.n half of .... year;' ';.", :, , ; , • Werland receives direct 'sionnwiler runoff from - urban or Olgricuhural areas.); • have a foresled class grealer Ihan I Dtrc; OR ' • have char-Olelerislies of an esruarinc system; OR ' • h.ve •• 1 gr ... , noa.ing or non·noa.ing kelp beds? o YES: go to Q.2 o NO: ";;ssible Car. I con.aCl DNR A.{~Ot~all; .ID" ~o '0 Q.3) o YESgo.o2a o YES go 10 2b . '~.: o YES gO'~2e o YESgo.02d 2a. Bogs and Fens 'i,'c', ' Are any of lhe three following condirions met (or the area of o~ganic' soil? 2:0. I. Are Sphagnum moss.s a Common ground cover (>30%) and .h. , cov.r of invasive speci.s (sec T.bl. J) is Jess Ihan 10%? o YES: ~I~gory I Is the area of spha~num mosses a~ deep organic soil~ > 112 acre? Is .he area of sph.gnum :mos~s ~iad d •• p org~nic soils 114. 112 acre? 2&.2: .Is !here an area of organic soil which has an .";'rgen. ,,' class"wilh "at leasfone species from Table 2. and COYCr of invasive speci.s is <10'ilo (see T.bl. 3)? o o Is .he a~. of ia.rb~c.ous pl.nts and deep organic soils> 112 .cre? , 0 Is lhe-area of hcrbacC'ous plOlnls and deep organic soils 1/4 a 112 ac~? B YES: . Cal.gory, II NO: Go.o 2a.2 -'.' YES: Ca •• gory I YES: c.i.gory II NO: Go to 20.3 Q.2c., Estuarine Wotlands. 2c:~ i: Is ~ w.II";'d iis •• d as Na.ional Wildlif. Refug •• Narional Park, National Es.uary R.serv •• Na .. ral Ar •• Preserve. S •••• Park, or Educalion". Environm.n •• 1 or " Scientific R.serves designa.ed under WAC 332·30-151? • . ,''":... .,.,' .. ,c" ').~! ~ 2c.2. Is th. wetland >5 .. r.s?. ..... No.e: If 011 ~'i con.ains palches of s.h.toler.nt , vegetation Ihal are "T,' .' c. -• I) less than 600 Cee' apan and th •• are s.parol.d by mudna ... hat go dry on I M .... Low Tide, 1II .. 2) separa.ed by lidal channels .h •• are I ... Ih.n 100 f ... wide; , DYES: Ca •• gory I o NO: Go 10 2c.2 :" ' . an the'v.g •• ated areaS Ire to be considered tog •• her , In calculati~& ~ ~elJand area: .!..~'..; ... ' ~ . .l~.-'~~riiH':I;:;" ': r ~ ,;'--:(2,''-::-; or i. the" we.laad I ~S a~r~L ... : .......... " .. _ ..................... __ ..... · 0 'YES: Go '0 2c.3 or i. the,w.lland <I acr.? ................................................. ~ ... 0 YES:Got02c.4 2c.3. Does Ihe w •• land meet at leut 3 of .h. followinl 4 crilcria ......................................... .. -minimum exjst~:;:~~~~~~:; ~~ hu~~' rei~~d :.~~~!~ disturbance such as dilinS, e1i.chin8-fillinl, cuiliva'ion. grazing or the pres.nce of IIOD-n.tiv. plant speci.s (see DYES: .Calegory I o ,NO: Ca.egory n .::::c:::~::~:Z~~~l:~J~'~~;ter':· :;. ';'t, .• : :: ;~:h;a:;w~';~'~ ~ ;J~~ .;..:20}i:,,; .' ungrazed pasture. OpeD waler. shrub or forest:::~: :,~::~, ~. ·has ar least 3 of the following f •• rures: io,., marsh; high .. ; =~~:~:If~~n:.:~ I;~:~~,>; ~~~~rs: ~~~~} . • ~ .;;tll 2c.4. Does "'. w •• land meet an of the Cour criieria . und.r 2c3. (abov.)?/~~~ ?':-;" Q.2d. Eel Gra .. and Ktlp B.ds. 2d.1. Are .eI grass beds pres.n.? ........................ , ............ ;.::, 0 YES: talegory I NO: 10 to 2d,2 --~ , 2d.2. Are there no.ring or noa·no.ting k.lp bed(s) present wi.h gr.a.er than SO'il> macro algal cover in Ih. mon.h of Augus. or Sep •• mb.r?. ......... :.: .. :::.: ............. :.:: ....... .. Q.J,: "',_Ca't',ory IV ... II.nds. 3L Is the w •• I.nd: less "'.n I acre iIIIlI hydrologically isola •• d iIIllI comprised ar one v.ge.al.d class Ihat is . dominaled (>80,<;\' areal cover) by one species from ' Table 3 (page 19) or Table 4 (page 20) . ..', 3b. Is.he well.nd: less .han .wo acr.s a;';, hydrologically isol ••• d with one v.geta •• d class, and >9O'iI> oC areal cover is any combination of species from Tabl. 3 (pag. 19) 3e. Is.he w •• land excavatcd from upland and. pond smaller IhOln I acre withoul a surface Willer connection 10 slreams. lakes. rivers. or other wctl.3nd. and has <0. J acre of vcgclCllion o o o YES: Ca.egory I NO: Category n DYES: Calegory IV e:. NO: go.o 3b DYES: Cal.gory IV IiQ. NO: go.o 3c DYES: Cai.gory IV :.64" NO: go 10 Q.4 Q.4. Signilicani habitat .alu.. ; 0M:d. boa Ib_. quaJUICS Answer all quesrions and corer dara ..-..quesred. 4a. Toral ",etland are •. : • . , Estimale area. selec1 from choices given: 0= Kn >200 D 6 40· 199.99 D 5 10·39.99 D •. 5·9.99 D 3 I· •. 99 J:J-.2 O.I.O.~I . cO.I.~ (9 4b. Werland c1asse,: Cin:"!he werlomd class .. below rhal qualify: Open waler: if the area of open waler is > 1/4 acre Aqualic Beds: if !he area of aqualic beds > 1/4 acre Emergenr: jf rho: . an:a of emergenl class is > 114 acre Scrul>-S1vub: if rhc: area of scrub-sbrub class is > 1/4 acre Foresred: if arc. of foreSled class is > 114 acre • DC ,I..... Scon: Oncd ... Do' Twoc ...... D 3 Threec ...... 0 6 Check the approprial. bo~ f~; 'I~ Du;"b.r~f 'werl~nd cla ... s. ~cI~ D A .. d ..... D 10 40. Plant speci.s diversiry. Class • species indasa $con: -.':; . I·· U For each Weiland class (al righl) rh.1 qualifies in l' 0 I 4b abov •• count !he number of differenl plant Aquo'k,Bcd ), D 2 species you can lind rhal cover more rhan S'J. of >3 D ) !he ground. .1 0 You do not bav. 10 name rh.m Emcr ..... 1~3 D I .·5 D 2 .:; . ' >5' D ) Score by cbecking box .. ar righl. I U 1. 0 I Scrub-Shnll, ) .. 0 2 '0 \t.S~ ~<N-\' >4, 0 ) I U ~ ~'. 2 0 I <.~S<e...s ) .. 0 1 'II\~ . >4 0 ) If rhe weIland has • for.Sled class. add I poinl if each of !he fonowing c1ass.s is 1"' ... 111 wirhio rho: f""'Sled class and is larger !han 114 acre: Scon: . · ·.trees· > . SO' tall.._ .............. __ .. _ .......................... _ ...... ; ................ YES · -Iree. 20"~' 49" lall.. ............................................. ; ... .:.. .... _........... YES -herbaceous ground cover ............................... : ....•........•. ;............. YES -shrub.: .............. ; .................................... ~: ................. :............... YES · Also add 1 poiid if !here is any -open waler-or -aquai;~bei-' class immedial.1y nexllo rhe foresred area (i.e. rhen: i, no .crub/shrub or .mergelll veg.rarion berween tb.m) .. ;;_........... '. YES ~. Decide from rhe diagrams below whcthc:r iorerspersion Hirb belwc:.n w.lland classes i. higb. moderare, low or none? If you rhink !he amounl of intersper.ion fall' in belween lhe diagrnms .core accordingly (i.e. a mode"""y bigh amoulll of inrerspersion would sconi • 4. wbi" •. " mod.rarely low amount would score a 2):" Hilh/M_ .--... -. Mcdene . "·'W" lDwlModenIe - --.~.;~~ '-~~. .... 4r •. Habitat FUlure. .' Low· No ... Answer q.,.srions below. circle f.alures Ihal apply; and score 10 rhe righl: Is lhere ·evidenc. rhal d.. open or ,. . , standinl waler was caused by btavers? .............. _ .. _ ............... .. IS a h.ron rook.ry loealed wilhin 300·, ................................... .. Ar. rapror n.srls local.d wilhin 300·? ....................................... . Are I...rc: al I.asr 3 slanding dead liees (snags) per acre gr.aler rhan 10· in diameler, aI "breast height-(OBH)? ............... . Are Ih.re al I.ast 3 downed lo!s per acre wirb a diamel.r >6" for at "ast 10' in l.ngrh1.. ................................ .. Ar. lher. areas (vegelal.d Dr un~.gelaied) wirbin lhe w.lland thaI are ponded for al I.ast 4 monrhs OUI of lhe y.ar. and lhe wetland has not qualified as having an open YES YES yEs YES YES o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 }( 0 0 Scan: 5 4 I 0 Score ~ 0 0 water class in Question 4b. 7 ..................................................... . YES 0 ;; Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Dat~ Entry Form . Western Washm ton Pa'e 2 4~ Connection 10 S'rr~ms. (Score one answer on I,.) . 4g.1. 0;;;S'~ ';'~lla';d :';ovide habi~ fei;' fish~~~~Y'li~ ~f Ihe rca, ; . AIiIl does il bave a perennial ,urfacie warer connection 10 a fish Scon: bearin, .Ir •• m ....... _ .. ;: .. ~."::!~ ... l;.!,:;;.,, .. !: ....... : .... ;.; .... ;;;;.:~ .. ; ... ; YES 0 6 4g2. ~.he wetland prOvide fisb ir~bill" ' ... ;o~ally 'Al:!Il"';'. it hlv. a seasonal ~urfac. "'aler conneclion ro • fisb be.:uing srrum ... YES 0 4g.3. Does lhe w.lland function 10 •• pan organic maner Ihrougb a .urfa~ war ... connecti~~ 8.1 all tim., of rho: year 10 '. p.r.nol.1 Slr.am ......... : ... :.:: .. , .......... , ................ c ..................... _ YES 0 4 4g.4. Does lhe Weiland function 10 •• pan organic maner Ihrougb .. a surface warer connection to a S\leam on a seasonal basis_. __ YES 0 4h. Burr .... , . ,-;,,~, .. ,.',', c· ... ,. ,3,;,.", .. ", .... , .• _ " .... '',c-.... :.' ScOR .... C:xwn11Nll'.n OIl • seale 011·5 ......, on the cono""" ;.,i" ~poions. . U the condition 0( the buIT, .. do "'" exactly moll:b the clcscripriOft. scm: a_i . poin, hi,hcr Of Iowa de .... din, on whether the buffe .. an: I ... Of men "'If>d<d. Forest, scrub. naliv. grassland or open warer burrer. are presenl ror mon: rhOD 100· around 9S'J. of !he cir:~~~~.~:~t: :":';~'~;?' ~:, ::~;:~;.i~:~i~~ '.": Foresl. scrub. nauve grassland or open waier burrers wider rhan 100' for more rhan 112 of rhe ",.tland circumfen:uc: •• or • foresl, scrub. grasslands. or open , waler buffers for mor. rhan SO' arou"" 95'J. of rhe circumference. :"'--""" : .i.~:''';-'' j •• ?::~.::.;:::~ ' .. f' Forest, scrub. Dativ. gms lanJ'~ ~;;;~' ,;:.rer buffers wider rhan 100' for more rhan 1/4 of lhe w.lland '. circumrererict:. or • forosi. sciub. ""u,,'; grassland, or open w.1eI' buffer. for more rhan SO· for more rhan 112 of lhe "elland circumf.rence. No roads. buildingi or paved areas wilhin 100' of rho . w.rland for more lban 9S ... of rho: werland' circumf.rence. 7"-"" ".'~. " .-:':";~ ..:..:".-._ ..••.• ----._- No roads. buiidings ~ JIllved areas ~irhin ~. of.the.. . . "'.lland for more rbaD 95 ... or !he w.r1and circumference. 21 t.. (~ . ~~:;'ii!~]: i'~'~~~ --~;~--~;;.<,;:; ~::~~~,~-:~';r:!':: .:.~ .~! ':i" !-i:-.:'r. No roads. buildings, or paved an:as ,;,ilbin 50~ of !he wetlaad· for more rh:m 112 ~f !he wetland cliC-u'mf.,:n;;e"..·.. . l,~. -'" ~. --" -,:;.: Paved areas. indusaial areu or residential cODSlruclion (wirh less rhan SO' betwceD houses) are I .. , rbao 25' from rho w.r1and for more thaD 9S'J. of the circumf.rence of lhewctland. .~ .. ':.i:.,.'.~. '>0:". ..':."~:~; .. . , >:.! .::! .. 4i. Conn~ction to oth~r habitat anaS Selecl !he description which best matches rhe sire being .valu.led. ·b rho weiland connecied 10; or pari of •• riparian corridor at .... t 100' wide conn.cting two or mon: wetland.; Dr. is \her. aD upland connection pn:seni >100· wide wilh gOod forest or shrub: cover (>15 ... cover) connecting it ",ilh • Significanl H.bilal .. _ Area? . ·Is rho: w.lland connecled 10 any othCr H.bital Aiea with eilhei I) • foresredlshrub corridor <lOO' wide. or 2) Ii corridor rhat i, > I 00· wide. bUI has • low v.g.ialin cover less rhan 6 feet in hcighl1 .. ·Is Ii.. wetland connecred 10:0; a pari ·of. it riparian '~orridOr be"" .. n SO' -100' wide wirh scrub-shrub Dr foresl cover conneclion 10 olber wetlands? . ·1, !he w.lland connceled 10 any orher Habilal Area wilh narrow corridor «100') of low vegeration «6' in heighl)? ·1s.lhe w.lland and irs buffer (if rhc: burrer i, less Ihan SO' wide) cumpl.lely isolaltd by d.velopment (urban. residenti.1 ",ilb a density ,",ller Ihan 2Jacre. Dr industrial)7 Dtslc:n by SeOIt T. aaJ.poole Scan: YES D 5 if YES 0 YES 0 I YES 0 5 YES 0 ) YES 0 I ,I ,I I I I I I. I, I I I I, I I. I I I I ~ Counly tAo n '"'\ ,'D >"\ .,I When 11le Field Oal., ,', . ".,.-, Cat. or' II r--1 :" .. fonn i, complele enter Ca'.gory I .• 'c '.' ~-""~'h~., <:a"gory, I" ,'. , . Category here: c:::J Cat.gory III tx5 0 '1;, Scofe '1-' Q.l. ~i~~ ~~~lil~ ~~!.~wr.~! ,_~!!~~~~~;~';:~,~:~~.::~::~'; -.~~.: .;~.::::.';~;';,/~:'.:~, .. ' :::;.';~:~l'·· . , Answer this question if you have i&:quli" ioformation or .~perielice to do so. If not find someone wilb lhe expenise 10 answer the questions. The .. if the answer to",·, 0:; queSlions I., I b and I c are all. NO. contact the Nalural Herilage ,",ograrn of DNR.· 1L' Human caund dbt~:~br.,~:~~~~~~::~~·;i:~~;·~:;."\:{~;~f:;:~~zi~:~·:;~,t>t.;·~ "," ',' :: ..... ~:,i.~" Is there significanl evidence or human-cluse<! changes to topography or. , hydrology of lhe wetland as indiclded by.any of the followin, conditions?, ,., .; .. " Consider only changes that may have laken plaee in the lui 5 decades., 11le impacts of changes done earlier have probably been .. abilized ""d the wetland ecosYSlem will he close 10 reaching some new equilibrium lbat may represent I high quality wetland. . . :~. . -. ··m;'~~~~~:-}.~t~ tr·\:,1~ ;;~~~~-':~:-;;~.I~.~ .r~ ~~;~:1;';'~~~:~Rswen 2nd. Edition Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Data Entry Form Western Washin ton . Pf9b~~c:,aJlo 2a.3: Is the vegelalion a miXiure of only herbaceous pl""ts and Sphagnum mosses wilh no scrub/shrub or foresled cI",ses? Is the .rea of h~rbaceous plan .. ; Sphagnum. and deep organic ,oils> In acre? .. Is lhe area of herbaceous plants. Sphagnum, and deep organic soill 114. In aCTe? .. ,.·-.·_ .... C •• •• ••• ", ... ,..cc .. .-'.: Q.2b. Maturo f.ru'ed w.t1and. , : .. ~.. i.-." 2b.!. Does 5K of the: cover of upper forul canopy consist . of evergreen treeS older than 80 years or deciduous IN:es older than 50 years? Note: The size of trees is of leO DOl a measure of age. and size cannot be used ai a surrogate frx age (see guidance).!" ~ . ..;!..~'.' 'i:~ ... :~~.;. .. .-: .~.;.l,.-..::. ",. ,,-: ",~' ... :.. 2b.2. Does 50~' of the cover 'of forest caniipy eonsist of evergreen lrees older than 50 years. AIiI2 ' is the strucrund ctiversilY of the forest high as , chanlclmled by an additional layc:t of trees 20' • 49' tall. shrubs 6' • 20' tall. and a herbaceous groundcovu? ' .' . 2b.3 .. ~~s <25';(,' ~r ~a'~~1 cov~ in ~~.!I_~::~I~iL;~:·:~ :','.~! . , herbaeeouslgroundcovcr or the shrub' lay... consist of . invasive/exolic plant species from the list on page 19? DYES: Calegory I o YES: Category II o NO: GOlD Q.3 o YES: Ca .. gory I D NO: Go t~ 2b.2 o YEs: Go io 2b,3 o NO~ G~-t~ Q.3 o YES; §.;~~ory I D NO:. Go to Q,3 tal. Upstream ... at.r~~.>.12~,!~po:rvious>,· :," < :', ~'i:, Go to Q.l: 102. Weiland is ditched and wale, no. i.-';01 obsUuCl<d. 0 VOl: Go to Q.l 1---------------------------------- 103. WeIland has been graded. lilled.logged. C!tY~i: Go .to Q.l:, Q.2c. Estuarin. We. lands. 104, Waler in weIland is controlled by dikes. wei ... ele. 0 Y u: Go to Q.l 2e:. f Is ~ weli,;'d listed as Nalional Wildlife Refuge •. " . laS. WeIland is gr~z~d:-'.-,!,':'~~;':,,:F'::'<~·:,c:','" .• ";: 0 Vrs; Go to Q.l ' , Nabo .. 1 Park, Narional "',uary Reserve. N.lOral Area DyES: Calegory I D NO: Go to 2e.2 '. ", ... ' -, .... ,J, '" " .... , -., --, Preserve. Si,,,e Park. or Educational. Environmental or 1.6. O!her incticalors "I~s~~~~~~c~~(Iis~ below), 0 ns~ '~o to Q.l ' S~ieDlific Reserves design3led under WAC 332.3~151! I---------------------f ".:' C ••• " .... .''.:r.t·.~.~:·'~.:_~, ::. ,-,-;.,:" ",~:~ :"'.-'~;"_'I .....• _.~i .... ;".J I b. Are lIlere populalions of ii,;n:iia,j~.' pi';;,. which 'ari"cUm~'I~'.o 0' YES: go 10 Q.2 preSent. cover more Iha'i'IKof ihC weIland/and appe;,; io~' 0 NO:'go 10 Ic iri~iwling native popu.la~jonlr. Br:i~ny describe any non--n.ative C .......... .,. "'~~l'I!t.'"l,?;'t' ,. I c. Is lhere evidence of hUIl'liUl-cau.e.J disiurbmces which have visibly degraded waler qualifY. Evidence of lhe degradation of ~aler qualily include: direct (un"ealed) runoff from roads or puking Jots; presence. of hiSioric evidence. of waste dumps; oily sheens; Ihe smell of organic chemicals; or liveslock usc. Brien, describe: .. ~_': ~ '.: .". ..... ; :::. . ". ~ .. 1 ," Q.2. Irreplaceablo Ecoio~i~;;i Fui;ctions Does lhe well.nd D YES: go to Q,2 I o NO: P~ssible Cal. I '. conlact ONR' • have .. leasl 1/4 acre of organic soils deeper lbaa 16 inches and Ihe wetland is rd.'iveIY uDdislurbed; OR' '.':., ; .. ,c '-', ',~ (If the 'answer is NO hecau..; lhe 'welland is diSl~rt,;;d brieny describe: .;.~ ';:Z~(", }'=:. :".i-::. h· ;~;-' >' ----' "'. Indicalors of dislurbance may include: -WClland has been g ... ded. lilled. logged; '~~~~Q~~; OR -Org.nie soils .on the, iurface are dried-out for more than halrof_~year;,.-~ .. -~"" :'t~ : . Wetland receives direct slormwaier ~norr from urban or Olgricuhural arcas.); • have a forested class grcaler than I acre; " OR , .. ~.::.~.~ '. _f ,,' have char-3cIC:ristics of an esruarinc systcm; OR , . have ed grass. nooting or non·noaling kelp beds?' D YES go to 2.a D YES go i02b .;~ : D YES go 102e o YES go t02d 2:0. Bogs and rons '-d,' .. "., Arc any of lhe Lhree following conditions me' for the area of organic soil' 20-.1. Are Sph.gnum mosses a common ground cover (>30%) and Ihe cover of invasive species (see Table 3) is less than 10'il.? . Is the area of sphagnum mosses and deep organic soils> In acre? , "'t •. ,', i., Is the area of sphagnum mosses and deep organic soils 1/4. 112 ocre? : ~ l' . ,,:~, ;~j .: ~.,~,~.,; 2a.2.. Is lhere an area of organic soil. which has an emergent 'class with aI least one species from Table 2; and cover of inv.siv~ species is <10\1, (see T.ble 3)? Is the a~~ 'of herblceous plants and deep organic soils> )n acre? Is the area of hcrbilceous plants 3nd deep organic soils 1;4 • In. acrc? ; /..: ~ DyES: Calegory I D D YES: C.l<gory II NO: Go 10 2a.2 DyES: Ca'egory I 8 YES: Calegory II NO: GOI02 •. 3 2c.2. Is the wel~~nd >S acres?_..... A._ C ";'" i~ NOle: If an area conlains patches of salttoleran, ' "cgelation thai arc : . , I) less lho.n 600 feet apan and !hal are separaled by .. ,mudflats th •• go. dry 00 • Mean Low. TIde. Ill .. ' _ 0-YES: Category I 2) separated by tidal channels Ihat are less thon JOOfeclwide;" .!.; &··f:,·~:';'·t;··: .,. all the ve&elat~ areas arc to be considered logether:.t .,i~ -; ... ,~ ,.;~".j, '_,;, : in C01lcutDI~~I.~;:~~J~4.'.are~,:'.:.~.):ti,~-!~~:;.,~'\~~~;-:t1 .. :,.3;., ,. ... :'" \:i.r~ ! , '.',,~~~:~ or is Ihe' wetland I·S acrcs? .. _ .... ~ ..................................... ~ ... D YES: Go to 2c.3 or i, Ihe.~ell.nd <I. acreL ................................................... 0 YES: Go 10 ic.4 2c.3. Does the weIland meet ., least 3 of dyES: . C~~egory I the following 4 aileria. ........................................ .. ":~~~~~:{i:~~H.·"', "" .:;.'~, -;,l':¥r< ,:f.::-. :" . " O~ ,NO:, Category n -minimum existing evidence of human n:Jated i; "-:;1 ...... ; ;t:~. '~i1.L: .-~';~I~. disrurbance such as dikin,. dilchin" filling. cultivalion. .... grazing rx the: presence of noD-oldive plant species (see '. guidance for definiti~~:~ .. Q.:!l~ -!t.i', J;"':~""'} ~J -'. • -surface water con~ii';i ;ith'6daJ ~~I~~ler~ t ' or tidaJ freshwatcr:·'~?17t:~r~~~.~i~~~7::0.~r:: ~ , -at least 75" of Ihe weIland has ii IOO~ buffer of .' , ungrued pasrurc. OpeD waler. shrub, or.(C?~s,:.':;:..~ nt-- ',. -"'''. ,",:,._" ·has adeasi 3 of the: following fe:lrures,:i~w marsh; highy; =~~~~~f~S~:':~~ ~!:;::~t ~'f:':~~~s; or2~[?}~ffi\ .. 2c.4. Does Ibe weIland meet all of the four ai;~i. 1@~' D :'!:ES,:,fategory II ' ... under.2e3. (abOve)?,'~f?;;;, i,i~~~:.D::J:J~~1~ory m Q.2d. Ed Grass and Kelp B.ds. 2d.1. Are eel grass heds present? ........................................ ,.; 0 YES:: Category I .~" .' , • "~ '.-.; : /I'" , 2d.2. Are Ihae noating or non·noaling kelp bed(s) present with grealer lban 50\1, macro algal cover in the monlh • D ,~~ go ~~ 2d2 of August or Seplember? ............ :.::::.:; ......... ; .. ; .. : ..... :.! D. YES: Category I D' NO: Category U Q.J. Categor, IV ",otlands. 3a. Is lbe weIland: less Ih •. n.1 acre lruI hydrologic.lly ,. isolaled iIII4 comprised of one: vege'.,ed class Ihai is domin.,ed (>80~ areal cov"') by oDe sPecies from Table 3 (page 19) or Table 4 (page 20) > , 3b. Is Ihe weiland: less thon Iwo acres ~;~\ydrologi~.I1~ isolated wilh one vegetated class, and >90,. of areal cover is any combination of species from Table 3 (page 19) . '" !.' 3c. Is the ",elland excavaled from upland and a pond smaller than I acre: withoul a surfxe waler connection 10 streams. lakes. rivcrs. or olher wetland. 4U1d h."s <0.1 acre of vegetation DyES: C.,egory IV ;;:{ -NO: go 10 3b DyES; Calegory IV ~O: gOl03c DyES: Ca .. gory IV ~NO: go 10 Q.4 Q.4. Sienifiant habitat yaJue.'! q ~ '.;'~ j ~:: S( ~."'; ..• ;: ! "1 ~ ADsw~r all q~~slions and ~nler d~t~-'rr:q~~~fI:d ';, 4i: TOlal wetlaniar';' .. Cbc:d boo dial qualifies JQl:l = >200. 0 6 40·199·99' 0 5 .:,: Departm~pt ofE~ology .. Wetland Ratmg Dat~· Entry Form .... "Western Washm ton-Pa'e 2 Estimate area. select rm~ ch~ices"-ii~en: .. ~ 10·39.99 0". 4g. Conn.ctlon to Slr.amL . (S<ore on. answ.r onl,..) . .• 5·9.99 . 0 :. ] .,"-. .. '. . ~.,::;~~, cl' 1 4g.l. 6::~~~~~~.~~~~~1~~~~~i;~~~~1~~~~r;:E ... YES 0 Sc: -----------'-----~-----~--""7~~-..,...---_i. 4g.2. DDc1 ~ wctl-'-;'dPro~i~r.sb ii~bitii(seas~nall,. AN.o does ~., 4b. W~I~.cl3Sscs: Cirt:le the wetland classes below thai'qualify: .. """ have. seasonal s~ac. W8tet <onnection to • fish bearing sbUm.:" YES 0 ' "'. Oren ",ater. if the area of open water is > 114 a=. • of c1..... Score 4g.3. Does \he wetland function 10 upan organic m'lIIer through:" Aquatic Beds: if the area of aquatic beds > 114 ac~ ,.' o.;c·d~·· 0 0 ' a surface waler connection ai all times of the year 10 •. •. '. . Emcrgenl: if the area of emergenl class i. > 1/4 acre Twoc""""" 0 .: .. pere.ni.1 .Ir.am .. : ... _::;:;;;;.:" ......... : •• "" .......... ; .................. ~.:., •• YES 0 Scrub-Shrub: if the .... of 1CnIb-.hrub <las. is > 114 acre lluu clWcS' 0 4g~4. 'o.;cs I~' wetiand'funciio~'i~ upon o;'ga~~ ~n~ Ihrougb ,.".' :.,", Foresied: if.ea of foresled class i.':> 114 .= '5' F;;'" d~ ,. b •• urface waler conllCClion 10 • suum o •• seasonal basi._ ... _. YES 0 Check the .ppropri~"e ~,'·r.;r,.',t;·~·~~:~r-~ih~ld·~j~ei. fi~~I~~' 0 10 4c., PI.~~ spedes diversilY. ":,;.; :.-.,! c ..... For each weiland cI~s(al righ;)~~'~~ifi;;;in r~ '"." . ~b .. abo.e, count the number of differem plant Aqullic BaI species you can lind .hal cover mo~ Ihan S'iIo of . the ground.' " .,." ,",,, ..•.• '. ;.~,~~~.+ ~{.,.:..-... _. Yau do nOi have to name lhom. . ,,' I" .' 2 0 ] 0 >3 0 . 1 2.] '·S o o >S··' 0 4d. Siruttural DiYersity ~!~~~;.~.;; ·.d·:~ '>0:'" . .'.' .~; '.":"i~{'}/· If the wetland hIS • foresled class, add 1 paim if each of the followin,·'· .';\:"',.:, classes ispr~,,! within the fo~sled class and is larger w.n 114 ac~: -,:".-;""" " , ,'.~;; ~:::~ ·i~~~ 1;:1.;~~·;:::~·:.·:::::~·.::::::~~::=:::::::::::::::::~:::{~::~;~~;:;~:.~~:; : o '0' YES 0' vE.$·:O -' ,-'.-.herbic~ui:" &r~u'nd cover .• ;_ •.. ~; .......•.••.••.... : .. :~~~.: .. ~ ..•.• :;:~ .. : ..•...• ; . . . .: ~h;.u b~ ::.:~;~ .. :;: ........................ : .:: ': ........ :.~ ....... :: ~ ::~ .. :.:; ....... : .. ~.:: ••. . ' Also add I Poliil if thc:n: is any "opeD ",ater" orUaquatic bed" class immediately nex110 the forested uea (i.e. Ihcre is no., 'f'.' ",) ;;. ~'" "f'''' scrublshrub or emergent vcge.atioli bctw«ll them)~:~.;,,_._ ".:. YES· 0 40.. Decide from the diagrams klow whether inleJ1persioD'!' ",. between weiland classes i. high, mocICralC. low or none? If you lhint the amounl of imerspa.ion falls in bei .. een .. · .. lhe diagrams seore accordingly (i,e, • moderalely high . amount of iDlerspersioa would score·, 4~' while •.. ~ .•. -~ ..... ~ .~" ""; '>"'. a;.~· . ~..;-.. ~~~,.~~~-----' .... 4r •. , Habilat realures. "\-,. o o ' .• Low.-0 AnS~~·;~t.;ti~ns below. cirt:1e features that apply. and sco~ 10 the righl: Score 0 1 " 2 ] 0 1 2 3' 0 1 2 0 1 1 ] Sct>re Scon: 5 b'~re ~;i~~ tha;ib:;~;;;':::",' <:. .. , .' '-' Score "'.~ slandinl waler. was caused by be.vers? ....................... _ .. : ......... . YES o Is a heron rook.., localed wilhin 300·7 .............. , ...... ; .............. , YES,O Are raptor nellIs loealed ",ilhi. 300·? .. _ ....................... ~ .......... . ~ES" K' Are tbd~';" leaSI 3 slandin& dead b-~ (snags) per ac~ greater .han 10" in diamet~ ~,~~~Ii'~~i~t~ (DB~)?, ................ ' YES 0 ; ·,1 ! i ! ';: 4h. Burrc~ .;;~!(::-":i ·rr~;-r:'_:-~#i~'t~.?:~~<~~~,~;: -~:F"-<-~ .~.~.~:-~'f:;;;:~.::..;;~_.... <-:~"/~":. ,,;.,'; Score "'" "islin, bulTcri Oft I onle or 1·5 k .... OIl"'" loIIowmr lour descriptionS. . j.' .. ; .,' '0" U the condition of "'" bolTen do _ ."CIIy IMlCb "'" description. ...,.. eilha • poinl hilhcr or lower depmdinC on whether the burfen ..., less or ...". de(ndol '," Se .... Forest, scrub, nanve g:,s.ia~d·oi open willer buff';". . , ••.. ' ... presenl fer IIIO<e than 100' .round 9S .. of lhe""" ,; YES' 0 ~ . ~:~{~i~1;~1:~;r~~~·.;~?:?'~':tF0;~;::}:·:r;;~;';.' ;.-.;.' . _~<r Forest, scrub, naun grassland er open waler buffer; wida'than 100' for more Ihan In of lhe wetland cin:umfereDCc. or • foresl, scrub, gra .. land., or OpeD waler burrers for more Ih •• SO' around 95 .. or lhe " ~:~ ~:.~": . : .. circu·mfercnce. ~-... ~. ' ,<;-,:. . : ••• , .. ,.0-,.' • ...h.t" t.:·:~~J .r···;~ .. ~:~":~""j; ,: .... -:: .. : -:.~/{~ ':t~ ~ .,.,.:i";' '~_"~..t;':<!." ; ... .i?~ .. '" Forest, scrub, nalive grassland or open .. aler buffers . Wider than 100' fer more than 114 of the wetland " cir6imfere~ce. or I fores'; scrub:' mavepasslanel 0; opeD water buffers for mere than SO' fer more Ihan ' In of thC wetland circumference. '. . ~;-~;.-r:.,-::~:-·,-..;:.:-::.!.!'.'·. -• .::-' i· ,.;' YES 0 1 No roads, b;.;ldi~g~~~·p.;,~d'~;.. ';';ilhi; ioo' of Ih~ . YES 0 wetland for mor~ tb. 9S~~f lbe ~.II:uad circumference . .~:.-,§t#~f;~i~~i;,~i1t~~L¥~h~i .. ;·~,~·~'r~;'~ No roads, buildings, or p.ved are .. ;~!thiD S~rotth,c. ",etland -, . '"\"':'.-:;',", , for more thall l~f~Lt":i:~a;~.~!;'t;~f~re!'Ce.:::~-:~:,c,,,... . -. Paved areas, industrial areas or residential <ODSlruClion (with les.lh .. SO' belween houses) are Jess than 25' from. YES 0 • the weiland for more ihan 9S'iIo of the circUmference of' . " .. '~"': . .... :--the wetland. ?:~.'.t~·,~~lf.~~~:.r--;':~~~::::~:! ~:' "7 ·t-.':i~~cf· .. ~:~1~!~~::.·:' ·~-v!~~ ~'=if:· ! ,'. : .{oj. -;if: ~:'- 41. Conn.ction 10 olh .. habU.1 aroas Select the description which beSI matches lhe sile being evaJualed. ·Is Ibe wetland connecl~-dIO, or pan -~f, a ripariari corridor i~ Ieasl 100' wide conneCting IWO or more wellands; or, is Ihere . an upland connection prosenl >IOO'wide with good foresl or shrub cover (>25 .. cover) connecling il with a Significanl Habit .. ," Area? ·Is lhe wetland connect~dlo i({yea.;;. H~bi;;,rA.:.a·":i.h either' I) a f~sledlshrub corridor ~OO: .",ide, or.2j;' corridOr lhol; is >100' wide, bUI has Blow 'vcgeiative cover Ie .. Iba. 6 feet in heigh~J..i .... : ;:<' ,.,~~.:f;~:i;ti'<;.· .. • Js the wetland connecled 10. or a pan of, il ripman' cOrridor berween SO' -100' wide with scrub-shrub or fore.t covet .. ,. connection 10 olher well.mdsf·~·:'~ "" .Js the weiland [on nee led 10 .ny olher Habilai Area with: narrow cOrridor (<100') of low vegelalion «6' in heighl)? -,"4--£ ::-'f . ._ ·Is lhe ~eilond ';"'d ilS buffer (if the buffer is less Ihan SO' ",ide) compielely isolaled by developmeill (urban, residenli.1 wi.h a densily grealer than 21acrc. or induslrial)? Score YES !:l 5 '.~ . :,;,.-. " ,~ YES 0 Are there alleasl3 downed logs per acre wi'lh i.: .'. Noltl CI\Crary II ~ 22 pll: . C.lCrary III < 22 JIIS- a diameter >6" for al leasl,lO' in I.nglh?, ................... , .............. . >:7 .•. Are the~ ""'as (vegelated ~ ~~v·~gelill~(h within lhe' ". weiland Ihal are panded fot alle"'l 4 months aUl of the year. and the wetland has not qualified 3S having ;in open water class in Ques1ion 4b .. '? ••••••. _ ••••••.•••••••••••••.••••••••••• ~ ••••.•••••.• YES 0 .',' , YES 0 ] I I. I I I I I ,1 I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I Q.I. Higb. Qu.lilY Nalural Wolland···"; .. :;,.-: •. :,...... ,,: .• ,' , Amwer Ihi, question if yo~' ii.'~ 'iiieqii~e ij,i~,i~';": .~~en~~ i~ do 's~~' If nOl . find someone wilh 1m: 'e"pertise io answ~r Ihe questions. Then, ir the ans~cr 10 rt'; i questions I, Ib UK!.Ic an: all NO, conlacl the Nalural Heritagc program of DNR. J a. Human taUsdf' 'd~·~~~ii~~~·~·;'t~:'~ ~;~~~~;~:~~;~:~~jl.:~~~~1:: ~:~'~:~:~l;~:~';!.~~~:~'~'it;:~'~':~}~;,' ;~ ... J' b there significanl .;'id';;" of Iiu~c.~sed 'c~g~ io I~g;~pi,y~: " . hydrololY of lhe wClland os indicaled by any of the followin& coDdilions?·, ., . Consider only changes Ihal may ..ave iake;, place in the lui 5 dccad.':::rt.c imp~is of changes done carlier have probably btt~ slabilized and lhe weIland ecosyslem will be close 10 re~~hing some new ~~~t~~~n~,r~:;~~1:m~~~~2~1~:~ ~~~,. , ::~: ::~;.:~s~~:::~il::L;"z;7;,i~~i~~~:~X::·~ ti:~::: ~:~' Iv. Weiland has been graded. filled, Ioggc'd. ····Gil Y.~: Go 10 Q.1 1:>4. Waler in weoland is conlrolled by dikes. weirs. elc. O-Y .. : Go 10 Q.1 Ja.5. Weiland is ,razcd:H~t ~.::.~.~.:,~.~!~~··::4:,;'.":'.';J}~~t:f;r+ .... :,-,:t1' 0 Y~I~ ~o '0 Q.2 i ;'6. Other indica.ors ~r disni~b.'ii<!e ois~ \;;;J"""j"!" r·r 0, Y .;: Go 10 Q.1 ' .. ,,,.,,. "",",., ."., '··'p .. ;~~~o 10 Ib.l "''; ',.;. '''' ~( J. ' lb. Aze there populalions of ni"i:~ati~ pianos "(Uch~c~~nl~~;> 0 • YES; 'go 10 Q.2 i: . J'!"CSCnl. cover more .hon 10'ili or die.welland; and aPl"'ar'o be.·, 0" NO: go.o Ic " inv':w1in'g n~uive populalionl? Brieny describe any n~.narive, .' ',->i.. ' .. -p]a¥~~ulalio~ ~~ Info!n1~!~~~;~~~!~i~~'~~t~;~~1:i~';;.1, ~,~~~~. ~.~~. \., 0 •. :' , ." r"" .. ft Ie. Is lhere evidence of hurn:a".nustd disiwbances which bave.: ,~~ visibly deg~ded waicr qUaiily~'-Evidence-or lbe' degradalio'n . ,. 0 YES: 1010 Q.2 . or ~aler. qualilY include: direcl .(unl'eated)l1Inoff from roads [j NO: Possible Cal. I or parking 101S~ presence. or histori( evidence: of waSie -conlad DNR' dump.: oily sheens: lbe smell or organic chemicals: or livestock use. Briefly describe: :".l ~~ .!., •• ,' ,_, ,_.' 'f.:, Q.2. Irrtpl:actable Ecoio'g;~a"F~~ctions~ ;:-"" ;t'{'+~ .. ~:+' Does lhe wetland • have al leosl 114 at,., of organic soils dccpcr .rb ... 16 inches and,lhe weIland is relalively uodisturbed; OR"·.'·~'.:" ,~: :'.-"': (If the' answer is NO because thewerland i' ciisiurbed briefly ' .. , .... describe: " •. :':;':' . .,.~'t;\t'.tt~;.~.';.,-, ~~. :' .'~;:!;~;.!.: Indicalors of dislwbance may include: • Wetland has been graded. filled. 10Ued: ·Organic soils on lhe surf ... D,., dricd-our for 'fi;~O;~ '~n: EO 10 Q.3) more Ihan half,or thC je,;,.;., '. :-:;:>: .. ,,"' ',. o YESgolo2a OR • Wetland receive; direct sloonwaler'runoff from' urban or agricullural ;ueas.); • hay~ a forested class g~aler Ihan I acre; : OR .; .• :;, ." .. ,,':" .. ,.' ':'"-:~i~i' ,.". 0 YES gOl02b • have chilr.llcterislics of ~n csruanne system: .- OR • haye eel grass. flo.,ing or non.noalini kelp. beds? t", 0 0 2a. Bog. and rons '." ".". ;'::', ',,: ,." .... : .. ~.... '.' :cc ';'.<;'- Are any· of lhe three following condilions met' for the area of organic soil? 2&.1. Arc Sphagnum mosses a common ,round coYer (>30%) and .h. '. · •.•. :.co • .,. or invasive species (see Table 3) is less Ihan 10%1 I~'~ ~rea or sphagnum mosses and deep organic soils> 112 acre? 0 . Is Ih.~ of sph.gnum !ill;s~s~;;;rdeq, organic soils 1/4· 112 acre? 0 . . ., \[: .. ~":, .;.", 0 20.2. Is !here an ., •• of organic soil which has an emergent "·'class ... i,h ai Ieasl one s~i" finm Table 2; and COYcf of inVllsi~~ s~i,e. is <10'>\ (see Table 3)? Is lhe an-a of herbKeous pJ;:InIS and dec:p organic soils> In OK1C? 0 Is lhe are. of ~rboceoJsplanlS ond deep org~nic soil. IIJ. 112 acr~? 8 YES go 102c YES go 102<1 YES: Calcgor; I YES: Calegory" NO: Go 10 2 •. 2 '. , YES: Caieg',ry I YES: CalegOry II NO: GOlD 20.) 2nd. Edition Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Data Entry Form Western Washin ton .. ' P.u9b~~)aJID 20.3. Is lhe vegelation I mi"ure of only herbaceous plants and Sphagnum mosses wilh no scrub/shrub or forrsled cJAlsses? Is ;he .,e~ 0; herbaceous pIanos. Sphagnum, and deep' organic soils> 112 acre? Is lhe arel of herbaceouS plants. Sphagnum: and deep organic soil. 114·112 acre?"""" .:,' "":' .... ,." . o YES: C.,egory I o ;rES: Calcgory II O' NO: Go 10 Q.3 Q.2b. Maluro roru •• d ... ir.nd. .' .. . ~, , .,. 2b.l. Docs 5~ of lhe cover of upPer rorest canopy consisl of evergreen Ifees older than 80 years or deciduous u-c.. older Ihan 50 years? NOle: n.: siu of trees is ohen not I mi&sur~ of age. and size cannol be: used u • sunogalC for age (see guidance). ' .. '. ,:.: .... "'>.',. ,~, '., .~,.... .... ... 2b.2. Docs 50'1. of ihc covcr or foresi c.nap;. consi,' of evers""'" trees older Ihan 50 years. At!.O is lhe strucrural diversily of lhe foreSl high as characterized by an addilional la,er of trees 20' • 49' lall ,hrubs 6' • 20' lall. and a herbaceous groundcover?· 2b3. DOc:s <25~~rlt;;;;~~ cover i~'~' ~:;;~;<: . herbaceous/groundeova or lbe shiub J~ye/c~~~i;i"oi .. ~.nvas~~elcxolie plant species from the lisl on page 191 Q.2c.-Estuarine Wellancb. 2c. i. Is lbc wella~d listed as Nalional Wildlife Refuge, " .' ... : National Park, Naoional EsIU"')' Re.erve, Narural Area . . Preserve. Slale Pllk, or Eduealional, Environmenl.1 or ~ienlific Reserves designaled under WAC 332·30-151! o YES: Caoegory I o ~O:. GO',O 2b.2 o YES: Go 10 21,.3 O'NO: GOlo·Q.3 d YES: Ca~~,ory I o NO: Go 10 Q:3 o YES: Calegory I o NO: Go 10 2c.2 '). ~ i, '.J , 2c.2. Is lhe weIland >5 acresL.... ."-, r 0 YES: Calegory I NOle. If an "",i con.ains palches or salt iolerant Yerelalion thai are ., I) Ie .. Ihan 600 fee. apan and lhal arc separaled by mudllalS Ihal go dry on a Mean Low TIck, l2I ..... 2) ~~::d~~~;dal channels Iha. arc Ie .. lhan "":"" ;.\, ." 0 "'. ,,;.: .. ". all the vele.a.ed areas are 10 be considered together . ,!.P. I,'! 0(. ,;: ~,. .' o. is I~:c~:~:~t~_:;~~.=::.~::~ ... ':.~.':~~'.'.~::.:~~~.,._ 0 Y~;~~"~';~.3 or i. I~~ ... ellal'd <I .cre? .. __ ..•.•................ _ ... __ .......•.... _,_ p YES: Go 10 2<:.4 2c.3. Docs the weIland m... .. leasl 3 of 0 YES: Calc gory I the following ~<"~~'7:~~~~.~·-·!·,~··-~~~::~·::·~:~:·~::···:~;::~·.·;"~: .. ~ ;': 0, .minimum existing ~vidc~~ of human ,.,Ialed,,'" . . ." -. . NO: Cal.gory n disturbance such as dikin&, ditchin&. filling, cullivation;,. .. .., ..... ' . graz.ing or the present:e of noo-nalive plant species (see .~:::e::~er ::~;'~i~i:tr1i~~;~1~::':' or _.~idal freshwater. :~~~\~;i ~~.: '.:~~{~r·~~i:~:·~r-J~~~ ~,"' .. ~~ '.' .~~~:~: '(: ~'''.' !. ~l · •.• leas. 75'>\ of lb. ",elland has a IOO~ \ruffer oCe. .'." ':.". ungrazed. p:lSrure. OpeD water. shrub or lor.esl:, .; .. ,.~.,' .:; ·has at Ic.a" 3 of Ibe following reai.r~; )0';'. marsh:. hill!""-~b; odal channels: I_goon(s): wood; debris: or~~" contiguous freshwater wetJand. '~~'3:~rn~:-: :.,'. ~ ".~~;:~.~'~,? 2c.4. Docs lhe weiland meel all of lhe four cril~i. . und.~r.2c3. (above)? ,,·i).,. ".,;..> ' .... , Q.2d. Ed Gro .. and Kolp B.ds. 1" 2d. I. Arc ecl gra .. beds presenl? .......................................... 0 yEs: <:Olel:'ory I "... .,.... '" .. ' . ,,' , .. 0 NI>; l0,l02d.2 2d.2. Are lbere flo.ring or non,noaling kelp bed(s) prescni 0 YES: CaleEory J with grealer lban SO'>\ macro algal cover io lhe. monlh of Augusl or Seplember? ............ : ............ : ... ::.: .... : ... :: ... 0 NO: Cajegory D Q,3. Cal.,ory IV .. ellands. 3.. Is the weIland. Ie .. Ihan I acre iIIllI hydrologically, isolaled iIlIlI comprised or one vegelaled class Ihal is dominaled (>80\\ a~al cover) by one specics from Tab~e 3 (page 19) or Table 4 (pag. 20) "", 3b. Is lhe weIland. 1m Ihan IWO ac~es .~d. h'drOlogi~~;IY isolated \Vim one ve~elaled class. and >90'1, of areal cover is any combination of species (roo, T~ble 3 (page 19) ." : .... ,' 3c. Is Iii. weIland excavaled from upland and a p;'nd' smallcr Ihan I 3C~ wilhoul a surface waler conneclion 10 streams. laku. rhers. or Olher weiland. :md has <0.1 acrt of vC'gelillion o YES: C.,egory IV L1{ NO: go 10 3b o YES: Calegory IV 2( NO. go 10 )c '-". : o YES: Cal.gory IV 9( fIIO. go 10 Q.4 Q.4_ Signilicanl habibl nlur_ Cbed bosmal qu.lif ... An ...... all quo.rions and enler dal. nqunled. 4a. TOlal weiland "'c. II!:l<1 Xll!J:' o o o o Estimale area. select frum choices gj'¥e'n:' >200 40-199.99 .. 10. ".99 . '-9.99 1.4,99 0.1·0.99 <0.1 ~~ 4".' Weiland clas.e.: Circle !he weiland classes below that qualify: . r' Open waler: if lhe ar •• of open w., .. is > 1/4 acr. Aqualic Beds: if !he ... a of aqua';c beds > 114 am: . Em<rgelll: if !he am of .merg.nt c .... i. > 1/4 acre Scrub-Shrub: if lb. arca of scrub-.hrub class is > 1/4 acre For."cd: if area of forcsl.d class i. > 1/4 acre Chc<k lhe appropri~;~ i,;,x f';' 'I~ ;';;;;'~' ~f:";~tI.nd cia~~: 40. Plant species diversil),. f.'" • 01 classes Onodass Twoclasscs ThnIe cw.cs ";"ci;"" F.'fJICdWes 0 0 0 0 0 o , 10 Scorr ~', , . , ':" -----;:---'1'...--.---1 For .ach w.lland cI .. s (al righl) Ibat qualifies in 4b .bove. counl !he number of diff.rent plllll species you Can find Ihal eov .. more Iban S'Jo of lhe ground. • ,.' You do nol have 10 name lhem. Sco':'; by chrcking boles 01 righi.·· .. >3 I 2-3 4-5 >, I 1 0 0 I 0 1 . 0'·" , 0 0 I 3-4 0 1 >4 0 . • --. '",' . ":0 ~SIIru" W6\~~~ 'I~: \~> T\.;,c:.",yt'~ ;' .. ...;,..---'--~-r4--;;---f ~" c..l~ ~5'0 1 ",J:,~ 0 3-4 0 .... -. >4 0 '7!.;, '1'-"·5-·' 'I: '-. 4d. Slruclural Dh.rsily If lhe weiland has • forcsled cI .... add I poinl if eacb of !he fonDWin, ," classes is prCSCnI within the fores1ed dass and is Jarle1' than 1/4 acre:':',- ' .. -u~cs ,> ~~i,o~all ..... , ............................................. -•••• ;.~'--,.L ... ~·.;. YES : 0 ·lrees 20~"'<~JI,: •• 11 .............................................. : .. ;; ... : ... ; ... :: .•.• ~.. YES. 0 -herbaceous ,round cov ............. .: ..... : ........... ;:; .. · •... :..................... YES 0 -sliruiii_.:~ .. : •• ;.: ........................................ : ... ':':'~'::':~:":;"::'~"'''''' YES 0 . _ . 'L··~.·! . ,< AI.o add I point if Ihcrc is any "open wal .. " or "aqua';c bed" cia .. immcdialely nUllO .he foresled area (i.e. Iherc is no scrub/shrub or emergent vege'alion betweeD Ihcm).;.~ ...... ~_ ..• ~. Decide from lhe diagrams below whether interspersion" belween weiland classes i. high. rnodCntc, low or none? YESD If you lhink'!he amount of inleisper.iOn falls hi briwcen" " , lhe diagrams score accordingly (i.e. a moderalely high .'. iii,. ,0 amount ofiDterspcrsioD would score a 4; while a" ." ' Hlp.'M .... ....;; .. 0 mod .. alCly low amoUDI would score a 2).'" :~:.:-;,. -0 ~, _/~ LowIModentc D .. lAI_ D Hone D 4r. Habilal Foaturrs AnS,.;er'qu.;J~ns belo .... circle fearurcs Ih .. apply. and score 10 !he right: Ii lhere evi';';;;';e 1h~1 ~~.~.~ :." ,~,. '. ' . sla",dine ...... , ... as caused by be.vcn? ......................... _ ........ . Is • heron rookOf)' loea.ed within 300·1.. .................................. . Arc raplor nestl. localed wilhin 300·?;.. ................... :.~ .. :: .......... ~ Arc lhere al I~as. 3 slanding dead irees (snags) per acre gre.,er Ihan 10" in diamcl .... "breasl heighl" (DBH}? .............. . .. -".! Arc Ihere al leasl 3 downed logs per ..n wilh a di.mcler >6" for al leasl 10' in Icnglh7 .................................. .. ~ "; ',-.... " .~~-~:-: Arc there areas (vegelal.d Of unv.Bel~ied) wilhin the w.lland lhal arc ponded for ai leUI 4 monthS OUt of the y."'. and !he wetland has not qualifi.d as having an open wain class in Question 4b. ? ....... : __ .......................... _ ....... _____ . YES 0 YES 0 YES Xl. YES 0 YES 0 YES 0 Sc"", 0 Sc"", • . Departm~r!t'of t;cology Wetland Rat.l,lg Dat~i. Entry. Form .' , .. , Western' Washm ton 4c. Conntclion .10 Streams. (Score one answer only.) 4,.1. Docs.he ';' .. land provick'h~bilai r~fisr ai a~yti~ of d.c,..; ~ docs il have 8 ~:nn~~' ~~~~~~ ~~I~ ~O~~l~~~ ~~.~ ~.~~ _ beann, sn •• m. ........ "; ..••. ; •.. ; .. , ...• ;., ... , ••. ,, ... : ............... _.":._ ••... YES 0 6 Scon: .' 4g.2. ~ i~ wi~~ pro~i~ fish babllat sW~-'all1'Aliti docsil'" . have a Kasonal surface wata connect jon to a fi5~ bc:uing stream. .• YES 0 • 4,.3~ Docs.he w .. land function 10 Clpon or,.nic maner Ihrougll' il surface water coMeclion .1 all rimes of the y~ 10 • perenoiol "'.am ........ ; ...................... '-.:.,· ....................... _ ........ YES 0 4 4g.4. DocS the we,l.nd funCtion I~ expOrt or'.;';c man .. IlIroUgb .' ,'.' a surfa .. w .... confICClion tn • stream on a seasonal b .. is_ .... _. YES 0 4b. Burrors.',.!" ".:,:. . "';""' •. :' :1-... :,',:;' ... :\;,:i!,',''':';';·:· ,1' .. sc .... !be ClUsIin, bullen 011 • selic 011·' W<d en die fonowln, four cIescripUcni.' U I/Ic condition or tilt buIfcn do "'" uX1ly IIIOIC. tilt dcscriplion. OC'OR cilhcl. po;M lU,hu .. _ cl<pcnctin,'"' whe""'!he buff ... arc ...... ""'"' de,...,.... . .' Forest. SCflIb:nativc grassland ol:opea walt:r bUffers :';-:.t-.. arc present far more tIWI 100' around 9S'JIr of!he .,' ~~~:~-~~~~~~/:~)~ -~':~ .. ·:qf·~\~~·;::7:·;;}+~~:~:.-'t' . fc~ d' Fo;~~'-K~ltnaiive ·gr1.~J~~"or O;~~)~~~;~fftt. . ... ~ ... , widu Iban 100' for more lhan In of lhe weiland circumfcnnco. or a foreSl. scrub. grasslands. or open wa ... burrers for more than SO' around 9S'JIr of lhe , cir~~~~~e. _4~ ~,:~.,\'.:;'; ~~'-."~ .. d.-'.:;';:~~Hq':tt • '~: .·5' :~;~~f-~'Ft~ '.'-.'." ("v.::"'" ~t . .c.·::;'j.;:i,~.·',:-_,.".:.·:, '. Forest.: >,mb. nalive gmsla;;d or open ;"'al .. burrers wider Iban 100' for more Ihan 1/4 of lhe weiland . circumference. or • forest. scrub: 'oative irassJaiui. or ,open water buffers for more Ihlll SO' for more Ihan 112 of lhe _ .. land circumference .. No roads. buildings or 'paved ';"'as wilh;'; 100' or 'me '. weiland for inare th.n 9S'lIo of ihe weiland circumference. ~ . .: .. _... J.::::!; ... ·.:;.).;l,;~';:-...• . _. Paved areas. ind~sir; .. arc;" Or rcsideniial cooslruclion (,..ilb less lbaD SO' between houses) arc less thaD 25' from !he weiland for more .han 9S'Jo of !he' cin:urnf.reni:i: of . lhe wetland. ~':~~.}: . ~-.. ~:~~:.~~}. ;~ .. ;~ ... " ,"; ..... : '. ~ ... ?-. .~; .; •. ~' 4i. Connc-ction to othc-r habItat .nas ,~;~.' $cICCI !he description which best matches lhe site bdng e~alua •• d. -Is lb. wetland connected 10. or pan of. a riparian corridor 01 leasl 100' wide connectin, two or more wctlaod.; or, i. lhere an upland connection present> 100' wide wilb good forest or,·· shrub cov .. (>2S'Jo cover) eonnec,;n, il ... ith a Signifieanl Habil" Area? ·Is the weiland cooncc:l;;J'io"';~ ~~ H~i~CA~.;";th -"i.~r . I) a foreSlcdlshrub corridor <JOO' wide. or 2) a'ccnridor mal , . is >100' wide. bul has a low veg.lativ. cover.!ess Ihan 6 feet i. heighl?' :.. ,.,c'· ,.,','.~:,.,.) .~' . ..,. ~ . .;~i.~: ~ -• . , .. ~ i. ;~ .... .~.~:,::: ... ~<-;.~: -Is the, w.lland connccled 10. or a pan of •• ripari"; corridor between SO' -100' wide wilb scrub-shrub or forcsl cover ... connection 10 Olber wetlands? . ·Is !he .... lland connecled 10 any alb .. Habilal An:i with nanow corridor (<100') of low ngctation «6·.in,.height)? ···.·f -Is the weIland ;;'d its burr .. (if !he burr .. is iess !han SO' wide) complelely isololed by developmcnl (urban. residenli.1 ,..ilh • densilY gre .... Ihan 2Ia=. or industrial)? YES 0 YES 0 YES 0 2 YES 0 YES 0 0 ~; .. '" Sco .. YES [] 5 Noles C."',.., II ~ 22 pIS. C"Clory III < 22 .... --' --::-----.------.--.--.. ----====-------c~i~~'l 11 0 . T ..• i •. · ..• ,', ko .. " [3] -.----.---.-..... , ... ----...... --... ---.. C';'P'l III ./ .;.> DuiCn by Scott T. Clay-Poo. I I I I " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I, I I I I I I I I I I I Na~of,R, a~ak;tz"" k~" ' ~e~counIY ?i") , ,rrOJeCll'lunc ~-$PJWa.r1 ~j'ok1 'Wetland I'I~;;'" 'G' 'Go~'I: Jurisdicli~n of Wetl~nd: T ... I:: w i (p- Sill: Localionla-!-L1.=;r1---!~':;:-'"f=---6'-'C~~!i!::~_J...LI-:::"'~~3Ll.!:.""'3!.!:<'~t,...._ " Township '2.3!!, ,Rang~ Locarion: ali~~: (Chrc" all sour; .. ' ~j;~1 ~ppi;) "', ,:,,',"<?;<' USG~ TopoMa" GC.. ~y.'I,~ap ,!{t: Aerial Ph~'o ~~ils Su'!.y .• "!':" •• .: ,_, _ ...•• " ":_:.'., . • ,,', ,' ....•. eo "'. -J Wlren The Field Do,. " fonn is compl.,e enlu Cal.go'}' Cal. gory hue: 0 Cal'eory ;..'t-~·~; ,:~. Cal.gorj III Q.I. Hieh Qualily Nalural Weiland:", ", " : ',,:, ,," , Ans~cr Ihis quesrioD ir y~u hi.~'~~~ic'inr~ii~~ ~: ~~~ri~n~e 10 d;; .Ci: If nOl ',' lind someone with lbe CJpenise 10 answer the questions. Then. if the answer 10 ::.; . qucslion. I .. Ib and Ie arc all !,!O. eonlacllbc Nalu .... !"Iui"'ge prograni of DNR. 1 L Human ,.usrd \ dbl~~b~~i~~',; ~~~J.;ft{~.t~:: ~1b.~~?;:,L:.:':.:~~\ ~:,>~ .::'~,' . ,+ :!.~. Is !here significanl evidence of Jiurnan-~"u'cd changes 10 ,opc;g.aphy or " hydrology of lhe weiland as indica,ed by ant or lhe rollowin, condilion.?, Coruidcr only changes Ihal may haye ,.ken place in .... lasl 5 decodes: n,c impoclS or changes dono carli ... hi .. probably been slabiliz.d and the 'weIland ecosyslem will be close 10 reaching some new equilibrium thal,nay fCprescnl I high qualily ",.,Iand, :''1:·~::;;-j:~~~~:·~~~:,\·r.~:~:;:~~·~:·~~.~:·-.. ~: "!~ ,~~ ; :~~~\'.::S~~~1,.~ .;~~~,tnswcrs lal. Upsb'eamwaICJUrCd;j2'li.i;"perviOu~"':':, '0 Y .. : Co 10 Q.Z 102. WeIland is dilchtd 'i';d~~'.r no;" is' nee ob'SIl:UCItd. oY'I: Co 10 Qj lol. WeIland has been gr.ded. filled. logged. NY"; Go 10 Qj "4. Waler in ",.,Iand i. connolled by dikes. "'.in •• 'e, r[J'Yes: Co 10 Q.Z laS. WeIland is gr:iz~.::,,;,:;':"~"'Y','l:'''':''''·';''' ":';,," :'h 0 Yrl: Go 10 Q.1' "6. 0 ...... indic •• on ;ofd;'iurt;;i',;~'(lisi'~i'ow)' D)~~:'Co 10 Q,i • "':' • .,.. _0 ~~:; -",,: , '. : ~4 " .~ • •• L'" ...... '__ _. 1 • r-~' N,O: CO 10 lb.:.: ' J--------------~~---, """,,01 , : t::::::::::::::::::~:=:=:::::::J' " ; !'. -, . "~": :;;r :." I ' ".:',:i '~ l ~ lb. Arc llrere populalions or non-native: plants which arc e~nlly "'" 0 YES:' go 10 Q,2 ;: prcscnl. coyer more Ihan I~ of !hcwell.."d. 'and ippe. 10 be,·, 0' NO, go 10 Ic ' inv:xling IWi"e J'C?pulations? Bri~ny de~cribc any no~nariy!= ""~Y~ plam popublio~ ~ ~foima~ .. ~ ~~~~~~~.:. ~.'~}i,ii~~.J.~~~+~.:· ." .~ .. _. E======~31·'~' Ic, Is lhere evidence oC humaD-caused dis.urbances _hich hlVC, visibly degroded waler qu.lil': EyidenCe DC lhe dcgrodalion of waler qu.lilY include: direct (un!realcd) runoff from road. ' or parkinc loiS: presence~ of historic c'Yidencc. or waste dumps; oily sheen.; Ibe smell of organic chemicals; or liveslock usc. Bri.ny describe: Q.2. ImplaCfable Etoiogical F;;';~Ii~,;~;"" Docs the Weiland : •.... • h.ve al leasl 1/4 acre of organic soils. dcqrcr th ... 16 inches and the weIland il relaliveJiundislurbcd; OR :,"",,'" :"', (If the answer is NO because the Weiland ii disturbed bri.ny describe.: /.'t-\.:.; "::;;?;.~ ;:.\.!7:'.--;~-/(:.; ~. ',"';' Indicalors of dislurbance may include: ,.Welland has been graded. filled. 10&8ed; ,Organic soils on the surface an: dried·oul for moreth.nhalr'OCmeYear, :;"",'.' : ,: .Welland r.ccivei dirrci siorni'walei runofr from urban or O1gricuhuraJ areas.); d YES: go 10 Q,2 o NO:;'ossible CI;, I conlacl DNR o (NO 10 ail;' go 10 Q,l) o YES go 10 2a ,. OR • have a forested class gttalcr than I acre;' OR.": ;" 'c:'" ',r.'o )(YES go 10 2b • have: char.lCleriSljcs of an csruarinc system; o yEs go;~ 2e o YESgol02d OR • have eel grass. nooling or non-noaling kelp beds? , 2a. Bogi and Fenl ' "", ' ';;, Arc any of the three following conditions mel for Ihe arca of 9rganic soil? ,2a.L Are Sphagnum mosses a common ground cova (>30'i!.) and Ihe , , cover or invasive species (sec Table 3) is I.ss Ihan I O'ill? is .... ar~ or sphagnu';' mosseS .~ci deep org~nic soils:> 112 ';'~e? Is lhe area of sphagnum mOsSes and deep organic s~i1s 1/4; 112 ocre? _. ' ~.~ '-.-<~~.~ :",: ;':-'·:-~'~··-i;"l·.,·-", ~.:.~:- 2:0.2. Is Ihcre an area or organic soil which h:ls an .mergent : ," Clas. ",i,h at I .... one species Crom Table 2. and coor': of' inyasive species is <10'ilo (sec TobIe 3)? .. lhe arca or herbaceous planls and deep organic soils> 112 acre? Is lhe .... of herb.ceous planls .nd d~ organi~ soils 1/4 . 112 acre? DYES: COIegory I o o YES: Cairgory II NO: Go 10 2a,2 "".:.-1"\ i o YES: C~i~E;;;:y I 8 YES: COl~g,;ry II NO: Go.o 2,,3 2nd. Edition Department of. Ecology:: -.' Wetland Rating Data Entry Form Western Washin' ton; P,uJ'~~)a~lo 21.3. Is UrC ycg.'luon I rni .. ur. of only herbaceous pbnlS and Sphagnum moSSe'S wilh no SCrubllhrub or fon:sled cJ~sses? Is lhe ore~ or herbaceous plonls. Sphagnum, and decp , organic soils> 112 acre? Is the.orca.or herbaceous planlS.Sph:lgnum, and deep organIc ,olls 114· 112 JCre?'~ "'i", "'",,. /''''", 2b,2. Doc. SO~ 'of 1JiC' cover of fciicsi canopy consin of e.a"""n !reel olcler Ihan 50 years. AND ' is lhe slrUcrural divcrsily of the Cooesl high as characlcrized by an addi.ional laya of becs 20' • 49' Jail shrubs 6'·20' lall. and a herbaceous p-oundcoverl ',,' DYES: COle gory I DYES: , Calegory II o NOr Go 10 Q,l o YES: Go io 2b,3 p(NO: Go 10 Q,l 2b,l. ~ <2S'iIo·~i';'"';"1 cover i~"J;;;'~J~:;'",';i,," ,,, d ,YES:" Calegory I . hc~aceouslgroundcovcr or the shrub i~y:~'~o~~i~, 'of' l:, in~asi,ve/eaOlic planl species Crom the list on page 191 0 NO: Go 10 Q.l Q.2e. Esluarine Weiland .. 2c). I. '!'< ",etland iisl~ as Na,ional Wildlire Refuge.", : ,~ NalSonal Park. 1'I0llonai £Sluary Reserve. N.lUral Area Preserve. S,ai. Park. or Educoliona!, Environmenlal or Scienlifie,Rescrvcs dcsignalcd under WAC 3l2·30-151? 2e.2, Is.he weIland >S acres? ...... . NOIe: If an area conlains p.,chel of s.h lol ... nl vC'!C'IOltion thaI an: I) less lhan 600 C ... apart and Ihal arc separal.d by rnu<lflBII Ihal go dry on IMean to"" lide. III 0, YES: Calegory I o NO: Go 10 2c,2 DYES: Ca,ogory I 2) sepuBled by lid.1 chani>cls Ihat are I.ss lhan )00 reet wick; .. " "',Ji ~ .. , .. •. j... .11 the "ege •• ,ed it ... are 10 be considered logelhcr ," : "" 'i. ' " , ~,,:: :~e~r:;I;t.il~~:~.~~:~:~;~~~~~;~~:~~;;:~:,~~~=· B . ~~; g: ::.~:! 2c.:i. ~ .... ;"eiland ..-II leas. l of ' byES: Cllegory I Ihe following 4 crileri:o. .... _ .............. _., ................. .. ·:~·J~ ... ~'·~;r,P·~·;:.\->-:;.~,_~ .. :-~· ... ·; . J.'~i:. 0 NO: Calegory n .minjmum exislini evidence of human ~laled ). '.;1 •. : ~ disrurbance sucb as diking. dilchin&. filling. cuhi.atio",',, rnzjng or the i>~sc.ce or non-oalive plan. specie. (sco ' ",:. '.~ .-;. " -::::::~er ::~:7~~rhr~~·~~;:,~\: ,J., ":': v ,,:-•. or tidal frcshwa1er.~;~-i.:~·~·'~:~~.:~~'·_~::-'·' ';;!:\: ::~!: .. :.;:_,·!,~ .• l:;_:~ ~.L-!,t.~ r . ·a.IcDSl75~ of Ibe w .. land has. 100' buffer'of,., ,,:r","'l, -,"'1.. ungrazed p~ture. opeD waler, sh~~".orJores,: \), ..... t,;-.i-·· _' -has ., 1;"'1 j or .... Collowing rca;';~: io. manh; hip" .. ,;. =~~:,,~If~~~:~ 1;!~:,>;:~~briS: or%t::~' 2c.4. Docs Ihe weIland m<el all ;" lire fO~:;;;1 ", ..... -DyES; :C.,egory II under 2c3. (above)? . :.fj,i%i~i,·,::!~. ,.}t :, _t:·~·~~~·)!\~:,\ '=c 0" N.~:9i'Bory rn Q.2d. Ed erau and Krlp Beds.,_ 2d,l. Arc cd grl .. beds presenl?,_ ........... _ .... :, .................. : .. 0 YES:" Calegory J " -", ' ,; '.,' ". ':.1' ,,,, " '" 2d,2. ~ lhcrc noaring or noD-noaling kelp bed(l) present WI'" &rcaler "'an SO'ill macro .Igal coyer iii Ihe monlh of Augusl or S.pl.mber?.. .. , .... :.:j.; .. :: .... ':;~;;;.:::.: .... ; ... ;. Q.3., Cal.gor, IV wellands. ~f _ . '.'.: i." l~''''S Ibe weiland: l.ss,lIIan I acre iIIIli hydrologically,: " , ,solaled iIIJI compnsed or one vegelaled cia .. Ihal is dorninal.d (>gO~ "",al coyer) by one: sPecies Irom ' Table l (page 19) or Table 4 (page 20), 3b, Is the weIland: Jess Ihan Iwo 8Cre~'~;;;;:'h~cho;~gic~iIY isolaled wi'" one vog .. aled class. and >'IO'l. oC area! cover is any combination of $pecj~ ,from Table 3 (page 19) , ", 3c, Is the w.,land eacnol.d from upland and. po;,.i ' ' smaller ,hiiln I 3Cre wilhoul Do surfxc W.;IIf:r conneclion 10 sue.ams. lakes. riven. or Olber weiland. and h:u <0. J acre of \I~gel.njon o )"():g~lo 2d,2 o ,YES:,Cal.gory I o ' NO: Caiegory D 1 ; DYES: C.,egory IV ~ NO: gOl03b o '~~: Cal.gory IV }1!,!lO; go 10 Jc o . YES; 6,.gory IV j;8l NO: go 10 Q,4 Q.4. Si,nifi(a~. h.bib. nlu~:J, ~:. . " Cl>cct 1>01 dial qu.liI"ocs 1 '.~:' Ans:w~iaJJ'q~~sliom andenl~·dalamp~l~l .. am.t .s:ms I 4a. TOIaJ wetland area .. ~ '-l.~_ >200 O. 6 40·199.99' 0 ,. 10.j9.99·'p •. 4 '·9.99 ~.. ] . I· 4.99 0 , . :~ '. .:::: 0.1·0.99 0 I ·.~~.I"q. 0 i 4b. Wc.landelasscs: Ciltle !he ":c.I:lIld cI.sse. below .ha. qu.lify. . " " Open wa.er: if .he area of open wa.er is > 1/4 acre .:,of::.:c:;bsscJ:=::=...., __ .::5<'m:=::...;· Aqua.ic Bods: if !he .ru of aqualic beds> 114 acre •.. One tim .~ 0 Emergen.: if !he ;no of emergent class is> 1/4 acre T .... c ...... ·· ~. Scrub-Shrub: if !he an:a of scrub-shrub class is > 114 .cre Three daSses' 0 Fores.ed: if '"'c. oHOn:SledcJass ii >1/4 acre '. ,'C .' . Fomc~ 0 • Co .... ··~~I-'~':"~:.;,"·_;r .'-I.;-\oO:;: .... t ..... ,:::·<· .... ·,~"'··· •••. ,: .... f" •• -.... "'~'~:,""_f"~' Check .he appropria.e bOlt for !he Dumber of weiland classes •. ;. Fi,,::, cbssts;. 0 10 4<. PI.n, species cliV<rsily. " •. to,;'· ..... , .."..,.-----:-~--,-r--;;o--f For each we.l.nd class (a' righl) thai qualifies iD 4b .boye. counl !he number of differenl planl species yoG can fi.d .hal cover rna,., than 5'10 of lhe ground. : .~~ /,; ~;.l~:·~':.~.:.:~~ _-'.~':.'~: ~;;~_~ .~::~. Aquabc Bed ./ ••• ~ ,< " • .::i.'- o I .,." 0 , », 0 ) ,"<". I" 0 .. You do nOl hove 10 name lhem. ... 1·] 0 I l '·S 0 ,.: .,:~,,"::! ,'".". 0 .,' j " Seo,., by checking boles 01 righi" . '. 'j~:r. , ... ' ,. ..:coo I 0 . . .; h ... ,-.:'.. !~ ... ,.-~ :" •.. " .... ;.". Z I Scruf>.~~b~,·;. 3-4 1 -/', .... , .. >. ,: .. ;. .... >4 I Z 0',. F ........ , .. ,. ):4 "'-"'~'-;~ .. : ...• ;: <:..:,,', 4d. Structural DI~trsilJ ~!~ -:.~. . .; .. '. -~,-L • .a.'~ i~'::"~'~i$~':~;?~fr~~}_':' lI.he weiland has • fores.ed class; add I point if each of the fonOwini:·:.<;'l·\, classes is present wi.hin !he foresled class and is larger thaD J/~ 8crc:l:'.,~",.·o~,:, ;: :·:::::~i·i~~~j;1;!!·;:;·;:~·:.·~· ... ~·.~·.:~~·.~=~::::::=:=:::=~~~~~~;~~::::;;~~~ .. ~~:..~ .. ", ··hcrbac~ou.· cround·coyer::.:.: .. :::::;: ..•. ::::::.: .. :.::.': •• :::: .. ; .. :::;.: ... :::.~:'" YES:' 0 :'··:shrubi.:.: ....... : ...................................... ~~ .. ':~:::~::.;:;;:;::::~:.:.~~:::~; .. yts 0 Also add I p,;ni if mm ii any -oP:D wlier" or M..j~~ti~ W- clasS immediatel} nel' 10 .he foreJ!ed area (i.e. there i. no • . scrub/shrub or emergent vegeia.iilii. bcrweeD ",!"m)..i;;:;', .. "",,-.::·:. . <,i YES 0 4«-.. D.:cidc from 1M diagrams below _hcthc:r iiaterspersion ~'~'.", ,1:' .;' .,: : belweeD weiland classes is high. modenIe, low or none? .• ",':.:' If you Ihint !he amoun, ofin.eripcrsioDfaJli iD be;;'.,.,';:;":.: ',. '. '.' , .. lhe diagr.lms score accordingly (i.e. a moderalely high .... . ... ,. Hilb 0 amounl of iDlerspersion would scon; i while • ,/.... ."' •. :""" _..... 0 m<odera.,t1y low ilmouDi would sCore "' '!;<~ .1'~' HI'b'M~ . :,',.,' ';;i;,.i; .. ;.;' 0 ...• :r<:.s~~. ' .. ~~~,:: :r;:?'j~.\:'~ .:, i.o...lMocienIi: ~ o I" ,. H o o " ---- 4f. Habi.a. Futures .~ . ~ ·A.u':ci·~liom below. circle fearum th .. apply. and score 10 !he righl: . ..' ," v .:~:: 1 i:-: .. :n...;:.-;-(,~.: ;ki1: ~~.\'i·:~::~l~I.~i):'·. . ...... ,; :'!. Is ,here eVidence thai. the open. or ,.:" .' . ":: . ." . " " .'. ;', . sla.ndine. waler .was caused by bC.v~?:... .. _ ................ ,,: .......... > Is a heron rookery located wilhiD 300·? ...................... .t/..Q ... _ .. Arc rap.or nest/s loc •• ed ... ithin 300'? ........ _ ................ : .. _._ ... _ A;e I~ ~i{~1 3 "andinE ckaci\r~ i;;;a,s) per .n~ grea.er Ihan 10" in di.mcler at."br"aii heighl" (DBH)? ............ ;~ .' :.~ :7';C.: .-\.~J •• !!'::.!-~~~:._ .. ::~'I .. : .' Arc Ihe,., al leasl ) downed logs pcfKri: wilh .. . a di.meter >6~ for '1 least 10' in Ie.glh? ................................... . , :-:r.~.( -) . ..; '~(:,'-.r:.t6':.:'-~-t':::~:~;>7-.. ~ : ,ir Arc lhere ;ifeas (vegetaled ofun;ei~iai.il) wiibin I~: weiland Ihal are po.ded for ;i11Ca.1 4 month. oU' of "'" ye3f. and the we.land has nOl qualified as havi.g ". open .:. w~ler ~~ass in Queslion 4b: ? .. : .... ::: .... .:.~ .. ~ ................ _ ....... _._ .. . YES 0 YES~ . "ril'X _.( ".;: '.~ 3: YES ~I o ., ;". : Department of, Ecology "Y~~'an~ Rating' Dat~' Entry .,., " Western Washm ton" Form 4~ Connrction 10 Sirrams.: (Score one answrr only.) l •. :.'. 4 g.l, Docs.t;; '';'el'''nd P;~~idC iiabii~l i~ rlsh ~ ;~~ ii~ ~f .he 7~ar, .t, Sea", 4i.2. ~f[i:;t:·~3~~1~~~~·EE;i1Ej2:J:J:~~··:··~~.,R. 6' bave I sC3SonaJ surf~e, wnter connection tD I fish be:uing stream ... YES 0 4 4g.3. Doc. the wetland function 10 export organic moiler Ihrough : i~ . ~ ~ surrac.e walet connec~~~ JI~ a,lI t~~ .~. ~ y~ to • .' .' percnolal Slream ...•. ; ........ .:: .•..•. ; .. .: ........ , ....................... _ ........... YES 0 4 4g:4. Don;.;e ;"~Iand fu...;.;~~:.IO~pOrt or,.nic ';;'''er Ihrough' a surface Water cODnectioD 10 a strum 011 • seasonal basis __ .. _ ..• _ YES 0 Z. 4h. Burr~~s.~:?»~::)~_.t~~:~~ '1}~~f7i'!~~::f'~ .:;'~ I,~~':.::f~-~:-.:·};.;·;!.~':f:?~:?;" , Sc-cn ...... istinj butT ... oa i iale 01 I·' based "" .... lon ..... 1 lour descriptions: U IhI: condition oIlhe buJTcn do .... exactly mucb IhI: doxripIim. ..... ada •. poi •• hillEr or Iowa depcodinl'" wlEllEr the buflm .,., .... or ....". derndo.J. '.'. Foresl. scrub. nali~~ 'I~Ssiand' Or '~~~';;~I~ ··buffeis·:' :1·:~;·i~. ~-,' ' .. are prese~. for more than 1!Xl' around 9S~. Of the .:;':.'.\' . ci~:~[,~rt),:~:1~~.:;·::z,Hi[,'.':·,.'::;t::/~~~·"'i~·t1:·:; ..• ;;' Forest, scrub. nauire ","sdand .,.. opeD waler buffers . wider than 100' for more .hBJI In of the we.land ciJcumfcrence, or • ro~st, scrub. ansslands., or open water bufT~n for rnan: .han SO' around 95'10 of the cir~.~~,~e.·· , ... ~,.~_.: ;~. '\-~_ " ':,' , ~i··-:i~t;~:\'~·: /'~~,.~: /~ '-':'i}:o. '::'; _ .. ..,:.!..; . Foresi, scrub. nalive grassland.,.. opeD wa.er buffers " wider than 100' for more"lhan 1/4 of lhe. we.1and .' .. Circumrerence. or • rortst~ ·sCrub. nativc grasslancl or open ... aler buffers for more than SO· for mo,., Ihan" In of.he 'wetland circumfe,.,ncc. .""'" -: .:>'::.: •. I _. ; :;..: ... ~.~' ._: L~' .' :_: c:.:;,· .~,;: ".~ .•.. No roads, buildi.gs or payed areas within 100' of the wClbnd for more .han 9S'lI. of the wetland ci.cumference. YES 0 s YES 0 YES 0 Z YES 0 Z J;'. ,:S~::~tf:~J~:~~~o,~;~~~~~;~:::: ..... ".~. No roads. buildinr;s; or paved areas witlUa SO" of !he'wetland .. :':-"~:>"i" 1 for more .h:lll In of the weiland circumfe,.,IiCC:.' ;", .:' ." . h ....... -::.~;' ::.:.=.,::..:-.. : '.'~": ~·c·_-'.>·::' Paved areas.. incfusirial areu'"w residCnual cODsiNction (with Ie .. Ihan SO· belween houses) an: less lhan 25' from. !he weiland for more thDn 9S'Io of the clTclimfcrcnCc of.· .. ' ;,. ~ ~~ll~ . ,:~~~:~':~.>~g;.~.~ :~:~·nl.~; ··:·.::·U:{:~!~:~f.;;;:; 41. Connrclion to othrr habitat arras Selecl the descriptiOD which besl malches lhe site being evalualed. • Is the wetland conncd~d I~: -.x ~M of.' a riporia-D coni;;;:'~ al . leasl 100' wide connec,iDg Iwo or more wCllands; or. is lhere YES 0 0 '.,.,".-' aD uplaDd conneclion present> I 00' wide wilh ,oDd foresi or .. shrub cover (>25'10 coyer) connecri.g i1 wilh. Siinific.n, H.bi ... ·l .. ,." Area? . ,'. ',. "{ :. ( .:' ~.'., .. ,' -,' -; . .: , .. <: ~.~~~~ '1"::: . ;Y:-C7; .' . ·Is the weiland connecled 10 any other Habil" Area with cilher .. '.· I) • fores.ed/shrub corridor <lOO' wide, or 2) a corridor tha •. i. >100' wide. bul has. low vegeialive coyer less than 6 feet iD ~~~;?~ .:.;;,' ' .. c. ,':y:g:' ",li·;~:~ri'~~:::~,~~~\;;6:: .' ·Is thc Weiland connected 10. or Ii part of •• riparian' comdor .. ;.: .' berween SO' • 100' wide with scrub-shrub or foresl cover, ",., ... connection to other wcllaiMts? I " ;';'. .' ~ ;.\' . .;:,' ··i·; " .. ·Is !he well';;J c~nnected 10 any other Habilai ~ wiih :, . nanow corridor «100') of low velelalion. «6: in heighl)? ,\ .. -c~~·;,~, .. ~.-:;:: . , ,Is lhe wellaridand its buffer (if me burr~ is ics~'ihan so' wid.) completely isolated by development (urban. reside.lial wilh • densi.y &Kaler Ihaa 2Iacre. or induSiriam. .•• .J'_.:.. •• . 're; '0 ) YES Cl ) YES 0 ;"", Projrct .-Wrtl3~ Nam~' I~~~·~k-.~~~-.i-~-··~-!~~~t-~-"-D~-· ~II~ _~~ __ ~ .. :": DesiCn by Scott T. Cia,. roo'" 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 Q.I. Hi,h· Qualil), Nalur.1 .W.,I.nd;:.,' .,' .... -"., '.~". "'j.\;~,<'" ',:,i'·,.-.· ... ·, i.:,,;. - Ans";cr this 'queslion if jOii b~~~#ii. informalion er'hPcri.~~ iii do so.' If nOl find someone with lbe cxperlise 10 answci the questions:' Then, ir lhe answer IO,~,t~r -': '--l queSlio/lS I, Ib and .Ic "'" .a11 Ng. c.onl~cl !he "'~I~"" ~crilale.",oinin of DN~; .. · . 1 L ~ u~an c.us'rd 1 ~~,~~~~~~;~~3~~~!i~?~t./;;~H;~;~~~,U;.'·~~{{'r~;·~.~~!~~~?~ ::~~;:~~:;.~?,~f~{~~~::'·· - Is IIIcruignilicanl .vidciictff liiJinU>:caused c.w.i:" 10 'I~g;a""y'o,:' '. '. bydrolozy of lhe ",.,Iand as Jndic~led b)'.~)' of lhe followinl condilion.?· : ' .. Consider only change. Ihal may hay. ,ake;, pIKe i. ihi: lasl 5 decodes: n.c impacu of changes do"" earlia have probably been s'abililCd and the weiland .coiYSleiil .. ill be tlose 10 re.ching lome new equilib!ium lIIai may rcp,csenl a high qualilY ",elland. hL UpsDe.m Wal::::i!~Jri~1~l:~~~ti:~~U·~;1;;~/S·~~t7: Q.l; 1a2. Weiland is dilchCd .nd~;;icr now is"oi oj,siruCled~' ; 0 Yei: ~~ 10 Q.l: 103. WeIland has been graded; lin~d, logged. ·'~Y'S::G~ 10 Q.l; 104. Waler in .... ,I.nd i. con!rolled by dikes .... irs. elC. 0 YOI: Go '0 Q.l: laS. WetiUld is ,rlZ~~·lq.,:??~·,::<~j .. ~~ ... >·r~r::i;·:""1~4~~-Z'" 0 to: Co 10 Q.i 106. Oilier indic .. ors';fdisiUrti.;;ci:~O;"si bel~~)'S;' 0 Y';' G~ 10 Q.l' . ,~:!·v-~~ .... ;! ! : ( ... :.f L·L·-~, ~:.:.~ .. ~ ~ .... t,:,;t';~:-!3:,,!,~"j .. ~ I--------------.----.:. .. ::. .. ~. -:::"'':'-'--':'':'':::'':':'~ .. e;:'~' .... ,.;;f;~\~-t:·:;IT} l:.!.:;';'-'1:7' .~ ... ' "d •• ";":','" ,f '. '\~J..,\\>r.f". . , lb. An !here popublions of non,!,aliv~ p!~~. "'bi~!' ~. <.~ndy)" 0 YES:' io 10 Q.2 p'esc~'. cov~ more th~ !.0'iI0 ot:.~_)O/elland.. and appear I~ be;.;. 0 NO: go 10 I c inv~nl nau~e P:DpulauQ'!~!=-I!~.e~y,.~~cri~ an.!' ~~~ari~~ ... :~''-:, plant populallons ~. ~~~~~~~.~.~~f.~~(.~~~itJt:,;i:~~~.~:t:~ .. ~ ~t~"~}·;·;;.d· ;i..-~!:: .~~,.': . '-:',,!·""'''C , .... , .. , ... I'" ,., "~;" ·,";C:-.i,i·i··. , • :.l.. ::. _." ".:" • . • , !;;. ..~ . Ic. Is lhere evidence of human·caused dislUrbances which have' O· .. ' ". visibly degrad.d w,'e"q,,~lii7~ Evidence of !he d.griHIa,ion YES: g~lo Q.2 of wata qualilY include: direct (.n'ro~'ed) runoff from roads 0 NO: Possible Cat. I or parking 101.; Pr.s.nce.~ ,of hiSloric ·evidence.· of ..... ,. " eon'''' DNR, dumps; oily sheens; the smell of Ofganic chemicab'; or liveSlock use. Bri.lly describe: Q.2. Docs ,he w"I~nd • have a' leas, 1/4 acre o( organic soils deepa "'lID 16 inches and the ",elland is relalively uodiSlurhed; OR . , . '" . .... . (If th.(ins ... er i. NO bi:c.u~.thC wetl3nd ii disnUbed.bri.lI)' .~ . .c. , .' .. :_i'_.,:,. i' . .deSCribc:1\;'.' .. ··',\:;.· .. ~·.'<;;' .. :l,\:.'.::'~-'c· ":'i;;-; ',', .'-.. , : ... ! d"·, .. )', ":.' Indica,ors of diSlurb.n" may in.:lude:.· A (~O 10 an; • Weiland has been graded. filled. loggeif; go 10 Q.3) .Organic soib on lIIe surf~e an: dried·ou, for more "'an h'lfo~ I"" ye8r;'::~~~':-:' .~. i." . W.lland r.ceive. dirtti Slarmwalei-runo(f fiOin urban or agricuhuraJ arcas.,k o YESgoloZo OR • have ~ ~oreslcd class ,reat~,_~~~:~. ~~~. ~; , OR • :·,;~·~;\~rl ~'. '~. ,,-;' ,·(:;'ti' have charnclcrislics of.1n esiuarinc sysiem;" o YES!o'o2b o 'YESgoi~2e OR . • have eel pas,. noali.n& or non-noaling kelp beds? o YES go 10 2d 21. Bo&s and Fens ...... ,::'. ·~~:~t.:·~~··;·~·:·<~.r1'.?i(tf·.::~-~::'\:; ~'·:s~,~r':·I;.:.~~ Are any of the three following condilions mel for ,be .~ea of organic soil? 20.1. Are Sphagnum moss •• a com")On ground cover (>3011.) and the ,_, ,I. - . cover of invasi.e species (SI,e.Table 3) i. less lhan I~? . "',c.;L; Is the ~r~~f~pha!nu';' r;.,js.~ ~~.ribp or!'-';icsoi" > 112 acre? 0 .YES: Cai;;gOry I Is the ;..uof sph.gnu';' moSSt. and dttp o;g~;J; soils 1/4. il2 acre?, 0 YES: C.iegoiy" ; .• ", .. , ...• , "--"~> .. " .... ,., .. : "':f-', .".: '.' ..... 0 NO:~Go-,02a.2 2L2. Is Ihcie an ar.a of org.nic·soil which has In emerge". .. ,. . clasS ... i,h ~I I.asl onespeci.es rrom Tobie 2; and cover ~f.·:c. -' ..... '.'. invasive spedes is <10% (seC Tobie J)? ,-.. ' . Is the ~~ or hC;t,~~';';;s pl.nlS ~nd .kq, org';"ic soils> 112 xre? 0 I. the .... or j,~rbaceou~ planls ~d deep ;"ganic soils i/4. In acr.?· B , .~/.~:~':. ":::''-',: .. - YES: Calci!ory I yEs: C~,~gory" NO: Go '0 Zo.J Q.2b. Malure ro,rsl.d _,lIand. " 2b.l. Docs 50% ~f lhe cover of uppa forcs' c~~;';'~·~~~.;s;" • DYES: C.,elory II o NO: Go 10 6,3 DYES: Cale!ory I o NO: c;;, io 2b.2 , of evergreen tree. olda than 80 yean or deciduous tree •. _, old.r Ibali 50 years? 'Noie: "The silC o( Ire .. is of leD nOl a ~ure of age. and Ji2~ cannOi be 'used ·u'. sunogale for - age (see lui dance). '-\:"_;'.~ .':-1."L;--,",", -'~:' l.'"';..~~,;·,~ _~ ", ;::.-. ' ,--, d .. : ~ • i" :~:'., .. 2b.2. Doc. SO'llo o( "'e CDVef of (oral canopy consisl of evergreen 'rees older lhan 50 year., AIiI2 . is the s,rucrural diversilY of the foreSl high as . charaClcrized by an additional layer of nees 20' • 49' I.I~ 'shrubs 6' • 20' I.n. and a herbaceous groundcover? 2b.). "D~i <251{, of ,1;0 ·i~cov ... inihei"lW)·TIii';i'; '·c, . ; MrbaceouslgrouDdcovet or the ShrUb" jay~r ~oiuis-I'or .. , .. I~v~ivel"olic planl species from Ihe Ii., on pagc 19? Q.lc. E'lu;'~ine W.,landL 2d,:' Is ~ wetland JiSl'~ II Nalional Wildlife R.fuge. .' . .... Nabonol Park, Nllional Ellu"'}' Reservc. Narural Area Preserve.-S,.'e Pirk. or Educaliona!. Environmenl.1 or Scienlific R.serves designaled undct WAC 332·30.151? lei 'j.;;.., weliand ~~. acrts?_ .•..• ;:' NOI,c:)f an ~:I'CODtains patches of s&lh tolerant . Vf!!cl.uion that U't I) I ... I~n 600 r ... ~pan and ,ho' are s.par.ied by mudna" .Ihal go.dry on • Mean Lo ... TIde. JII 2) sepualed by lidal chanDels Ihat are I ... ·,han o YES; Go '0 2b.3 o NO: Go' 10 Q.l byES: Caiegory I . o NO:' Go 10 Q.l DYES: Caltgory I o NO: Go '0 2c.2 DYES: C .. egory I 100 feel wide; . .... ~ . . an Ihe ve~~~~Ie<! orcas an: .'0 be com.idered 'ogClhcr· ",.. . __ :: :: :~;::::,~f~:r~~l~0~~~~~~~:~~~:~~;:~~:~;~::='Ef~~~ '~::~~:! 2c.3. 0.;.;. the ;"~'I3nd ineci' ;j kul 3 of lhe followi ng 4 crileri ........................................... . . . . .i~'."'h, .. ; .. ". "~'"" .",.,." :."';".' ,,_,.h. '. O· NO: Co,.gory n -rrunJmUm eXlsllng cvicieDce or human relatcd_-·~i:, ;""j A... : •.. diSlurb~.e such as dillinl; di'ching. fillin,; c~i'i-v~tio... ". gratin, or lhe presence of noD-Dative planl specie. (see _ :~1E!~31mtrr~~~::~"< ..... '. ungrazed Pairuri. open walei'. shrub of fonst:,. ',,-.~~ :~':~', ~:r ' . .'~ ~;: j ••• . ,h~ ~ leasi 3 of ,he. following fearu~; i~~';;"';'; h;gII. mar~li; tidal c~nncls; lagoon(.); wOOdY,debri.; or.-conlJg~.C?Us freshwater welJand. .~7~r.~!';·· 2c.4. Doe. Ihe weIland mcel an of the four ail~. . under 2c3. (above)? , :g:{tI;.~ o :A~t;~~O Q.2d. Eel Grou and Kelp B.ds. 2d.1. Are e" gr.s. beds pr.s.n'? ....... _ ..................... _ ....•.... " 0 . YES: Ca,cgarY I o !"O: 10 10 2d.2 2d.2. Ar; ;~:~~~.i~~;:;:.;,D-~~.'ing kelp ~~(S) prosenl', 0 wllh grealer lIIan 5010 macro olgal cover in ,he monlll . YES:Calegory I o( AuguSl or S.p'.mber? ..........• ::.;:;:;,~.:;; .. , .. :; .. ::.;.; •... 0 NO: Ca,.!ory n Q.3. Cale,orl IV ... lIandL. 3 ... Is !he w.lland: less Ihan I acre uuI h),drolo,ically , , lSolol.d uuI comprised of 0"" veg.,aled class Ihal i. ,- domin.,ed (>8~ .... 1 cover) by one spe,cies from . .. Table 3 (page 19) or Table 4 (page 20) •. ': .... Jb. Is lhe ;"ell~d: less Ihan Iwo acr.s and. j;ydr~io~~iiy . isolaled wilh one 'egcla,ed class. and >9O'i1IO of area! cover is any combination or species from TabJe 3 (page 19)' .. ., ,.... .. '.' ... :: .';'" ~-.; .; ;'. I" • 3e. Is lhe Weiland •• cav.,.d from ~pland and a po~d . smaller Ihan I ;Jere without a surbce water conneclion 10 slr~ams. lakes. rivers. or olha weiland ..... d hOlS <OJ acre of vrgr'Ol,ion . ~y~:' ~"C!Ory IV rC)" NO: go 10 3b DYES: Calegory IV o NO: go 'OJC .,·1; DYES: Cal.gory IV o NO: go '0 Q.4 Q.4. ., .... .; ~ Sill:njlic·~·~,· habi~' :y~'ur~ C<::~::::.fJ -; .. : _~nsv:'e!·.aJl q~esri~nJ ~ cniu da;;·~u~ted. .. :"4~1 TOlal weIland area' ;:~ir>' " Check bo.", .. quali/"ocs I<m XlIII: ' >200.06,: 40· 199.9!J' 00 . S' ,; 10·39.99 • Estimate area. sclttl rl'01'i) choices li~~: S • 9.99 .~ 0 .' ) " 1".99 0" 2 0.1·0.99·.0·' I '. <0.1. 0 0 4b. ~eiland classes: Cirde the well""d cl3S5CS below thaI qualify: ... ;,0· ' .. ,;, ..... Open waler: if lhe: aru of opeD wal .. is > 1/4 ace Aqualic Beds: if the an:. of aquatie beds> 114 acn: Emergent: if thO ~a of emergenl cia" il > 1/4 atn: • of claucs , . SCNl>-Shrub: if the an:a of scrul>-shrub class il> 114 acre Fo"ieSied: if';''':;' orr0r6ied clasS il'>1/4scrc' ,.{ Oncd... 0 T_c~"o' Threi ciwes : 0 ,~t~.".o "" 5" ~:';' .. ,-". '.'<-'." -.?! r·;f~. .'. ~-!;. -:-' .• ' Fi-c~;.:.;.s 0 Chttk lhe: appropriale boll for lhe: Dumber of wClland c1asses.- 4e. ~Iant. s~ies ~versiIY. • . : l.:;.;:~ -:{ .• \::;::~'d>;:~·: For each weIland class (al righl) thai Qualili~ in 4b .bove, COUN the number of diffen:N plant. '. 'pecies you can lind Ihal cov .. mon: than SI(, of '. lhe &round. ! .' . ~.~ ... ~::.;": ;::.~'~~}';~.~'. ;.~ ... ;! ~,':' You do nOl have 10 name lhem. . ' Score by checkin, bo.es al richl:, • . ! '. :" ~ . ~ . ",~,",". .~ •• ~:'.' :..-.~ .',-: •• "f " ,-.. -.•.. ; 4d. Slructural Din .. il), "'-;'" 0 ... AquoIitBed " o 0' " » .. ; 0 .. I 2·' o· o o I Scn.t..s.,;.;i, ...;:: 2' 0 ., 0 .. ,'. 3·' : 0 , >4" 0 o o o Scon: o 3 6 10 o I Z ) o I. ~ 1 . 1. ~ , , .. o I Z 3 o I Z , Scon: If lhe: weIland has • foresled class; add I 'poinl if e'acbof lhii foU..;;.,.j;.t> ". :".:" classes is preselJl wilhin the foresled c1asl and is wger iliaD' i/4 'aCrii:<" '}: ' .; ;" i. ·~;;:~:;iai~k~ll.i:·;;.~·.:· __ .::::::::::=:::::::=::::=::::::==~f.~~:~:::~~::~~ff: :,', g '.' ~~~~t~!~?:::~.~.~.:~~~.~::.~:::::::~::~:::~~:~:~~:~:=:'~:~~t:::.~~'~~.::::~::: .,":':~. g'. , Aiso aCid i poini'if there is any ~oJ>en Wiler" or ~aq~atic bed'" class immedialely ne"llo lhe: fon:sted an:> (i.e. there is'lO. ,;' '0 sCNb/shrub or ."""gen. vegiclalioii'berweOD thOm).,;~; .• .i . .:..c> " ,: YES' 0 , •• -:. ,~-" '<--•• :. • • <k, Decide from.lhe: di.grams below whc:thc:r inlenpcrsioD ' .. ' .'. belweeD wetland classes il high, rnocIenIe,low.or noner. ..... :, , .. :,.;1.' If you Ihink the amounl of inlenpc..sioD falli iii belWceD :~;. •. ' ... , His:.;' 0 the: diagr2ms score accordingly (i ..... moderalely high' amounl of inlerspersion would scCiC • 4:"bilc .' .: . , .' Hi:.;.,.,2.2~ moderalely. low Score. ""':':". • ..... --o o Low.' 0 .~,; ~oo. 0 -- . -, ... _,. :'L"_y·.-i Answer quesrions below, circle ~e.tures that apply, and scon: 10 the richl: Js'ttlere ~~i~~c Iha~~~~~~~·~.,; .. ;:"~~ ~-."~'~~""t~':~" 1:,~~.' ,::~:~". , '··~f~,- standing. wal~ wal caused by. beaven? .................. , ........ ~: .•... ; .. '. YES 0 Is • heron roOkery localed wilhin 300·?.. ................... :.:. ......... '- Arc raplor. neslls loc.led withia 300·? ..................... : ................ .. A~e l~iki.11~i.1 3 S1""ding'&ad n ... i;.iog~)per ~i: .' grealcr Ihan IIr in diameler·3j "bie"l hc:ichl~ (DBH)? ......... _ .... Arc Ihere al least J downe~;~~'~;;~wi;~ , . , a di.meler >6" for at Ieasl 10~ in length? .................................. .. .', t -"(;_~"' .. -: <1:~<~f~;~~::,}~:~~,_ .> +~:\;:;: .. :>. Are lhere · .. e" (vegelaled-cif uriveg.I~d) 'withia'thO ." wetl""d Ihal are ponded for :it i.a.t 4 iDonths 'Oul of lhi: year. ""d the weIland has nOl qualified .. having in open ,~atC'f cla;ss in Question 4~.?~ .... &_ ............ ~ ............. _ ................ . .... ;":-;' ··'J.i"o YES 0 YES 0 "?,, 1 o Sc"", 2 .... ," Departmen(otEcology .... Wetland Ralirg Dat~ Entry form '; Western' Washm ton 41-Conn.clion to Slr.am .. : . (Scorc onc' answer onl),.) .' .'.;'.,". . .. ;., : 4g.1. Docs thC wetland ~~i.k j,-;bil;"-for fi~hat ~~y li,;,e~f ~h. yeu So"", ~ does il have • P';"'~,a1,}urfa.~, ~~I" ronncc:tion 10,~, fi.b .. ' , . _ ~~~~~~_~_ ~~~.c~~;.·;.··~i.;~:~~: . .:·:··.-~·.:~~~::~~: .. ·~:;~:····~~~.~~·· .. ·:~;;~~;;·:· ... ~i·::··~ ~ 0,. 6 4g.2. DoCs thO wetland providC fi.h babilat seasonally At:!I2 does it . .'.... ." have a seasonal surface witta' conneclion 10 I fish bc.:aring suc:am._ YES 0 • 4&.3. Does the wetland function I~ ~port organic mailer Ihrough:; , ., a lurface water COnnectiOD at all limes of the year 10 • c ". • ••• . perenaial. sueam ................ ;.=!,.: ..... ;,.::..;:: ....................... ~~:. .. :. .. YES 0 4 . ..... . ~ -' " . ~.' 4g .•. Does lhe: weiland function 10 uport organic maner Ihrough .. a surface waler connectioD to • stream on • seasonal basis_" .... _ YES 0 2 4h. Bu~c~~'·. ·~t. _;:~~ .. ~.~~: .. :~~~;.';. , :~. ~ .. \.:.1-::: .. ~'";:t1<' "~'/~L~~'-: ~t~~~:': '. ::~ ~:. -:~ ~ :'., ~. Score Ihc ...minI burren .... 1CIk 01 I·' _ ... Ihc 10l\Owini rOtii dcscrip;oris. U Ihc condition of Ihc burr ... do "'" uacllJ n""cb Ihc clescripoion. SC'<ft oioha" •. Scorn poilJl hilher or I ..... dcp<!ldin''"'._ the bull"" I/O .... or """" depoded. , .. ". ., . ~~~~~t~!~;t~;;~~~c:;":·~· · Foresl, scNb; native grassland 01 open wal .. buffer. wid .. than 100' for mexe tban In of lhe: wellaod . circumfcn:nce; or .• fon:sl, scrub .. passla"d .. or OPeD . waler burren for man: Ihan SO' around 9S'Io of thi:' i; circumference. ' !-; ~':. ~ !~"Ti}:~' ~'.:'fi:f-'-/ ,., , Foresl, scrub, aalive passland or open waler buffers' wider than 100' for more Ihan 1/4 of lhe: wetland .,. circvrafcn:m. or • fores;, scrub • ..ative cras.lanc(;;': DpCD water buffers for more than SO' for more Ihan . 112 of the well.od circumfei-enec.' ... 1 t·· No roads, ~1~ingS or paved an:as wilhia 100' of the wetland for more I ...... 9S'lIJ of lhe: wetland cireumferenc:c.. '. _:..: .... ~-~\ ,_i..-.~ _:.... • .-• ..:.~_._ .• , ~ • .' •..•• :.:....::-~ ____ ;. "' •• ,. YES 0 .,,:.: YES 0 YES 0 .': No";"' .. buiidini~or p~~~~i.hi~'2S~'of'~;,~ ."" .. ' 'wetland fo.-more IhaD 9S'lIJof the ~e.lai.d CiicVinf~nCe/": ': ,,',' " .. ~' '.' :.-.;~\!~.~!.~~,~~: ~,~,~~::rft3.~!f/·.:.('~--:~~~7J:~~rI~:~/; : .. -: i' ~~ .. q .. '.' No roads, building .. or paved areaS' wilhi,;' SO' of the weIland .e:. -'"'1',0',:. , :. for mote Ihaa In of the wetlarid ci,c'umference; .: ....... ,., : .. " Paved areas, indU:~~ ~~~ :;c:;z:~JZ':istNc;i~~::'" .. (wilb less Ihaa SO' bc\weeD hOuses) arc less IIwI 25' from . . .YU. 0 0 the weIland for mon: IbaD 9SI(, of the cimimfeninc': of:,;.~. """." , .. ' Ibc wctlancl. ':' .:.~~.t. '"-:.:~~:~_. ;,ij;/,~'" ,." ':~:;_Y'i~ .~ .. 4L Connrction to othrr habIt., arras Select the deSCriptiOD which besi malches lhe: .ile bei~1 cvaluai~cI. ·Is the weIland connccl~d 10, .,;, j,:.ri ~f: a riP~an corrid~~ at least 100' wide connecting two or more wetlands; or, illhc:rc an upland connection pi"eSCIJI > 1.00' wide wilh good fansi ... ~::. shrub cova (>25'" cova) connecting it wilh a Significant Habil'" Area? ·t. i,,' :,;7~::.:: "'~' ~:'~: i ~>"1t:' :" .:. ' I'. ·Is the wetland connecled 10 any other Habilat An:a with eilber , .. I) • fon:sledlshrub corridor <lOO' wide, or 2). comdor IbaH';:'· is > I 00' "'.ide. but bas • low vegetative co .... less thaD 6 feet in hi:i~t?:, , '" ""':~'";:':,,,::; ';' ;""~f~~i~t:E~::.\;:','~' ·Is the wetland connecled ID~' or a pan of, i riPari'" cOrridor,: '. between SO' • 100' wide wilb scNl>-shrub or forest cover' ;~.,:'.; ." ". connection '0 olhcr wetlaT.ds? .. :.~ .. ,. '{;(~' ~ _:~ " (. ·Ii the well"';d connected 10 any other Habil't ~';;"ilh: narrow corridor (<100') of low vegetation. «6:}n height)? Score YESO.S ; .. ,' '.: YES 0 J roO ·Is the wetland ;';'d iu burr .. (if the: burr .. is JeSs tiW;"SO' ;"ide)' "~. 0 0 complelel)' isolaled by development (Utban. residenlial wilh a· .::';" densilY gre.ler Ihaa 21acre, or industrial)? , •. ".-:.. .... '.!;' :,;. .~ .'~ !, -. ':' ~i'~ .~ ,-:,-:.::'1"; ProJ.cI W.II.nd N.m~ I U7J'\ lC &J ~vJ [x.. +e--.;;;Lj I[ L--"4-\H~---, Daien bJ' Scott T. Clal·Pook ( 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 Form 2nd. Edition Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Data Entry Western Washin ton' Public.1l0 193·74 Q,I. High QualilY Nato.al Wrtland.,:': '.,.,. f ,,;,;.,'. ..,. . .... , . -,_. ~':. •• '.:.,.-~".',~...;:~,;,~.:':'!:;"'~ • .l'-'~"';~:"'-"":'" :':'-i-:"'~l:::~~'" Answer Ih,s que,,"oD Ir yo~ ~ve 'dcq~ille inf""""l~on or experience lei do so,. If nOl find someone wllh lhe e.peruse 10 .. swer the quesbons. TheD, if !he answer 10": ,';., queslions 1 .. lbandle!R all !'IO.cOnl:lCI the Nalunl Herilale programofONR.. 1 L H uman (aus~d ~.~~~~'bit~l;~t:~~::r~~~~iL;~~;;·:~~:(;:;:·~X:·:':{!.~~~;~~ :'~::~~~:"~' ~ :\~~~~:. " Is there significanl evidence of Iium .... c.used changes 10 lopography or ." , '.' hydrololY of lhe weiland as ii"lic:ai~ by any:of the followin, conditions?'·,.;,_ :.~: Consider only changes th.1 may have t.licn place in thO 1aS15 deCade." lbc impacts of changes done eallier have prob.bly been stabilized and the weIland ecosyst.m will be close to r.aching ,orne new equllibrillm thai, may represent. high qualily ",elland. . ~1~-~;1~~;;'~~~~~~f~t~;'~::··1~::f;'-~\~~'.~ ,.~;;~·:t~};t·it~~·.~nswcrs hi, Up'tream w.,ershed >12'10 impcrV;ous. ,.>;'.' 0 Yr .. Co 10 Q.l h2, Wetland is ditc~ciiinci;;.iCi Row is nO. ~bstructed." 0 V • .-: Co 10 Q,l lal, Well.nd has been grOded. filled, loBBed. . ,3' "'.":'(;0 10 Q.2 "4, Water in wetl.nd is controllcd by dikes, weirs. <lC, ·[j')'.s: Co 10 Q.l laS. WeIland is gr.itd;·:,r'"i"('f'0\,:~,!:c~j''';:''., '.,,' 0 Vrs; Co 10 Q.l 1.6, Other indicalon ~j'df;iiirb~;'Ci'Oi~j bci~;Wr:;: E.'. . O'Y~irCo 10 Q.l .. ~ ',":'~}~;"_'J"'~'~ .,.-?-' !'~-. ',' ',':'-.':," ... :: '.', " -'~ . f ~"f)·"""t·· .. : . , ."" F' ~,o:' ,?o 10 lb.' Ib, Are there populations or non.native plants which ore c"",,ollj:'" 0,' yES: go 10 Q.2 ~. ,cover more th~ I~ 01 die ~c.l~and .. and .p~. to be·;~~· O~ 'NO: go 1~ Ie ;. invadins "",ive populolion.7 BrieRy describe any no';'oarive.", ... ,,~ ..... ;~ ,." .'.:F~'i'''''''''r; ~ .. ;";;< I c, Is there evidence of huma.cailSed dislurbaJices which have .. . visibly delr.ded w.i .. ijiiaiiif Eyidence' of ihe dc"a.i.'io~ of w.ler quality include:_ direct~(.nlreaied) runoff from roads or parking JOIS~ presence. of hislGric evidence. of waSil! dumps; oily sheens; the smell of Ofganic chemicab; or livestock use. Briefly describe: ." ,,",,~ .. ;.\. Q.2. Ir.rplacrable Ec';l~gi~~1 Foi";;ctlon.;::\,> Docs lhe Weiland • h.ve at least 114 acre of,organic soils ~ thaa 16 inches and the weIland i. relatively 'uDdisturbed; OR "., "', . ' o YES: go to Q.2 d 'NO: Possible Cal, I contact ONR (If !he ai,,"'er is NO because the wetl:mcl i. disrurbcd brieRy describe: '\i.~~!:;,"~Yi..t~~.: r_',7! ~:-:\'i_'" ,,;.!,;~,,'." ... ,\,., ' .... Indicaton or disturbance may include: . • Wetland has been gnded, filled, logged; ·Organic soils on the surface are dried-out for more th.n h.if_of t..ejUr.;, <_: :c~ii" .,,' <. .Wetland receives dir<a'S'lonn"ater runoff from ... ~~;~~~~. urb.n or ~Bricuhur.1 arc ... ); . OR • have II forested class greater Ihan I acre; OR ,,,,;.:.,(.;,~ .:.;; have chOJ.r.lclcristics o( an··esriaarine syst~n;; OR • have eel ~r .. s, noating or non-floating kelp beds?·· o YES go to 20 . ,:~. o VESrol02b d YESg;;~2c o YES COl02d 2:0. Bog •• nd rrns ,n," . """"",,,,, __ ,', .. ,'. .,.' . Are any of lhe three following condilions mel (or the are-a of organic soil? 20.L Arc Sphagnum mosses a, common ground cover (>30110) and Ihe cover ,?f invasive species,(s~.T.blc 3) i, Ie .. than 101lo? I, lhe .... of 'phagnum mosses .nd deep orranic soils> il2 aCre? Is lhe area of sphagnum mo,~s .I .. i deeP org.nic~oilS i/4.· in .cr~? :.. ·;"·c,fi. ni.~1F:'"._. '"".". > .. ;. ~. 20.2. Is there an ",ea of oilanii: ioirwhi~b has an em.rgeni , class ",ilh :II Ieasl one 'pecies fiOm Table 2. and cover of invasive ,pecic. is <10'il> (sec Table 3)? Is the .rea ~f herb.ceous pl~nlS and deep orranic soils> 112 ... e? I, the .... of herb.ceous pl.nts .nd deep org.nic soils 1/4. In acre? o o o o 8 VES:. C.,tgory I VES: Calelory II NO: Go to 20.2 YES:. C.;-.~ory I YES: C.tegory II NO: Go 10 20.3 2a,3, Is the vegetation a millure of only herbaceous planu and Sp~gnum moSJe$ wilh no scrub/shrub or fon:slcd cJass~s? Is ihO "'C~ of herbaceous plants, Spharnum, and deep organic 'soil, > 112 a=1 Is the ,area.of herbaceous plants. Sphagnum,' and dttp ... - organIC SOIls 1/4 • 112 .cre?" .' ....... " .. ,' .. "'. Q.2b. Maluro rorulrd "".lIand • .. ~ .. ""' ::!F:': . .. 2b. I. Docs S~ of the cover of upper forest ca':"'PY cons]SI . ' o VES: Cal.gory I o VES: CaiegOry II o NO: Go 10 Q,) o . YES: Cateiory I o NO: GO io :Zb.2 ,.", · of enrgreco tree' older than 80 yean or deciduous trees older than 50 Yeals? NOle: lbc size or trees is oreen nOl • meaSure of age. and size cannot be used ~ • sunogale for age (icc guidance), ' .", .• : .. ' • ,. ,."" ", .. ': '''. '.', ' 2b,2, DoCi 50~or chi: c~~er of f~n;sl'caiiop; con,i,t of ' ' . 0 YES: Go ,02b.3 evergreen In:cs older Ihan 50 year •• A.t!ll .. is the slruc",~1 diversity of lhe forest high as 0 'NO: Go 10 Q.3 · characterized by an Iddilional layer of trees 20' • 49' tal~ .shrubs 6' • 20' tall. and 0 herbaceoUi groucidcover7 .:.,"," . 2b.l. DCcs <2S~·~f ~.Q.~ cover in:~··Z·"~~·~~~·.~!.:~~:,:~_ .. -, .~:.~~ .. herbaceous/groundcover or the shiub layer consi,,' of .-, · inyisi~elexolic plant species rrom the lisl on page 191 OVES: <:.t;;ory J o NO: Go to Q,3 Q.2c. ESIUI:illrin~ Wrllands. 2c, L Is th;:w.tI~nd liSled a, Nalion.1 Wildlife Refuge, . ' ..• N.tional Park, National Esluary Reserve. Nillural Area , Preserve, Slaie Pilk. or Educalional, Environmenlal or ~cicnlilic Reserves designaled under WAC 332·30-ISI? DYES: Catelory J ,0 NO: Go 10 2c.2 2c.2, i. Ihe weIland >5 acre,? .... , .. NOle: Jf an"ana ·Contains palches of s;:"lltoleranl vcgclalion .hal are . DYES: Calegory J I) less lhan 600 feet .part and Ih.t are separ.,ed by ,.' mudflal. that go <tryon a MeaD low Tide, lU ... 2) separated by tidal chanocls Ih .. are I ... than ) 00 fcel wide; . ~-. :.; ~ .11 the ;'egei.iiid areas Ole 10 be considered logelher c··"····,, or is ::/~:J~:tt; .:~t:.~ .. ~~~~:~::~'~.:::~:~~~::~~~~ .. ~~" d or is the, ",etland <I acri:?~_ ..... _ ..... , ...... , ............... , ..... _ .. ~;_ 0 2c,). Doc. ci.c wetland ;"... 01 least 3 of o the following 4 cril.rio. .................. , ........ , ..... , ...... .. "~ .. ~,. ·-4"1 . .i..~i··. i.'" ... : ... :M.> .... ,A!· ·<{r,T.i.: : . .o:~... 0 -minimum existing evidence of human reJa.cd . disrurbance such as dikin,. dilching. filling. eultiv.tion, .. ", grazinc or the presenoe of nol>-natiYe 'planl species' (see.·' ·;~;~;;;;';Y~~~!t~~~-ej¥+,s;::·· ". ·atlcas! 75'10 of the ",etland .... a 100' buffer of--.. ', . '.""" " ungrazed pashJre. OpeD waler. shrub or r~sr;~-:.~. "- ·has ;,j ir:asl 3 of the following fe.",~: ,i.;;"'-,,!ars~; iugb~., mar~h; udal channels; Io,oon(s); woody d~,bris: or.;;':,:;;:·,t~i; ConlJgUDUS fresbwalcr wel1and. .~:'~.:?1;~?:~. .-*::.;,:~~~ 2c.4, Docs the weiland meet all of the four c:ri;;ia uoder 2c), (above)? ,.~/:6?') Q.2d, E.I Cross and Krlp Brds. 2d.1. "'~ Q.3. Calrgo., IV ... tlands. YES: Go to 2c.3 YES: Go 10 2c,4 YES: Category I NO: C.te&ory 0 ".:' - ··:.t .. ·.' .. 3.. Is the wetl.nd: less than I .cre iUld hydrologically .. isolated iIllI comprised of one vegelaled class thai is domin.,ed (>80% "",al cover) by one species Irom T.ble 3 (page 19) or Table 4 (pag. 20) , ;l( YES: Cat.gory IV o NO: gOl03b 3c. -... (.::'-; .. Is the .. elland: less than Iwo acres and, hydrologically i,olaled with one veg<lated class, and >90'iI> of arc" co\'~ is any combination of species from Table 3 (p.ge 19) I, thO wetland e>c.valed from upl.nd and a pond . smaller Ih::an I :licre withoul a surfotce WOller conncc1ion 10 streams. lakes. riven. or other wf!lland. and has <0. J acre of \'~gf!talion 0 YES: Calegory IV 0 NO: go 'OJc 0 YES: Calerory IV 0 NO: go to Q.4 Q.4. Si,nilieanl habital .alu~. Cbccl boldl.1 qu>luICS Answer all questionS and enter d.ta rccjucst~ 4a. Total weiland arc. EsUmale arta. select rrom choices Biven: 4b. Wetbnd classes: Circle the well:mel cl...cs below lhal quatify: Op<n waler: if lhe area of open waler is > 1/4 acre Aquatic B~ds: if the "",a of aquabc beds > 114 acn: > Emergent: if \he an:a of emergenl class is > 1/4 acre Scrub-Shrub: if the ...,. of SCIlIb-sluub class is> 1/4 acre Foresled: if arc," of forested class is > 114 acre' .. Ch«k the appropriale ~;" j'~ 'Ihe ;..;;.:.~ '.;r "'-e;iand classes. 4c. Pial!' species diversity. ,.":.;: Fo. each wetland class (al righl) thaI qualirleS in 4b .bove, counl the number of differenl plant species you can lind thai cover more !han Silo of lhe ground. " .. ':' .". o· . You do nor have 10 name them. Scon: by chedung boles al righl. 401. 51ruelunl DiY,nity mg KlG >200 0 6 40·199.99' 0 S 10·39.99 0 • 5·9.99 0 ) 1, •. 99 0 2 0.1·0.99 0 I ~:I .. p 0 .orduscs Sc .... Oned ... 0 0 Twoc ...... 0 ) llnec ...... 0 6 Fourci~ 0 • . Fi~cj~' 0 10 If the w'lland has. forested class, .dd I poinl if each of the following' classes is present wilhin the forested class and is larger than 1/4 acrc:"':; :!. ". Scan: c.:llees >. SO: .t.II .................................................... _ ....... :~ .... _ .... ,,;;. YES . 0 ·lIees 20; " 49' t.I1 ..................................................... -' ........ , .. :.:.; .. ' YES . ·herbacrous ground co"er ....•...•...... ~;.: .... u •••••• : ••••••• _ ........ _.: ........... . YES .. s hr~ bl ~ .. ~. ~ ...... : ......................................... , ....••.... : .. ~:::~~:~~: .. : •.. ~ :: .... . YES Also add I poinl if Ihcn: ii any "open waler" or "aq;";.ic kcr claSJ immedi.lely nexllo the foresled Bleo (i.e. Ihcn: is DO scrub/sluub or emergent vegetalion bcrweca them) ... :... .......... .. ,YES :~' . Hip /Co,.' :~. 40. Decide from ,he di.grams below whelher inlerspersion" belween weiland classes is high, modcra'c. low or none? If you Ihink \he amount of inlerspersion falls ia be\Wec!l' lhe diagrams scon: :occ:ordingly (i.e. a moderately high amount of inlerspersiOll would score • 4, while a mod.,."tely low amoual would seon" 2).' H;~ -!.;~;;.:, " .... - LowlModerw o o o o 0 0 0 0 Low,--0 N-O ---WsO 4f. Habita, Fn.uru AnSw,;;·q..eSlions below, circle fealures Ih.1 apply, and score 10 !he right: Scurc S 4 ) 2 0 t. Is .here e:Vidence lhai~ ~ 0Pe~ .o;.~ ~"::: :o::.·~ ," ., .. Sc .... · . standing waler was. caused by beaYers? .. :.: ............. : .................. . Is a heron rookery localed wilhin 300·1. ......... _ ...................... .. Arc rOlplor n.~$"s loc:l1ed within 30(r? ... _._._ ........... : ........... ~ ... .. Are I"";e al I';'st 3 st.ntlin, dead ir ... (snags) per acre g.ealer 'han .1 0" in di.mclcr ai "breast height" (DBH)? ............. .. ", ,·,'i',·'-"·,, .. , d' '.' . A •• Ihen: al lea .. 3 downed logs per acre wilb . • di.meler >6" for .1 Ie.SI 10' in lenglh? .................................. . Are there areas (vrgctatcJ· ~~ ~·~~~·~~I~~~~ wilhin the weiland Ih.1 are ponded for .1 leasl 4 mon!hs OUI of lhe ye .. , :>rid lhe weiland has not qualified as having an open walcr c:lass in Question 4b. ? .............. :.: ................... _ .............. . YES 0 2 YES 0 YES 0 YES 0 YES 0 YES 0 2 . . , De'partment of Ecolog'y Wetland Rating Dat~ Entry Form , ,.; Western Washm ton 4",. Cor:-nt'clion 10 Slrr:ams. (Score one ans",er onl,.)·; ' .. , .;-: l 4&-1. Docs !he ";e,land ~vidc'j,~bil~t i.;. fish'~ any li~ ~i;';' year . At:!I2 does it have a perennial surface WIIICf conncciioD 10 I fls.b bearin, strcam .••.•.•..• ~~~ .•• t.:::·:-: •••. ~·:.:~ •• ~.;.:;l.~ .. ~ ... :·::.:!~ ..... ; .. :.:.L~·:.~ .. YES 0 6' 4g.2 •. ~~ ;k ';;e;iand provide t.sh kabi,~i se .. ~naliY 'Mili d';';; ~ have it SC3S0R:11 surf.Jce waler connfi:tion 10 a fish be:uing sb'e:sm .•• YES 0 ". 4,.3. Docs lhe weoland funruon 10 export organic m:lIIer Ihrough' ; . • surface wal.,. connccboa at an limes of !he y= 10 a .. ,' .. . , percnDial s" .. m ....... : ....... : .. c.; ... ; ............................................... Yti 0 • 4g.4. Docs t~' w~iand funcbon 'D' e,Pan ori~Ri~ ~;i~ Ihrougb • surface waler c:onncction 10 a stream OD • seasonal basis .. ___ ._ YES 0 4b. Bulr~rL"; 41. Score me nislinJ buff.,. otI 0 scale';' I·' bUe4 OD die: 10li0''';'', fo";' ciescn,.;o.U. . IIw Condilion of Ihc buntl1 do not fJ.lCtJy malCb lhe description. JC'tft eilha a poin,lUlhu or 10_ depcndin, ... whelller \he I>uII.n orr .... or ..... ckfndrd. . Fores', scrub, nalive IDSsiiindoi' ~p;; .. waler liuff~ic.' ..-.. ~" ,., arc presen. for lIIOIe IIwI 100' around 9S~ of lhe"" . ".< .. ,.' circu~~~~~~~~ ~: .. :,.~:', ~ )~~~~;r~; ~.;:i~~~~{~-7;:~~L'.;·t:~~\~f~~,.~··~:·;, , .. !' . Fo~;;;{;C;;;b~ n:.iive ~ssj~~~';" ope;,·~~~;;:bJ}~~;' wid';' Ihan 100' for more Ihan 112 of the weiland circumference, or a forest, scrub, ,,,, .. lands, or open ._ wala buffen for mo.e ,han SO'. arouDd 9.5110 of lhe . Score, YES 0 clrcumfuenc:e. ..of. i , . , • ,. ,..' •. :,.~.:..: ;,:l.'='~~~'/' " Forest, scrub, nalive , ... ssland or open water buffers ,. w;dcr!han 100' for more l!lan 114 oflhe :wetland _ ,0 '.' c;ircvQI(erence. or a fores.; scrub. native grassland. or . open ";aler buff .. s for mOre !han SO' fOr more rhan In of lhe wetland circumference. ' , .. No roads, j,;'ildings or p~';ed arcas wilhi~ IIX)' of !he weIland for more Ih"D 9S~ of lhe wetland circumference. '.:.. "..., i~ YES 0 YES 0 2 No roads, buiklings'or ";'.ed arc:lS wirh!n 25' of \he;; .. : .. '~i' . ;., -.".-., ;;,ll~d for mor~.;~~~ ~~: .~~.~~~.;~;;~ ~;~~1~~~~;'~:~ ...... ~:.:'~. 0 No roads, buildings, or paved arcaswithiti SO' of !h. wetland , ... ''''.'::''', ,. for more ,h:>n In of the wetland cirCumference .... : _.,. Pave-d areas. jndu~triii areai or residential conSlrvction (wi!h lc:ss IhaD SO' bctwccD houses) are Jess Ihan 25' from !he weIland for more Ihan 9S~ of lhe circuinrerence of. the. wetland. ·i· , .. ".J .... -''''':'!.' ,c. : ,-; ~. ~ ,. ;.' '.J. ',' _. . , -.:t;.:. ,"~:, • -, Connf'l'lion 10 olh~r habital arras Srlect lhe descriptio. which best malches the site being evalualed. .Js the wcoland connccr~d to, or pan of, • riparian cOrTidor at least 100' wide conneclin& two or more wetlands; Of. is there an upland connection pres.", > I 00' wide wilh good forest ... YES 0 0 ',!., c';,·, '-':.";.'. Scono YES 0 shrub cova (>2S~ cover) connecting it wilh a Significant HDbilat . Area? ,. ·Is!he weiland connrcled'I~'.~yo~ Habl;ai ~~::i;;;eia~~ I) a fon:stedlshrub conidor dOO~ wide. or 2) a corridoi-lhat. is >100' wide, bUI has. low vege.abve eover less than 6 feet ia height? .," ,. ", ',' ... ' ·Is !he wetland conncc'ed 10;;'" ~ ~ari of, ;. ripari~ric~d"; be ...... n 50' • 100' wide wilh scrub-shrub or foresl cov';:,· connection 10 other wei lands? ~ '.. . ·Is the wetland connrclcd to any other H.bital Area wilh .' nanow corridor «100') of low vegetali.," «6: in .heighl)? ·Is lbe wetland and its buff .. (if \he buffer is less than 50' wide) complelely isolaled by developmenl (u.ban, .esidenli,,1 wilh a densi,y gre.ler ,haD 21."., or induslrial)? CII"Of)' II ~ 22 pu • ,i.. •• COI"or, i. 0 Cal'lory IJJ 0 ',;: YES 0 ) YES 0 ) YES 0 YES 0 0 c, C".IOI)IIll < 22 .... TOlo.s~nO Pro}«1 W.lland Nam. I ~vr(lL; ~t.J(e.v-a.. ... J &~S"{ .. ,"\ II .r 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 N.~ of ~~~~ S-~ 4n~~, ; ,~.BA-k;_ Coonry j:.':J Projeci Name .. .J.",v ... ,.d . C:x +c. ... Y 1<> ,'" Weiland N~m. . CT.:" .. ;.: .Gov:i: J;";sdicli~~ ~r W.,land: --r; A; w \ \", Si' ": .. , .. ' ' .... '·< ... 00··.'.·" .. : .••. ,:., .... : .,: ,;' .. ,.; ··_.;':'L.. .... . .. ., , 0~ion~~:J L.~'~'gk)<.. #<")?, gC:CM~cl~ Lac.hOn: tJc S:0~ .. ~* ~f~I,'.?':.~}~~"!~t~,~ .:~ange.!:UZ. Sour ... or Inrorm.,ion: (ChfCk .11 SournS Ihal .pply) .<;;;' ','. ,.,:' .{;,;'; , Sile Visit e{ USGS To~ M~p 5:'[.:' N)Vi M;;p'~' :"Cri.1 Pb~'~ ~ S~il~ Surv.y t;1l O!her Inro .'-....... ~ ".,.." .. , "."'., ""... ., ... '·· .. "·~·r"··· , .. "" ..... , v,'hen The Ficld 0.,. .' '. Cal. or II r,::-J rorm is ~:~~~~:~ C'[S: l·i~~~~:~!'~;1 tS Q~t:l~i?:::::~~i~::~~~e:~~1'~:~ii~:i;k'~;li~2Z~ d~ ~~:'Ii nOl ,: find someone"with lbe'e~per,;se 10 ans~n the questions. Thea. if Ihe answer IO"""!!" . !-', queslions I., Ib aM. Ic are a!I!'IO, ~ontaci. Ih< Nllural Heri",e program or DNR, 1 L Human causttd~ di~j~·~~~~'~~~·{;~f·!tt~~i;~;~~·;j;~:~~.;.~{~?~;·}~;~5~t~t~~~~.:·";~·~~{::·~~~·~.~~ '!.'''' Is Iben: significanl evid.rice of liu ....... c.used chang.s 10 10pocr_phy or ... <. '.' hydrolo,y or the weiland IS indical.d by any of !he fonGwin, conditions? .... Consider only changes th., may have laken place in !he iUI 5 decOdi:L' n:;; j;;'p.c1S or changes do"" • .,Iier hlv. prob.bly been slabilized and lhe wetland cC~iYSlcm will be close 10 reaching some new equilibri,um lb.! may rcpre •• nl. high quality. weiland. ;: : . ". ~~'-~~~:_':~f;~;:~;~:,~-~3: ; .. r:::.:f~'i~\V~~·~· :,~r ,;~;~.;.':;:.(~ "_~k-Answers hI. Upstream w •• ershed >12"-imperviouL ",' .. , 0 Y~~;:Go 10 Q.2 "2. W.lland is dilchcd~nd~.ler no;;' is no. obSliv~.d::-0 Y,s: Co 10 Q.1 103. W.tl.nd has been gr.ckd. fill<cI. logged. '" 1Si!'Yy' ee'ss' ::" CcOo •100 QQ .. 11" I a4. Water in w~llan~ is conlJ~ned by dikes. weirs. C!C. tt :~: ~;~~~~:c:~;~t?*~~~;;~~~~~~~i?:;',::':, S'i~~~'~: :: ~:~ I-------------....:.......:.......:...-....:...:...-r.~~r~o 10 .,~.:-.-.,?!~:~,;;. ;!"'_;·-J.'4 .. ~· _ ;:,:"1,;. '--:.~~~~~>~:_ .. -.~,.;..: _.J :', ';-:1.:(; lb. i I " lb. Al.lh<rt populalions of n'o,j.n01iyeplan .. which ire currcnlly ';''-0 YES: 'go 10 Q.2 • present, cover more Ihiaij 10 ... or iii<: "W"tland.' arid '.,,,,,or ;0 be. ': o· Nci'~g.o to I c iri.,adi~& native popula~i~n'~ B-:icny ckscribe an; no ... ~riv~. . r' planl populalions .iKllnfotm~!!f!~~'!,'i:~!~;~f~.~:::f:f:>l.,I';, .. ;,~f' .. { ' .• ,', ,',-,,\. -";. Ie. Is lhere <vidence or huma';·cauSal dislWbmctis which ha .. : d 'YEi g~.o Q.2 visibly di:grod.d Wltef qUail.,.' Evidence' of lhe degrid.'io~ . orw •• crqu.lily include: direcl (untr.alcd)runoff rrom roads 0 'NO: PossibIeC.i.1 or parlUng lOIS; presence. of hisloric evidence, of was .. : . contact DNR dumps; oily sheens; Ih. smell or or!.nic chernie.ls; 01' livestock usc. Bricny describe: -':}~. c.. j.~~~i: ''',' Q.2. Irrrplacnble E<oloiii;i Fii~ciio;'s' ~;.!.,,;. ",', Does lhe weiland • have ",I.ISI 1/4 acre .. or organic soils deeper!haa 16 inches and lhe w.lI.nd is relaji;'ely ilDdisturbed; OR',', .... ;,··· .... <. (If ..... "'ISW., is NO bci:irusclh< wetlaiKI ii ilisturned bri.riY describe: : .,,~,~.~ "; t;.\~.~.:, .~'.." ... ~ ,-'-\~ ... ~,,~ f" Indicators 01 diSlurbanc. may include: OR • W.,land has been graded, filled, 10Ued; ·Organie soils on !he surface are dried·out rOO' . more lIIan haIr of...e year.i:;!,:.:~;' ::;~';.'; .. ;-,.. .W.,land receiv.s dir«l sionnw,'er runorr from urb::ln or agricuhuraJ areas.); . . • haye. forest.d class grealer Ihm I acre;. OR ,.... .., .... , .. • have characteristics or an es~~n~~ sysl~;;;; '<,;-. OR • have eel grass. noaling or non-noaling kelp beds? .. ~:.:. ... -. -,', " "'-;i :~~.::-: ~'o~Ji~;C· go 10 Q.3) o YES go 10 2a . .~' .. ,.-::.: o YESgololb ,:, YES go 10 2c YES go 102d 2a. Bogs and F.ns ;"·'."l.',··, .' Are any of the three fonowing condilions mci for th~ area of organic ~oil'? 2a.l., Arc Sphagnum mosses." common ground cover. (>30'i10) and !he " coyer of inva.sivespecics (see T.ble 3) is Ie .. Ihan 10~? Is the. a ••• or sph.gnum moss.s .nd deep or!';.ic soilS:> 112 ""'.? Is th~ area or sphagnumm.:.;scs a~1i dcq, org.nic~~i1; ii4 . 112 ';;'r.? .~.a.~ rls ~ au area o~.~ganic ~~il~~ch has aa;-~~;&~~\;: . y-" . cia .. wilh al 1 ... 1 one s~.s fmm Tab'" 2,'-and cover of ·c. invasive speci.s is < I 0'iI0 (sec Table 3)? Is lhe area ~r he;ba .. ";'s pl.n .. ond deep or!.nic soils> 112 acr.? Is the •• ea or herbaceous plants ond deep ori.nic s~iis 1/4 • 112 ocr.? o yEs: C.i~lory I o o yEs: Calegory II tlO: GO ',0 2 •. 2 . '.L';':,:~ DYES: C.,egory I BYES: c ... gory II tlO: Go to 21.3 Department of Ecology.i;. Wetland Rating Data Entry, Form Western Washin ton p.uJ'~I.Vllo 2nd. Edition 2a.3. I; lhe v.g.,ation a mi"ur. of only herbaceous pbn .. and Sp~gnum mosses wilh no scrub/shrub or ro~sled classes? Is IhC arc'·of h.,baceoos planlS. Sphagnum. .nd d •• p . organic soilS> 112 acr.? Is the ar •• of herb.ceous plan ... Sphognum. and deep organic soils 1/4. 112 ""'.? .. "'. ..... ". ..•. .:.' , , Q.2b: Ma.ure rorultd .tlland. ::"'. 2b.1. Docs 50'-' of lhe co>er or upper foreSi canopy consisl or evergreen trees older !han 80 ,can 01' deciduous IrccS older Ihan 50 years? No";: 'The size or If ... is often IlOl • measure or age. and size canDOI be uSed IS ii sUlTogal< fci- age (sec guidance)."" '. , ..... ,.,"" .... '.' '~;".~"" , .. ,. , .. , ':" 2b.2. DOes so'-' or Ibe cover Dr foresl canopy consisl of . evergreen .. ees older Ihaa SO y."', AIiO is lhe Slrucrunl diversi.y of the rorest high as characteriz.d by an addiliona! layer or lrec:s 20' • 49' lall . shrubs 6' • 20' I.n. and a h.rblceous groundcov.r?:.·· 2b.3. Docs <250;; ~r;1;;; ~iw cover i~'~ i:,·'::;';";'· ; ... , j herbaccouslgroundcover or Ibe shi'ub' i~yer c~nsj~i';'r , ~~v~iv~e;to.ic pl:ml species from !.he lisl on page J 91 Q.2<.· E,'ua~ine Wellands. 2cj~ . Js'the ';'.tlarid lisl.d as N"iona! Wildlir. R.fug ••. . tlation.1 Park, N.,ion.1 EsIUory R.s.rv •• N.rural Area Preserve. St.ue Part. or Educational. Environmenlal or .. ~~:cnlific. Rc~erv~s d.signalcd under WAC )32·30-1~1? 2c.2. Js .he w.,land >5 acr.s? ....... " Note: U an 'ma cODtains palches of salt lolctan. vegetiiJtion thai arc I ) less tbon 600 feet .pan and Ih.t are s<paral.d by muc,UlalS Ih •• go dry on • Mean low. TIde:, lU. 2) sci>ar~i<d by lidal channels '!hal .... Ie .. lhan 100 f.e' wid.; , . 0 YES: Cal.gory I 0 YES: CaI.gory II 0 NO: Go ioQ.3 0 YES: C.,.gory I 0 NO: Go io 2b,2 " "' ;.,,'i-: 0 YES: Go 10 2b.) 0 NO: GOloQ.3 0 r~; ~"'~Iory I 0 NO: Go to Q.3 DYES: Cal.gory I o tlO: Go to 2c.2 DYES: C.,.gory J .,', -.1-.;.' 1.__ an Ibc Ve!eialed ,,"C'U are 10 be considered log~lher, '-' . or is ti:};:~;~~gi.!~i,~i.:!::.~:.~~.~.::::=:~.::~~~:~~:.~~~~~'2i ;~~Go 10 2c.3 or)s the' w.'I~n~ <I ~!".? ............................................. _. __ O· YES: Go 10 2c.4 2c.3. Doc~!he weiland ;".e. iii kasl ) or o YES: Cal.gory I lhe rollowing 4 cril.ri8. ....... : ................................. . ;.''''';C;!.;e.'''~·. '" ' .. "".;;,.; .. ;.:, .'" <'" V' O· NO: Cal.gory n ·minimum clislin& evideDce of hurnailfeialed;. i< ... _ dislurbance such as dikini, dilchin&. lillin&. cultivation, , grazing or !he pres.nce or noo·oalive plan. species (sec :,:,., @uidance f or defini.~~~~ ':~'l:t'~!~~ rl~~~t~;~'~~-: ::.; .. : ... ' I :J.' " -surface water connet;:~o~ ~llh bdal SaJIW3Ie:r~".·;' :'.;L .:~.:.,~ .. ~.', __ :;;. or _!~~al freshwater;' ~~~:J~;'~::t~-:~~~;~:~~;~~~~:~·,~.~, .. ~·~>·,: ... ".~:! ~~" ·alleast 7~'-' or Ih .... ,I3nd IW i 100~ bUffer or·,. ~,·:,.'·'l ",," .,' ,;, .,.: ',~ ungrazed pasture. OpeD walcT, ShN.~.~ rore~r: .. ,·,:. 1;1,'-,,;'_' ·hlS ~lleasl 3 of !he rollowing r.";;;~U~;; in~i.; high, rnanli; iidal channels; lagoon(s};wOOdy-ci.bris; or . contiguous .r~sbwaler well .. and. \:~:~~.~ ':;:, ...~. 2c.4. Docs !he .... elland ..-1 .11 of Ih< rour mtm. , u~~~r, 2c3. (above)? : :'~~:rJ.~~J., Q.2d •. Ed Crass and. Ktlp B.ds. 2d.1. Ar. eel grass beds pres.nl? ..................................... , .... 0 YES: Cat.gory I , -. ~':'. ,.'.. .•• ' .' ~ •• :" ." ! 'i' • 2d.2. Are Iher. floBling or noD· floating kelp bed(s) prcsclll wi Ib cre.ter Iban ~0'iI0 macro alg.1 cover ia lhe monlh or AuguSl or S.pl.mber?. ......... ~:.::.;'.:~~; .. :;.~L':.: .. :.: .... ; Q.3. C •• tgory IV wellands. 3.. Is the w •• land: less lIIan I acre aruI hydrologically isol.,.d i!Ild comprised of one y.g.,.,.d cI ... ,h., is dominaled (>80'J. .... 1 cover) by 0"" species froni 3c. T.bl.) (page 19) or Table 4 (page 20). C", . • . : ~s '.i"}!i~'·; : :: '. < Is lhe ",e"and: less Ihan Iwo acres and, hydrologically isohlled with one vegclaled class, and >~ of areal cover is any combina~on. of species from Table 3 (pag. 19) , •• ';' .. Is I~ weiland elcavaled from upland :md a ~~d sl1l3tJer ,hOln I acrc wilhout :1 5urfxe WOller conneclion 10 stre;lms. luts. rivers. or Olher weiland. ~d h:Js' <0.1 acre of vege1:illion o . 1'1<>:. ~010 2d.2 DYES: ,Cal.gory I o NO: C.'.gory D .6(' Y~: C.lCgory IV o NO: got03b DYES: C.t.gory IV o NO: got03c DYES: Cal.gory IV o NO: go to Q.4 Q.4. Signilic"-ni habib I >aluo. Cbcck box ",., ""a1uocs Ans~er all quC'slionS ~d '~nlc:r da'.1-~~slr:d.'; 4a. TOlal wetland'arei . , : ~. EsumalC arca. select from choices given: 4b. WeIland classe,: Circle !he we.l""d chwa below Iha. qualify: Open "'aleT: if lbe area of OpeD waler i, > 1/4 acre '. Aqualic Beds: if !he art:. of aquatic beds > 1/4 acre Emergen!: if the arca of emergen. class is> 1/4 acre Scrub-Shrub: if !he area of scrub-shrub class i, > 1/4 acre FORs:'ed: it area of foresicd clui is' > 114 acie .. ' - . t~ •• ,.,,!-~ '''-; 'I '.1; 1" -::'.: ~ ... ,' t -;-., !. ,;' =.~. , . Check lbe appropria.e boli for lbe Dumber of weIland classes. KIQ KlIIl: >200 0 6 40-199.99' 0 5 10·39.99 0 5·9.99 . 0 " •. 99' 0 0.1· 0.99 0 I <0.1 O. 0 • or das.KS Sc-ore Oncd ••• · 0 0 Two cluscs" 0 ) Thra:c_ 0 FMclUsd'O fi~d"-O' 10 4<. Plan. speci.s diver.iIY. Class. tspccia' . indasa .. ' ~,:; , .' -:,.'; ~. For each we.land class (a. righ.) Iha. qualifies in •. 4b .bove. counl !he number of diff.rent planl 'species yoU can find Iha. COVeT more rhan Sit. of lhe ground.. :",~~\~,.::-:~:.;:':;1'.-' ., You do nOl have '0 name .bem. .. Seon: by checking boxes a. ri&h':. ',,: .. ' ,," .... "', -'( 4d. Slruc.ural DivrrsilJ ',' ,~. FCfCSIrd If.be we. land has a forcSled class •• dd I poin. if eacb. of.be fono~nll I .. i" 0 )0 ». 0 I Z 0 . ).4 0 ~·O o o > •. 0 classcs is present wilhin the ro~s.e~ class and is largn thaD 114 atre:"· :." ."i .. ·' .~" ::::: ··i~~~~ It;:~·; .. ~ ......... ·.·.:·.·.:·.::~.:::::::=::::::::::==::::=~;:;:;:::;:~:~;::~:~:: .. ~ &hciba~eous ground cover ............... :: .... ::~~ ...... _: •. :&~ .•.• ~~ .. :::~:.:~ ..•..... ~sh~~b~:.:~.:: .. L.._ ..................•.•••....•.•..... _: .•. ::.::.:~::,,::;:.::~:.: .••..•• Also Odd I poin. if there is any -open w.ier-or -..quatic bt.r class immcdia.ely ncXl '0 .be fores.ed area (i.Co !hCTc is no.' .' scrub/shrub or emergent vegetation bctweca thc:m).;!!;;._.;"._~._ YES" 0 YEs 0 YES 0 YES 0 " YES' 0 o 4<. Decide from .be diagrams below .. berhcr in.crspcrsion .. ·.. ',"" bc.wccn weIland classes is high. niodcraIe, low or none? If you .bink .be arnoun. of ..• , f.li. iii i>tiwcen. , . :: " :. " Scurt: ' .he diagrams score moderakly higb . Hi,b amount of a 4~ while •.. ~. ~ . 1 ;-;: l" ~., . modCTO.cly low . 2):~" HiJh'Modcru:, -" M~ None ---4f. Hobilat Fuluns A;;;;.;~·qu~~.ions below. circle fealures tha •• pply. and score.o!he righ.: I~ ihC~~'~~ide;;.. rha; ~ '~;,.~ ;;.. ;,,;>,,: . .... '. . .. andine ",o'er was caused by be.vers? __ ....•... __ .;._._ .• ..: __ .••• YES Is • heron rookery loca.ed wirhin 300·? ....... _ .. ; __ ..... _ .... _._ .. __ YES Arc r.plor ncsll' loc,'ed wirhin 300·? ....•. ___ ...•....•.• _ ...... _........ YES ,. i. l.-.";:j:----.~' • ' -. ,::::.,;. ~_.; ,_.'.; •. Arc lhere alleaS! J Slanlllng dead.lrees (snots) per aCle grea.er Ihan 10" in di.mc.er_ aI."breas!heighl-(DBH)1:.._: •. _ •. _.. YES Arc Ihere a. I~asl 3 downed lors per ad;; ,.,ilh a di.me,er >6" for •• leas. 10' in Ieng.h1 ........ _ .............. _._....... YES .--: : : ' , ,;'. ;. " 7; ., ~;., ~ Are t~ areas (ve!clated ·or un~·cg~~;.I~d) wilhin ',he we.l""d Ih., ar~ pond.d for .1 leasl 4 'monrhs oul of.hC ye,"" •• nd !he we.land has nOl qualified as having an open water class in Question 4b. "! •..•..••.•••••.•••••••••.••••••• ~ ••••••• _ •••. _...... . YES 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 '.~ .' .' Score o Z o o o o o 2 . Departm-ent of Ecology' Wetland ~ating Dat~. Entry Form .' Western' Washm ton" Pa e 2 4&--Conneclion 10 Streams.. (Score one answer onI1.) _'~~ 4g.1. Ooes ~well~nd Provide h~bi.ai i~ fis~aI .~y iin;~f lhe year . at!I2 docs il have. perennial surficC waler conneclion '0 • /ish . 4g.2. ~~L:::i£:i~~~~:·;~~~:~~~i;~~:~~:L;:j·~:~L~:~~:···· YES 0 6' have a seasonal surface wala connccl;un 10 a fish bcmng sDcam ... YES 0 .. 4g.3. Docs.be wClland function '0 elport organic "",ncr .hrough ill surface waler connection al all times of the yC211 to • perennial s.~~am: .•.... ; ..... :· •... '.: .•...• ; .. ,.'-•. ;~ ...........•............. _ ........ YES 0 4g.4. Don.he w~.la~d function 10' e'pon organic m,;ner .hrougb • surface waler conneclion 10 • slreOm on • seasonal basis .. _ ••.... _. YES 0 4h. Burrers. ,<!':: _;.i.:t: .. :~·;'_I·\:" ·/·i:' .:o·.·~:.;' ,·1· ".;:~, ScOf.!he·~1iilin, buIIcrson ...... ·0,.'.5 baied"'!he rollowmi four~. U !he <ondiboll of !he bulJen do no! euell7 meith !he description. ...... eilhcr • poinl hi,her ",10_ dcl"'ndin, 011 whether !he buffers arc .... Of mort: dcp><k1L ..... .-..... Fores!. scrub: ;'a.ive g~sil"nd or' 0pcli'w,,;ci' buffers . arc prescnl for mOre Ib"" I 00' around 9SIt.·0(!he .. : cir~~!~nc~:;~;~~:;1!~:~}~~/;.~{::;:!<~;~ :-·;~.1;;[:~~~~~~.,~~~ <~. ~ ~ 't·. F~r~t"~~b~ ~~ti~; ~·~~I~~:~ ~·ri· ~~I~ burr~J wider .ban 100' for more .han 112 of.be weiland circumference. or • fore ... scrub. ,,"sslands. or open wa.er buffen for more .han ~. around 9SIt. of!be circumference. ;. . ~ ,-.". , • "~: :,'. :.-·...I.f Foresn:~b. na.ivc g"'~;la~~ or open wa;~ b~irers wider rhan 100' for more .han 114 of .be weIland circu~rttence. or • foresi~ -scrub. natiVe' "'assland,, or open waler buffers for more rhan SO' for mon: Ihan 112 of Ibcwe.land circumfen:ncc. " . No roads. b~ilciings or p~:~d ..;;,~. wilhin 100; of thc we' land for more .b.n 9SIt. of .be we.land circumference. No roads. buildings ot p.ved areu "'ilhin 2S: of Ihe ' .• , .1 . ~ YES 0 3 YES 0 YES 0 2 we. land for more .h.D 9S~ 'of .be' weiland circumference,.· .,., . jU' -~;'f":~F.:;; ~~~~~-n~Jr;7~~'F':::·~H·~i.n#;.*·.~:f·;-".:;.:;i~t"'"::. :. j -.1> ~ ,0; No roads. buildings. or paved areaS wi.hili SO' oflhe we.l.nd . ,', .. r for more .h.n 112 of the we.land circumference .. 0:' : ' . Paved area,. jnd~striaJ areu or residential cODStruclion (with less rhaD :;0' bclwccn houses) are less .ban 25· from .he wellarid for mO~ Ih.iI 9SIt. of lbe circiiinrmncc of .he we.land. '.'. ·:·.·:t:.~:··';,:::,. · .. ·f·' ·:'.;i ::-",:'-- YES 0 0 41. Conn~clion 10 oth~r habilat areas Sclcc •• be description which best "",.ehes .he si.c being cvalu.,.d. -Is !he we. land connee.ed '0 • .,;, ~ of •• riparlan c~idor 01 least J 00· wide connectinl IWO. or more wellands; or~ is thac an upland conneclion pn:sen. > I 00' wide wi.b good forcsl or shrub cover (>2S~ Covet) connee.ing i. wi.b a Significanl Habi ••• Area? ·Is .be weIland connec.~ 1~ an~ ~lhc:r H~bi;aiA~ ~i.h ei.ber I) a fores.ed/shrub corridor <lOO·. widc. or 2) • corridor .hal is > I (MY wide. but has a Jow vegetative COVel less than 6 feet in heighl?,·-: '.' .. :. ... ' ·r .: !..~ ·.Is the wc.land connce.ed .~. oi • p;;n of. ~ ripari~D cotrldor berwccn 50' • 100' wide wirh scrub-shrub or forest cOVeT connection 10 other wellrinds? ·Is !he weiland connecled 10 any orhet Habi.al Are> wi.h· nartow corridor (<100') of low v.,e.a.ion «6' in bei,h.)? "'~{ , .-'~~r.· .Js .be we.land and i.s buffet (if the buffet is less rhan 50' wide) comple.cly isola.ed by d.velopmenl (urban. residenli.1 wi.h a densilY gre.'eT .han V.cr •• or induSlrial)? Score YES 0 YES 0 0 II J Dui,n by Scoll T. CIa,-Pool" I I I I I I I ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q.I. High QualilY Natural Wttland .. :.. . ...... ', ...... ' .. Ans~"" Ih'ii queslion i{jou' hi~e·idcq~.ie inj.im~li':'ri ~ eipa;e~ i~ do~o. If not. lind someooe with the cJ,pcni~e 10 'answer Ihe questions. Then. if lhe answer 10 ~ . queslions h. Ib ai>d .Ie arc all NO. conlacl Ihc Nalural Herila,e program of DNR. lL Human caused' J~~~~r~'~~~~~:; ;~;;., '.~.~-~~ .. :,;:~:~:' ;~~:.::~.~.:~.:.>: .. ~f.~~~ ;l;:~ t:::~" ~:: ' . ."-., Is then: significanl evidence of ~uman-caused cbanges 10 lopOgrlphy of bydrolozy of lbe weIland as indicaled by any of lbe following conditions? . Consider only changes Ihat may have laken plaCe i. thO laSl S decadeS. . n.c impacls of changes done earlier hIVe prob.bly been slabilized and lbe weiland ecosyslem will be close 10 reaching some new equilibrium thai may represenl a high qualilY ,",elland. "',·1 ~ ~},~:.;. ':':· ••• ·d .. }.:.:.:·-' .. ~~.~:~.~:.-; J~ --~ .. ~::-'-~.~:~;:;~~-, ,~ •. :"I\JWC-:S hI. Upstream w.lershed >i2'J1. impervious. ' D Y .. : Go 10 Q.l 102. WeIland is dilcl';;d and ;';'Iier now is nol obslructed. D Y ~s: Go 10 Q.l I aJ. Wetl.nd has been graded. filled. 10Ued. I2J:.. Vo.: Go 10 Q.l 1.4. Waler in weiland is controlled by dikes. wein. elc. 0 Y n: Go 10 Q.l laS. WeIland is gr.i .... :: '"!':"~".':~" " .. .,)' ,;, '.f···. D Y •• : Go 10 Q.l 106. Other indic'lors o'f diSlUrba~ (Ii~'bel;'w)' D Yt': Go 10 Q.l '~"':o" ." .. 1 • ~ :. • .:'f.":. lb. Are there populalions of non-nalive plants which ,,",.currenlly . pres .. t. cover more Ih"" .! ~ of the .. ~elland, .nd·.p~ 10. be, inv:tding native populalion~'1 Brie~y describe Iny non-native. plant populations apct~nr~~~~~~ ~~~·~~~~.1._".)~ .. F'::~~~./ 1f;li~H~ r---~~-,--~I: Ic. Is 111= evidence of human-caused disturbances which have . visibly degraded W"et qualii,: Evidence of Ihc ilegn...,io'; . of -:"Ier. qualily. include: direcl (untrealed) runoff from roads or park.in& JOIS; presence. of historic evidence. of wasle dumps; oily sheens; Ihe'smell of Ofganic cbemicals; or livestock use. Brieny describe: '" ~ . .' Q.l_ I rrtplanabl •. Ec~I';~iial i~n~i;onS Does lhe w.,land , . .,.J"",,:;- • have al le .. 1 1/4 acre of organic soils deeper thaD 16 inches and lhe w.tland is rel.alively undisturbed; OR': .. ,.. '. ' No: Go 10 Ib.. D YES: go 10 Q.2 : D NO: go 10 Ic . D YES: go 10 Q.2 [j NO: Possible Ca~. J con. act DNR !:c._ (If Ihc answer is NO be,cause ..... ,!elland is disturbed brieny . , . -. describe: :', .\ .... I:·'i1:\ -':::: ,:. ',::',' :", Indicalors of diSlurbance ""'y include: -WeIland has been graded. filled. 10U.d; ·Organic soils on the surface arc dried,oul for . ~~~;~Q.~~ OR more than half of lhe year, _:: ~ .'. -Wetland receivei dirrci storm",aler runoff from urban or agricuhunl :1rcas.); • have a forested class grealer Ihan I acre:; OR . • have characteristics 01 a~' csrua,ine syslem;- OR • have eel grass. Ooaling or non-noaling kelp beds? D YES go 102a DyES 10 102b DyEs 80102c D YES go 102d 2a. BoC' and ftn. . ~" ",. Are any or the three rolJowing condilions mc:i ror Ihe ar~a of ~rg~ic soil? 2 .. 1 .• Arc Sphagnum mosses a common ground cover (»011» and the .:.covcr of inv'si;'. s~cies (See,Table) is less Ihan 1011>? " 11M: ~re. of sphalnu~ mosses and ~p org~nic ,oils:> 112. acre? " IhC "",a of sph.gn~m ~s .. s and deep orlani~ '~i1i i/4; 112 .ere? w .~ 2 .. 2. b Ihcre an area of Org~~ic~oil which has an e;";';rgenc .'. class wilh al leas. one species from Table 2. and covn or in;~iYC s~i.s is <10'.\ (,ec Table )? Is lhe ai •• of herbaceous plants and deep orpnic soils> 112 acre? . Is lhe arc. of herb.ccous plants and deep organic ,oils 1/4 -112 acre? o YES: C.'~,orY I o o YES', C~iegOry II NO: Go io 2 •. 2 DyES: Caleiory I 8 YES: C.legory II NO: Go.o 2a.~ 2nd. Edition Department of Ecology , Wetland, Rating Data Entry Form Western Washin ton p.uJ'~~"7aJlo 2&.3. Is the vegtl3Uon a mix.ure of only herbaceous plants and Sphagnum mosses wilh no scrub/shrub or forested douses? . Is the .are •. of herbaceous plants. Sphagnum. and deep' orgaa.c salls> 112 acre? Is lhe ."'. of herbaceous plants. Sphagnum. and deep organ.c so.1s 114 -112 acre? .. ' .. ,.' ....... , .. -.. Q.2b. 1\1alur~ rorosltd ... lIand. • . •. f • 2b.l. Doc. 5O'JI. of lbe cover of upper foreSl can.;py consisl of evergreen trees older than 80 years or deciduous trees older lhan SO years? .' Nine: TbC siZe'of lTees is ofte.";' I measure or age. and size cannot be 'used as • sunogate f,.. age (see luidance) ... !,.".', ; :: ,::. ..,.-.; .... '-.1 :'. ,-... ,-, • , 2b,2. Doc. 5011> of the cover of forest canopy consist of evergreen Irccs older .han 50 years. Arill is lhe strucrunl diversilY of lbe forest high as characteri.ed by an addilional layer of trees 20' -49' lal~ shrubs 6' -20' lall. and a herbaceous groundco~er?, .. ,. 2b.). Docs <2.5'J1. of 1;;",; .... 1 cover i~ -~ .... " co,.... .. ... ~:. herbaccous/groundcover or the shrub i.yei consis.-';f ., invuivcJcJ.olic plant species (rom lhc: lill on page 191 Q.2e. ESluarine Wellands. 2c.l. Is"the weiland listed as Na.ional Wildlif. Refuge. , National Park. Nalional £>Iuary Reserve. Narural Arc. Preserve. Siale Palk. or Educalional. Environmenlal 01 Scienlific Reserves designaled under WAC 332-)().151? 2':,2. Is lhe weIland >S .cres?_, .... Note: If an area cODtains patches of salt lolerant vegcl:uion that arc I) Ie .. lhan 600 fcci apart and Ihal arc separaled by mudfla .. Ihal 10 dry on a Mean Low Tide • .Q[ 2) separaled by lidal charuicls Ihal arc jess IhOn 100 feel wide; DyES: Calegory I DyES: Calegory II D NO: Go 10 Q,) D YES: C~,egory I D NO: c;, io 2b.2 D YES: Go 10 2b.) o NO: Go ;0 Q.) DyES: ,Calegory I o NO: Go io Q.) DyES: . Calegory I o NO: Go 10 2c.2 DyES: Calegory I .< ,~ ; , - .11 Ihc v.~el~l«! arc" Ire 10 be co.,,!ider~~ log~the~.. . .. ".,,' or is :::~::II:~;gl~~r~r~.:::":~~.~.:.::.' .. ~~.' .. :'.:::~~.~~: __ ~:: O·~~: Go 10 2e.3 or i. lhe: weiland d .cre? ................... __ ..... _ ................. _._ D YES: Go 10 2t.4 2c.3. ~s Ihc weIland meet at icOSI ) of the following 4 aileriL .............. __ •.......••.•...•...•••..•• -minimum exis"i~~ ~~i~;ce ~f h~ri;~ ~j~ed .. ' '~i: .•.. disturbance such as diking. dilching. fillin&. cultivation. grazing or lhe presenCe of noD-Dalive planl species (see .::::ce .. ::;:~~::lt:;;i~~'~;~~r~;:.;~: '~ DyES: ,Calegory I o NO: Calegory D or lid .. rreshw3tet: •. :.',~~<.~;:-: i: -... ~~: !,":~."r ~.:'"" .. • at ~~ 7S~ of the ';'~,~iind ~-; i60: ~~~r~r.:.. ~l.· ungrazed pasrure. opeD Walei'. ~hrub. O!J~I: .. :: ,.~ .. ~., .• ·has at le", 3 of lbe following fe.';'~: 10';' m~h; high' ~h; tidal channels; lagoon(s); woOd!'~~.; "!~"1~~ conlJguous freshwater wct~and. . ~~~~.~~~~.~{~.--"'~.~\ ::;r~~\.' 2c.4. Docs Ihe weiland meel an of lbe four c:ril~a . under 2c3. (above)? ~;""\ ~?:·::~·~:l:;· .- Q.ld_ Eel Gnss and Ktlp B.ds. " .. ' ::,·cr_._. 2d.1. Arc eel grl .. beds prcs.nl? ............... _ .......................... DyES: Calegory I 2d.2. ~re there noaring or noo.iio.ling kelp bed(s) pre.e~; w.th grealer than 5011> macro algal cover in the monlh of Augusl or Sepl.mber? ........... ' ..... ; ............ : .............. .. Q.3. Cal.cor, IV wtll.nds. 3a. Is the weIland, less than I acre lIIlI hydrologically . isolaled iIIlJI comprised of one vegelaled cia .. Ihal is dominaled (>80~ areal cover) by one species from Table) (page 19) or Tabl. 4 (page 20) '. Jb. Is lhe Weiland: Ie .. than Iwo ac .. s ~;'d. h;drol~gically isolated with one veg.,aled class. and >9011> of areal cover is any combin3tion of species from Table J (page 19) . le_ Is lhe weiland e:1.cavated from upland and a pond .. . smOlJ1er than I 3cre withoul a surf:ace waler connection 10 streams. lakes. rivers. or olher wedand. and hilS <0.1 acre of \I~gc:talion D. NO: go 10 2d.2 DyES: . Cal. gory I o NO: Category D YES: Calegory IV NO:. go lo)b DyES: Calegory IV o NO: 1010Jc DyES: Calc gory IV D NO: go 10 Q.4 Q.4. Signifi~ant . j,abi~t '~alu •• ClIeck box III" quolifoes A~wet: ail ~t:cs,iou ~. cnra data req~sl~d ~ :KII!J:' Estimale arca. selcct from chojceS given: 4b • .w.tland c1an.s: Cird. the w.tI:lIId classes below ,hat qualifY: Open water: if ,he: ar •• of open wa' .. is > 1/4 acr. Aqua,ic B.ds: if !he: aru of aquatic beds > 1/4 acre Emergent: if !he: area of emeTg.n, class is > i/4 acre Scrub-Shrub: if !he: arca of scrub-shrub class is > 1/4 acre Fores,ed: if area of foreSted clanii'>1/4 acre . ~ ... _. :,1, Om:k ,he: appropri.'e boi for the number of .... e' .. nd classes. 4c. Plant species div.,..i,y. For .ach w.,I.nd class (.t right) Ibat qualifies in" 4b :Ibove. count !he: number of different plant species you can find ,bat cover. more Iban 5110 of ,he ground. :.. ''c'''' Y OIl do not have '0 name the:rn. Score bj checking ,,?,.S .t ri&1\t. 4d. Structural Di .... ity >200 .. 0 6. 40· 199.99. D .. 5 10·39.99" 0 $·9.99 0 J ~ 4.99 0 7 0.1·0.99 0 J ,<0.1.,·0 0 'ofdasscs Score Oncdass 0 0 Twcic~ 0 J Thm:c~ 0 "~~i~O fi .. c1usa 0 10 I z·· 0 ).' 0 » 0 , I 2·) 0 4~S' 0 . '>f 0 o I .' J o I 7 .'.\ "i'e 2 ).4 >4 o o o J , o o o o ~ : If the weiland has a rorcstC1l·classl·~dd I point if each o~.hi:: t~,)oWini-".~':!.!· j':: classes is present wjl~in lhc fomted class :and is larger than ~/4 ac:re::~:':-':'" o' Score I . '.: " ."ec.')i50~ 'iall... ............................. _ ............ _ .. ;!,·;L·:.." .. :::.:,·.:~L .. YES" 0 i. ." ... 20' ~' 49' ,.J1 ................................................ ;:~ ...... ~:; .. " ... ;:.:: ris· P ·hii~bac·~ou. ,round cova ............. : ................. : ............. _ .... _........ YES. 0 .'\ ' .. ·.~~r~~L ............................................................ : ... : .. ::~~.: ..... ::.... ru'; 0 '" Also arJci I Poins il Ibae is any "opcD water" .,. "aquatic bed" c .... immediately nut '0 the: fOiesled arC:i (i.e. rhcn: is no scrub/shrub or .mc:r'~ ~ge'.tion betweeD rhem)_~'...;;..:~ ... _. YES 0 ., Hilb \. Hi,b'M_ Mo.J.~ lDwlModOnaO Low" ~one --.... 4r.· Habitat Foatuns A;'~'d q~~ri~ns below. circle fe.tures rhat apply. and score to the right: . " -, _. I" ,: ~'. -.". _ > -.i:~ ... ~~-., .. " .\:" Is there evid.nce Ibat the open 01'.,:" . .-, . standin, wa'er was caused by be.v.rs? ............. _ .. _ .. _._ ........ .. Is • heron rookery loco,.d wi'hiD 300·7 .................................... . Are raptor ne.lls locat.d wilbiD 300' ? ...................................... .. Are ,h;;r~ .{~SI 3 Slan.lin, 'iIe • .r~.~ i~.a&j) Per acre g.coter than 10" in di."";t.~.";',1'~ ... I .. height· (OBH)? __ ":. __ .. An: 'here at leaSI 3 downed logs per :iae with :::::~: ::g::~~;~~~~~~:g~:~;.;~:.;:~: ........ -: .... .. weiland tbal are ponded for at least 4 monlbs out 01 the year. :lIId ,he: w.,land has not qu.lifi.d as baving an open YES YES ··.-"·1, YES YES YES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 walC! class in Question 4b.? ..•...•.. _._~ ........................................ . YES 0 San;, 0 .-Department of Ecology' . . W~~land Rating Dat~ Entry Form . , Western' Wash," ton' 41.. Conn~clio~ 1o S~.~~~m~~· ... (Sc~re o~~ a~s~~~ .o~~~.~ ,~_ . ( , 4g.l. Does the w.rland provide h.bi,.t for fisb at any time 01 'M year . -Scon: Ar:!fl docs it have Ii pcnnniaJ surface ~iilla connection 10 I fish. ' 4g2. ~~L,:;i:;~~il;ii:;,l;;J~;;;i~~:L~L~ili;::Li~;(:·::: YES 0 6' have a seasonal surface "'aiU connection 10 a fisb be:uing srream._ YES 0 41.3. Does ,he wetl.nd functio~ to "port org.;';c moIler ,hrougli " a surrac.c WatCf conncc~i~n at ~lIli~; of the year 10 • . .~,. ,. . perennial slle.m ...... _ ................. :., ... , ........................... _ ........... YES 0 4g.4.~· Ihc ;"'~I~~d fu~ti~~ t~ e'poRorg.nic ;"'n;;; t~~ , .. , :-C." • surface ~atcr connection to a stream on.1 seasonal basil.:_~ ••. _._. ~ 0 4h. Bu~e~r~~·:"··~·~-:"ft··~ :;:'~~~~r:;f :t:": ~t :":.~~"_ ~ ~~ ·:~·~ ... .:.:'.~·Hr .. · ~. :.~;:) f:-~::-~.,~ Scon: .... nistinl bull ... on. ,nle ol\·$ bad un .... follo"';"r four doaipIions. ' U 1hc: condition of .... buff ... do ... uaclly march .... descriplion. J<'!ft ei..., I point hilher '" _ depondinr on whc:1hcr !he bulfen ... Ie .. Of '""'" clerr*cI. Forest, sen...: ,;;;ti~iⅈ~laDloi' ~~~'w.,er buii~i.',.~:t: ... ·i YES 0 $ arc presrnt for riiciie til"; 100' .round 95110 of thC ., .•.. , ... ::;":, ""C' ~~~~mr~~~~~;!:J.E···~;~~~~~t.::~~\~i~?r~~···;~~~~~:~~:: .~,':-:,: \:;· .. ··~i;~·r: ,;"; .. ' "'.~" ~".~., ,:.,;; . .'~'.;,·<i:r;,~:;i<'i,t:·,'··:·· ~1".~";.!';' _ . ·,,)t/.': ~i; ',~ Forest, serull. native glassland Or opCn ;'a,ef buflers wider than 100' for lTIOI'e than In of ,he: we,l.nd circumferen<: •• or • forest. scrub. '" .... nds, or open water buffcn for more 'ban 50' around 95-' of ,he: ,.' circumference. . . ... ~. i ... 'i ; .• : ~ " I , •• ,ptl~f Forest, .cnrb. n.rive grassl.nd or opcn wa'er buff.rs wider than 100' for more .h.n 1/4 of ,he: we,land .'.~' ':"," circumference. or • rorcsi. scrub: Dative '"assland~. or ' open water buffers for more Iban 50' for morC 'ban I n of ,he 'weiland circumference ... " .' . '" . No ro.d •• building. or p.ved areas wi,biD 100' 01 Ibe w.tland lor more ,han 95-' of ,he: weiland circumference. YES 0 YES 0 z' . No road;; buiknnlS:or paved i.i~., ~iihi;, 25' 01""':;" ::.: '" \',' .,,' . ,j'o.,' ... wetland for more thaD 95-' of ,be wetland circUmrer.nce; .. '· .. · '. .... i';" .Ql' -"1·:~~*i;td'f':.: .. :'~ ~·_'!~}J~H:· .. f,~,~.~ ··~\;,~triY~fti:o'jo·r;'" /,U:: ~ ~ No roads. buildings., ot-p~y~d areas Wi1hil!·SO· of the ~rt1~d":'~(' -?;~"t<! !.:: . lor more ,b.n In of rhc: werland circumf~reiic: • .'."L· .'. ::.i:. .. ; ::"~: ~'._' . "'.-~~-... ,;-:."." .... Paved areas. ind~~trial ~as w resideinlai ·coDstrue.ion (wilb less ,han SO' between house.) arc less thaD 25' from. IhC wetland for more ,h.n 95 .. of tbe ciicumfereDce of .," the we'land. ·:.:,~'~;:,i.;';.-,":.:. . .. ..' 4i.. Connr-ction 10 olber habitat arras Select the d.scriptioD which best ma,ches ,he: si,e being .valu.t.d. ·Is Ibe wet land connec~d t~. or p~ of •• riparian :·c.;..idor ~t )cast. 100· wide: connectiD& two or more wei lands; or, is lhere an upland connection prest .. >100' wide wirligoOd foreSt or sbrub COYer (>25110 co~er) cOMccting it wilh • Significant Habi,.t· . Arca? , .. ;~·fh-:!-;~~"i·~;;--:'-,~-{·). , .. -. ·Is the wetland connect.d to .ny olba Habi'at Area wilb ei,he:r I) • forest.d/shrub corridor <l00' wide. or 2) ir corridof rhat· .. is > I 00' wide. but has a low veget.tive cover le.s Iban 6 fect in heigbt?' '.""~\;. ..' .i :."'. . .•. ,., .I~t: wetland ~onnec,ed i~: or ~.~~ ~{~~i~~~~~ci';( between 50' -100' wide wilb .scrub-shrub or lorellcover.:." connection 10 Other wdJ:mds? ' - ·Is the wetland connected '0 any o,her Habi,at AUa wi,h narrow corridor «100') of low vege,.tion «6' in heigb,)? : .".. . . '~.", .:".. . ·Is lhe: wetland and i,s burrer (if tIit: inilrer is I.ss Iban SO' wide) comple'dy i.ol.t.d by d.veJopmc:ni (urban. resid.nti.1 wi,b a densi,y gre'"ef ,b.n 21acre •. or indullrial)? Sc ... YES 0 , t ',_:1 YES 0 YES 0 YES 0 0 C11C10IJ 1\ ~ 22 pIS. CX"'IOfJ III < 22 J'U. ,l ;:;.' ,. :. : i' :"·v .... ~ . . COlriol')' \I D . " D . Toe •• 5C"On C.,.~o'1' 11\ D.i . ., ,.' . Proj.ct ' .' , ., W-':ti~~d N~";" Ig=tYiItJW '~~J GJ~~{)·, II 0 I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2nd. Edition Department of Ecology, Wetland Rating Data Entry Form Western Washin tonP."J'JI_~aJlo ~~sf~'~i~~~:~o~;~~~~"-~~~~i}'WEJd~~'~';;:~lZ;i~ d~i~' If no: . find someone wilh the c~peni5e 10 'answer the quesrions. ThcD. ir Ihc answer IO~~ :::', , queslions h. Ib and .Ic 1ft all ~O. con.acl\he Na.un! Heri,a,e program of DNR. .. lL Human faus~d~ di;~~·:~~~ri~~t~:~:~~~yt~~;t~~~·~%~:~~:~:,~\~;~.t~·t\;1}~' ~~'~~.~:':'~? .:', .. Is thr:n: significan. evid~ncc of Iiu;;,.....c~~;ed c~g~;~ I.;.,.;g;:;pi,;·;"·~ . " hydrology of.he ...... I.nd as indicaled,by any of.he fonowing eooditions? ". '. Consider only changes Ibal may hav. lake. pix';' in \he lasi'S deCl.ies:· n;.; 'impxis of changes done earliet h .... probably bttn .. abilized and the we. land .cosYsi.in ",ill be close '0 rcaching .ome ne .. equilibrium Ibal may ,.presenl , high 'qualily weiland. \ ~':'~r~( ~~:,: J;'~;~~~?~~1'~~:~~~;:~~~;~:~~':~r1~:~:~ ~:,-.~.~. ~riswtrs 101. Upslrearnwalershed>12 .. imj>crvi0il.:·"';>·':'o ': .. " 0 Yeii Co 10 Q.l : :~: :::::: ~I:i=d;::::~~~::~~'g:~ ~j,s.n;~;.d.: ': ~i~ g: :: ~:! 104. Wa.er in wc.land is controlled bj dikes ..... irs. c.e. 0 Yos: Co 10 Q.l laS. We. land is gr.z.d.':i..f·~,~:~~¥ili:";:·i"'~\,.·'·'i,o" ":"'i" 0 Y~'; Go 10 Q.l: i.6. Olber indicalors M d;J~;b~~g; (ii~ ~i~";')';';' :""? 0 .y~~: Co 10 Q.i '·t.:~I~'S.~·~'v.,;, ... :~··tJ~'>!.~_~""";·-: .. ;~~. ' ·-'··!·':l-·.'t·7.~~·JI,-, . f---------------~.::....:....; .. ...:.-.. ...:'.'.:.:.. .. '. e r~:,',~o 10 lb. • ... ~.'~~,~~~~~t::'~.: .. ,:~j:ti~~·~··;-,~1f~}:>f";:j. ".;;\~~.j." ~ .. ~ - Ib, An then: popula.ions of non·nali;'. planlS which ,,",cwnntly;; .. · i>~~~ ,eov~ more .h~ 'O,:!o~ t/iew.~,~ and app.ar i" ~,,-, m.,~nl nau~e populauon~? Bncfly dcscn~ any no.narivc O. YES~ '10 '0 Q.2 i 0' NO,'golo Ic .'t .. pl3ni popul:nionJ .~ Inrormal~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~{t~l~~;~~:~:;~~:j.~.:. 1 ,·-·'" .i'·.'·',. 1--""-, .. -------,.,-'. --:"._...:..----,.-'---1> .. ' Ie. Is lhe,. .videnc. of hum:.n-causO,d disiurbantes which ha •• :'." '''"''0' "~~: g' ~ 10 Q.2 visibly degrad.d "' •• er qiiiiii;,,: Evicknce of me dciiad'lio~ " of w,.er qualilY includc:.din:ct (uni,.aled).runoff from roads ,0 NO: Possible C~ I or p"uJcjn& )OIS; prescncc.-or historic evidence. or wasle conlact DNR dumps; oily sheens; lhe smell of or!anic chemicals; 01' livesloct usc, Brien, describe: :; ~., ' .. i I. ..... ·1'.-. "'~"~-;;.;.'" f.,' Q.l.. Jrrrplacrable Ecoi~,i(';i F~~cti~;;I: , .: : . ..,:~ ,. .. ,~.' Docs .he w .. land " have al leasl 1/4 atn: of organic soils deeper thoo 16 inches and lhe weiland is n:lauv.ly,"Miisturbe« OR"'; '; -' 'c," . " , .. (If !he'ans .. er is NO beCause \he .... land i. disturbed brieny' describe: 'l~, ~.~:.: i~ J ~.;:;~ ; , ";",~:::!/.';: -,' -.:.:; ::,:' , ... Indicalors of disturb.nc. may include: OR • Weiland h.s been graded. fill.d.loU.d; -Organic soils on th. surfoe. D~ dried-oul for ' more Ih ... "alfof IIiiYbli;.~ ·:'>~.,:r ',' • WeIland receiVes direct sioimwaia: runoff f..om urban or agricuhural artas.); • have a rorutcd class ,renIn Ihan I acre;;-' :l;, OR '. : .. ,,-~~i·: .. ,· .. ,i>;·!t .. ,,';~~··~ • have ch3J'ilctcrislic:s of an esruarinc sysiem;· OR ". hD.~' eel ".ass. nD.ling or non-Rooling kelp beds! . '_.' • !. ; "~ (~~ i~~~; 10.0 Q.3) o YESgolo2a 0 YES go 10 2b d ; ;,;~ 1-\ . YES gO'D 2c 0 YES go 10 2d 2.. Bogs .nd Fons . ',' Arc any of lhe three following conditions ~;'for I~ area of ~iinic soil? , ! 2a.l,. Arc Sphagnu"1 mosses ". common ground coyer (>30 .. ) and Ih. .. '; cover of inv.siv',species (se •. Table J) is less .han 10'il>? .. ;: ' Is the .i~ ~f ~pharn~m ;;"osses a~d deep organic soils> Il2lcie? 0 YES: C •• e,;;..y I Is .h. area of sph~gn';m 11>iiS~' and (it.;p orgaj,;~' soil. '1;4. In acr.? 0 YES: C ••• gorY II 2L2. L ther. an ar~a ~r~-ia;';~ soii~j,icj, hiiJ an emc~.~'·:'·· ~ ,0 NO: Go 10 2 •. 2 . ~'. Class wilh ai leasl one species from Tahir :z.-iuid cOYeT of _. inva.!v~ ~P.';~i~~!~ ,< I O'il> (see Table 3)? . Js lhe area of herbaceous planls and det'p organic soils> 112 acre? Is ,he area of hcrb:aceous·planls and deep ai-ranic soils 1/4. inleTc'! o YES: c~i~gory I 8 YES: C ••• gorY 11 NO: GolD 20.3 20.3. Is \he .el~lation a miuun: of only herbaceous planu and Sphagnum mosses with no scrublshNb or foreslC'd c1asses? Is \he area of h.rbaceous pl.Dls. Sphagnum. and deep' orgODic soils> 112 acre? DYES: C •• egory I . Is the ar •• of herbaceous planlS, Sphasnum. and deep" .. organic soils 1/4· In acr.? : .... ' ... ",. , .• '.0" '. . ','.".' . . '. 0 YES:. Calegory II o NO:' Go io Q.3 Q.2b. Mahan rorOSltd , .. lland. ~ ", -l .~" . '-":;::'"":--,;.,:, .... ,. 2b. I. Docs ~ of lhe cover of upper forest canopy consisi' :' . of •• ergreen IrCCs older Iban .80 years or deciduous "CO; older Ihaa SO year.? No •• : 1bc .i.., of trees is olleo llOI a measure of age. and size canuOl be uscd as I sunogalc for ag. (sa: guidance). ' .. :." "e',,;, to.: ':' ."".,.' ",," ' .. ' .... , ... ,' 2b.2. Docs 50~ of lbe rover' of foiesl canopy eonsi.1 of evergreen trees older Ihan SO year •• At!l2 is \he s\rucru",1 di.asily of lhe foreSl high as . charact.rized by an additional layer of IrCCs 20' -49' .alL o YES: C •• elory I o NO: Go'IO 2b.2 . '~';." o ,,'[s: G~ lo"2b~3 o NO:' ~iD Q.3 .• hrubs 6' -20' Iali. and • herbac.ous groundcovul" , ... , '. '.: . -'0' ... , .. ' ; .... lb.]. Does <2S~ ·or~h.;j~~J cova i~'th~~~,:\t~:t~;~':; '!.: ;:'~~"=.:~. '0"--'''~"I" ~; ....... ".' --" '. . YES; .~II.gory t herbaceous/groundeov.r or th. shrub i.y.;r·c~ii'isi of . inv'~i.~cJC1o'iC planl species from \he lisl on page 19? 0 NO: Go.o Q,3 Q.2 •• '. ESluarino Wollinels. .,,:'-2c~i~ ii'theiwclluid jist-led as NalionaJ Wildlife Refuge. ':' ._ . N.tional Park. Nalional Es.uary R.serve. N.rural Ar., Preserve. S •••• Park. or Educalional. Environmenlal or fi.n.ilic R ... rves d.sigoalod under WAC ~32·)()'151? 2c.2. Is .h. we.land >5 acres?_ .. _. ..~ . NOle: If an -a.rei conl";ns palches or salt tolerant Ycgclarion thai art i·', I) I.ss .han 600 fm apan and Ihal ""' s.para •• d by mudnals Ih~ godry on I MeaD 4w TId .. 111.. ... 2) scpara •• d by tidal channels Ihal arc less .han 100 f ... wide; .. ' , DYES: Calegory I o NO:. Go '0 2c.2 ." •.. ; .. ' ,~, i','· DYES: . C.i.gory I :,~ .~.! .:=' •• 11 the v'~'la.cd_ areas an: '0.. be co~idcrcd .ogether In calcuhaun& lbe weIland area; v(l.:.;_::;.d,-·;:;;.·_,!!.-:-::, '., . "",',:". .'.J' or is lhe ';'ella~d 'I~S acr~? ..... :.~.~ ........ _ ............. _ ............... _ .. __ ••. O· YES: Go 10 2c.3 or i •• he w.tlan~ <I .cr.? ................................ _ ..................... _._ 0 YES: Go 10 20.4 2e.3. ~; ihc :,.;.land ~ 'I leasl 3 of Ihe followinl ~ .. critcria. ...•••.•••••.••.•....•••. _ •. _ ••..••.•.•.• ·I':'~~r.~_. i" . ! ::::'~'-:."" ,-~" •. , ;,. -minimum exis.ini evidence of human related :-:!f);' : J.: .~' disturbance sucb as dilLing. dilthin&; lillin,. cuhlv';\ion.- gruinl or lhe pn:scnc:e of DOD-Ontive planl species (sec .. -:::=w::~ ::~:rln~~:t;tr~~;\2it~:J:,:,! :'::"':": DYES:. CII.gory I o NO: Calegory n ".,', or. ~~~.I freshwaler; "~:;~?~~:~~:.:·~:'"~·t~~·~~'; .. ~~i ~,:.\~::i.~:~,i .".~. ~~.>;.~. -alleast 7S~ of.bo we.land has. 100' buff.r of '·0, • ' •. ' '.,·i':'.: "., .• , ungrucd·pa;run:. OpeD wa.er. shrub. or ron"; ,.,_ ",.,'J' "'.' -'" . ,~:. , ·has ,alle.asl 3 of the following fe:11u"': .Jo":marsh; high .. " marsh; bdal channels; lar;oon(s); woOdy d.bris; orf: ". contiguous fresbwillC1 wel~aDd. . ;·~~:t~(i-~~ 2.:.4. Docs Ibe w.lland meel all of lhe foUl' cri;';nl unde! 2t3. (abo •• )? ,::;i;;.:;.l,!,\ '.,:-' . ·,:5, •. Q.2d. Ed Cross and Kelp Bods. 2d.1. Ar. eel grass beds pres.nl? ..................................... _.: .. 0 YES:' <:.Ielory I ." . ' J' ."," 0 ~<?= gO}O 2d.2 2d.2. Ar. ther. noarin, or ~a-n~'ling kelp bed(s) pn:s.nl with Jrealer Iban Sa.. macro algalcovaia \he mon.h of AuguS! or S.p.cmber? ....... : .. :.~::L'.: .... : ....... :.::: ... : ... :: Q.3. Calecory IV ... lIonds. JL .Is \he well.nd: Icss .• han I acr. iIIlI hydrologically, .. ola •• d iIlIlI composed of on. veg.lal.d class .hal is domin.led (>80~ =al cover) by one spe~ies from Table 3 (page 19) or Tabl. 4 (pag. 20) , . ' 3b. Is.he we.land: less .han ,wo acres and. hydrologically isola •• d wilb one veg •• a.ed class. and >~ of areal COyet is any combination of species (rom Table J . (pag. 19) . )c. Is lhe weiland excavaled from upland and a pond . 5m3J1er lhan 1 acre withoul it. surf:Kc wain conncc1ion 10 streams, lakes. rivers. or olher wClland. and has <0.1 acre of '\Iege-lillion o rES:. Ca.egory I o NO: C.legory U DYES: C ••• gory IV 6(" NO: go 10 3b DYES: Calegory IV J2( ;1'10: go.o Jc 9 yEs: Ca.egory IV ~NO' go '0 Q.4 Q.4~ SI,niOcanl habibl nlue., Cba:I: box dI'I qu.lifles Answer all q';csrions' ai.d enler d .. ~ ieqU;"I~eL ' AmJ >200 0 4.. TOlal w.lland are. . ... ~';' 40, 1\>9,\>9 0 10. )9,99 0 ,·9,99 0 I· 4,\>9 0 Estimate ian'1l. select from c~iccs liven: '.- 0.1·0,\>9 ,~ :<1/1 4b, Wttland classes: Cin:1e !he wttl:u'd classes below thaI qualify: Open waler; if lhe ..... of opc n W,Ier is > 1/4 aae Aqual;" B.ds: if !he area of aquatic beds> 1/4 acn: ohed.;s 0 EmcrgCJ1l: if !he .... a of anergcnl class is > 114 acn: Twoc ...... 0 Scrub-Shrub: if !he area or scrub-shrub cbss is> 114 aen: Fo; .. I.d: if area or forcslcd class is > 114 acre n.r.. ....... ' 0 Check lhe appropri~;e 'iio; for lhe;";~ '~r:"".li.~dcl~lSCs. Four cl&uci" 0 Fi~~i~ 0 4c. PI~n~ species diversily. For each ",.II.nd class (.1 righl) th .. qualifies iD 4b above. count !he number of diffcrcm planl . species 10U can find thai cover more Ihan S~ or lhe ground. "". . " ... You do not MVC 10 name them. Scan: by checlting bo ... al righl: :' , . f.~" l-Je.",\~~'~' '~' ~ C. 1 L5{ fie-r \'" <; ,z.-f: /'Iu "-r~t.~ti,.)'" Cl""S'Je.:;' ~i1 .. J\-rt .:..;. i .. ':'1' l . ' .. ~. 4d. Structural Dhcrsi'l 'J' : -:;" .. 1' If lhe ".lland has a forested class. add I point if each of lhe fonowin& 1 2' 0 ) 0 » 0 1 2·) 4·' , >,. I 2 0 ).4 0 >4 0 ; :.~" classes is present within the forested clus and is larger tha.a 114 acrc:n":" I ~., .. . ~::::'i~;~:· :;~I.;~';;::::::"".'.~'''.:',~.~'.~~~::::::::::::~::::=:==:::::~::::~::~~:~~, YES 0 YES" d -hC'rb~crous' ,round cover •.•.....• : .•......•....• : ••.• :.:.:: ••.•.• n ••••••••• _ •••• -.: •• -.. YES O· . .: 5 flfU 1,1=. :~ ... ~ •••. ~ •...••.•• 0 •••• 0 .......................... .' ••• :~~.~_:~.: •• _::~~ •••• ~ ••• ~~._:. YES 0 Also add I jIoiDi if there is an, "opcn "'aler" or ;'aq~~Jc' bed" class immediately nc:ol 10 lhe forested area (i,e. !hen: is no scrub/shrub or .mer,.nt v.g.taliOD bcrwCCD tbcm) .. ';""._ .... _ YES 0 ~ .. :" . " ... Hi,b ... Decide from lhe di.grams below "hctbc:r inlenpersion belween weiland classes is high, jnodr:rare. low ~ none? Ir you Ihinlr. !he amount of inler'persioo falls iii belween lhe diagrams scan: accordingly (i,e. a rnockralcl, high amount of inlcrspe .. ion would score 'I 4; while • mod~':I~ly low amouDt would scOre a 2)., Hi~~ M,,,k •• '. ..... ""ocIr:ndo I.Dw ~ --4r •. ; Habillll Futures AnS",~:q.;icstions belo .... circle fealures that appl,. and score 10 the righl: IS there e~jdence thai th;; '~pe'~ ';;.~._.~~~.-. ' Slanding waler .. as caus.d by hc;,v;, .. ?,_ •. "" ........................... . Is a heron rookery loc ... d wilhin 300·?.""." .... " .................... .. Are "plor ncslls loc .. ed ",ilbin 300·?""""." .. " .....•••..... " ........ .. Ar~ lhere 31 I~SI ) nancling de.d trm (s;,ais) per 'aere' &reOler Ihan 10" in diamel" at "br ... 1 heighl" (DBH)? .............. . ,.! ,:,--.~'., Ar. Ihere al le .. 13 downed lop per aCre ",ilh a diameter >6" for 01 leasl 10' in Jcnglh7" ... " ............ " ............. .. -1." .. ' Arc lhere areas (vegel.ied or linvegeiol.d) wilh;n IhI: wellond thai arc ponded for al I.asl 4 months oul of lhe ye:ar, ~nd the \Wetland has nOi qualified as having an Ope-D YES YES YES YES YES 0 '. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 wain cl~ss in Question 4b. '? ...•.•.•. : .......................................... . YES 0 KIllS 6 , 4 ) 2 I 0 o ) 10 Score 0 I 0 I 2 ' ) 0 I I , ., ., Score , 0 Scon: . " Departm~nt 0'( Ec'ology: . . \V~!land Ratmg' Dat~ Entry i=orm . Western Washln ton Pae 2 4,.. .Connl'clion 10 Slrl'ams. (Score one answer on".) :', ,: 4g.l. ~ ihe ~~ I~nd P;~~i.ic ii~bil~I for fish'~ ~Y'Ii;';' ~; ';h~ year Seo .. . , ~ does il have a perennial surface wala conocclion 10 • fisb 4ii. ~l:;ia~i'~~~:':.~~;~~~~;~~:~L;;~~t~:~~·:: .. :·YES 0 6 have a seasonal surface wala' conneclion 10 a fish be:uin& sue.am._ YES 0 .. 4&.3. Does lhe w",land functi~n 10 export or.anic maner Ihrough I surface walei' c~nnectioD II an limes of lhe year 10 • perenni.1 s"eam., ...... ·.:.: ...... ,; ............... :~ •. " ............................... YES 0 4g.4. DocS 'Ihe' ;"elland function 10 expori 'or.aruc n..na IhrouCb . , • surface walC1 conncclion I~ • sueam on • seasonal basi ... _ •• _. __ • YES 0 4h. Buffers..; : ... ..:.; ... " ,~~ •. ~ . '1~f---:. ' " -•. -•. ,,... Sco..Ihc .wi;;', burr~ ria'; .ca .. ;" I·' bWd Un "'" 1000owi.,I';'" daaiptions. U "'" condillon oIlhc: buITm rio ...... actIy .... "'b "'" cle.>cription. ><on: <ilhcr a poinl hi,her Of 10_ rlr:p<.din,m .. hellier lhe bOIIlen ... 1 ... Of man: der_ Forest, scrub: naiiye'&r.;.~llnd .;r'~.;n wara buff ... ' ,:,', are presenl ror more thaD 100' ... ound 9S~ of !he ';' cir~~r~~~~:~:}r~.·~;~:~~J~~i,>'/}r,{J;;;~' ; -.:;~.",' FO~~~·· ;;~~~~'~;;i'~~ ·p.;;~I~~~·d·~ '~~"~~icr b~ff~; wider Ihan 100' for more than 112 of lhe ",.lland circumferenC •• or a fon:.t, scrUb. grasslands. or open "aler buffers for mon: Ihan SO' around 9S~ or lhe ... ~ir~~~rce. :;'!.:!. .~,~ ... ~~~:.!1::>:.;. . I:: • ?'-;'~ '.":~-'> .,:.::' :-:1 ,; .... i:·:<~·! :.j! Forest, sCrub. naliv'; ,,,"sslaftd or open waler buff.rs wider Iban 100' for more Ihan 114 of lhe "'elland circumfcn:nce. or I roresi:·scrub. _bye' grassland. or 'opcnwaler, buffers for more than SO' for mon: Ihan 112 or Ihe w"'land circUmfen:ncc. . . No roads. b~iidinis or p~.~d arcas wilhin 100' or the " wetland for more Ihan 9S~ or !he wetland circumference. YES 0 YES 0 2 YES 0 2 No roads. buiidlrijs or p •• e.t ;"'W withii; 25'. of Ihe}; :J'-"" ;tand f~ more;~~~ ~~~, ~~,~~,;J~~;~~~r~~j~, .. ', ~ ~ J No roads. buildi nis: Or paved lins wil;,;ii sO' of !he w .. l.nd for more Ihan 112 of !he weiland cin:umf.n:nce: Pave-d areas. indu;s~iaJ ~as or resjdential conslruction (with less Iha. 50' bel",.,.,. hous.s) an: less IhlD 25' from' !he .. .,tland for mon: iIIan 9S~ or !he cucUmfen:nce or !he .... ellaneL " ,,·'t~C o,.~ , 0 ... ,. ' 41.. Connection to other h:.bital areas Selecl !he d.scriptio. which beS! "",Iches lhe sile being evaJUDIed. ·h !he wetland conncc;~d 10. ~ p~ or •• rip:.ria~ corridor .; Inst 100· wide connectin& iwo or moTe wetlands; or. is there an upland connection prcsenl > I 00' wide .. ilh good foresl or . shrub cover (>2S~ cover) connecting il wilh I Significanl Habilat .. Area? .Js !he weIland connccl;'~';~;';'; o~ H~bi;~ A~ "'i'tb ~il";;~ ;, '. I) • fon:sl.,dlshrub corridor <JOO' ..,ide, or 2) a corridor lhal is >100' wide. bUI has a low vegelative cover less thaD 6 rcc:t in height? ",' ~ ;:,~,_.. .~. '".,~ ,.f .~ . .' ;'::,. -?:.:._ .. ~ :1.. -'~ .. • Js !he weiland connccled 10. or ;, pan or. a riparian corridor be ....... n SO' • 100' wide with scrub-shrub or fon:sl cover <' conneclion 10 other wellands? YES 0 0 YES 0 3 .Js !he ... IIand conncCl.d 10 .ny other Habilai Area wilh YES 0 I narrow corridor «100') of low vegel.tio.n (-:6' in heigh!)? .,;!':.: ·Is lhe wetland and irs butTer (ir!he buffer is I ... Ihan SO' wide) ~'d. 0 campl.lely isol.led by d.vcloprnenl (urban. rcsidenlial ",ilh " • ~ densilY greala Ihan 21o"e. or indunrial)! _.0.. C"<,ory II ~ 22 pIS. CII",ory III < 22 ..... .... ! ProJrtl W.lland Name I ..... t....:..~_"k.-_{):Lb_j,..;;..t "_.u-_J-'-GL..O"'!..,,,~"'-'-"-S:_b_· ..... _----'II ? DoIC" by Scott T. Clay· Pooh 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 Q.~. ~!'~. ~.u.lil" Nat~~a~. W.t~~~~~:.~_:f.~:':.: :'~'A':Y:;' .:;;~.~~;:~.::~ .. f~,:~' .~: ','.-',', '~. ,:::' .::' t·: Amwerlbii queslion if yo.. have adequal. information or e'perience;o do·so. If nol find someone wilh ahe cllpcnise 10 Insw~i lhe questions. Then. if the answa lo!~l; question, I .. Ib and !c ~ all JIIO, CD~lact !be r:!aluia! Herilag. program of DNR. 1 L Human c.us~~~ d~~i·~·rb~~~~~':~;:·~\~,-t-/~~~~~~:-~.:~_~t·~;~:;~ ::;:;·:::~.~·t~~~£,·~: :~:!_~" ~.~~'~', ~.;';. Is there significanl evidence Df !iUflWl-elused cbanges 10 lopO"aphy or " . hydrDlolY of lbe w.lland as iridic:'led bY·;"'y.f lbe foDowing coodilion.?·· : Consider only changes Ihal may bay. lak.iI place in tbC lasi 5 deC"" • .:, lbc. irnPi(1J of cbanges done ... Iier bave probably been Slabiliz.d and Ihe w.lland <cosySlem ",ill be close 10 r.aching some new equilibrium Ihat may rcpr.scnl a high qualily w.lland. ~ ~ •. ,t ~~.:.:):,?~·~;~·~~·~f~~~;~.~·~: :~~'~;~~',~~~~'.>" ':. ~r~:-~>r~.·~\~~ ~nswcn : Jol. Upsucarn walenbed>12t. imperViouL . "".:" " .' 0 V .. : Co to Q.1 1.2. W<lland is dilc~d'inci;'lei now is ~O( ~bS1rucl.d:· 0 V •• : CO to Q.1 Id. Wetl.nd bas been graded, fill<d, logg.d. "'$ V .. ;-(;o to Q.1 104. Water in w<lland i, conlrolled by dikes. weiu, <lC. 0 V .. : Co to Q.1 laS. W.tland is gral'~'>:':·'"''''c;\; ;r!::::l.·.'·'~' • . . 0 V .. : Co 10 Q.2 i.6. Other indie.ton. of disturbance (Iisl below):;··.'-' O. Vts:Go 10 Q.1 ... '~':~.:-11:,':'<."'> c"-:'-:· ..... '1_ .... "f> .• '~"',. .. , to ~. -.~,:.~';.'. ~" ...... .-;;.'1 4 I-----------------~ .. :.; . ..:..';.. . ..:.' . ..:..~--.-:...:.:.;.;;..F".~~~ ~o to lb.. lb. Ne then: populalions of nori·nalive plan .. ~hich ~.c~nd)' " O;YES,'go 10 Q.2 { !,rcsc~I,_cov7r more r~~ ,Il'i!o or. tbe"!~t!and; and appear 10 be', or-NO: 0 to Ie i Invadinl nalJve populallon:,? B!1cny.dcKribC any no~narivc ~:~ ~ .-_".OM.,. .,,-~ ~'"\,,",, " 'r,'~ ,. I e. Is there .vidence of burnaft.Causcd dislwbanc., "'hich bave' .. ; .,. r .:: •.. visibly d.graded w.r ... · qualiri:' Evidence of the degoo.liori· . 0 VES: go 10 Q.2 of waler quality include: direct (untr.ated) runoff from roads 0 NO: Possible Cai. I or park.iDI JOIS; presence. of historic evidence. or waSie .. ~ conract DNR dumps; oily ,hCCD'; Ih. smell of organic chemicals; or livcsloct. usc. Brieny describe: '. ~.' .------...,....,....,.,,..-------,,..-----'--...,..----. --','," ~ I---:--:-----,--:....:...~~---:-lr:.~:~";:,·: . Q.2. '"tplac.able Eeo.i~'i(al F~neiion'-' Docs lbe w<lland • have al I ... t 1/4 acr. of organic soils deeper IhaD 16 inches and lbe w.lland i. r"alively uodislurbCd; OR <,... • . '. '~;·I"'C._ (If !be ans .... r i, NO beeauSe "'" .... Ihind is disiurbcd brien)' describe: .~; f~"~~ :~ ~~'';'''~~~ · .. c~ ".-." .~ •• '. • Indic3l0rs of diSlurbanc. may include: • W.lland bas been graded, filled, lo"ed; ·Organic soil' on !be .urface arc dried·out for .~~~~~~~~~ OR more Ihan b~lf of tbC yicar;. : .... '.,. ;' " .' ~ Welloand receives di~ct SlormwatCr runofr f;~m ' urb:ln or agricuhural 3fC3S.); • have a forested clas.s gn:aler Ihan ' .. acre; ¥ • • ~~yc ChVXIer1S1ics or ~n csn:,c~~~~. ~;st~il~';; OR • bave •• 1 pass, nooting or non-noaling k.lp beds? o YESgolo2a , .'.' ~:::. 0 YES go t02b ;t 'f" 0 YES go 10 2c 0 YES go to 2d 2:a. Bo,s and Fens .".. _ ') .. ;~ .':.. " Are ilny of the three fonowing condilions m~; r~~ ~; area'~"i or'~anic soil? 2a.1. Arc Sphagnum mosses a common ground cover (>30%) and the :. ;,. cover Df invasive species (sec T.ble 3) is i ... Iban 10%? . Is the area of 5phagnu~ rTM?ss~ a~d ckcp organic Sooils > In I~re? . Is 1m; aru of sphagn~m ~sses and ~ep ofg.mic: sOils 'I/~ ~ 112 ;)ere? . ,;. ;~ -.,-?: <, -'. . 2L2. Is there an area of organic sDil which bas an emergent · class with at lease one speocics from Table 2. OlI1d cover of invasive s!,"cies i. < I O'l. (scc Table 3)? Is lhe arca of hcrb';ceous pl.nls and decp org.nie soils> 112 .cre? Is the area of herbaceous planls OInd deep organic soils 1/4 -In ac~c? o YES: C~;~~ I o o o B YES: CategOry II NO, Co 10 2a.2 . , YES: Cal. gory I YES: C.legD'}' II NO: Go 10 2a.J ,-,;- 2nd, Edition Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Data Entry Form Western Washington. PN)J~'7a~lo 2L3. Is the v.gelaLion a mi.lur. of only berbaceous planls and Sph~Bnu~ mosses with no scrubJs.hrub or forestrd classes? Is ti.. ar.' of berbac.ou. planlS. Spbagnum. and deep' organic soils> 112 acre? Is lbe .are.of herbaceous. plants, SpbDgnum. and decp organ.c so.l. 1/4· 112 la.!·, ',' •. .... '. .'. Q.2b •. Motur,~ .forested ... lIond. , . 2b.l. Doc. 50'l1> of lbe cover of upper fanst canopy consist of .v.rgreen trees older than SO yean or deciduous tr .. , . older thari 50 year,? NOle: lbc .ize of 'trees is oft •• not a measure of age .. and size cannot be used as I sunogate for ag. (see guidanc.).; • ' .. ,.",.-.; c·; .... ". ..', • 2b.2. Doc, 50'lll of Ihe cover of forest canopy consiSl of <vergreen Iroes older than SO y.ar., ANl2 is lhe slnIcruf1ll diversil), of Ihe for.st high as cbaracterized by an additional layer of trees 2D' • 49' lall. shrubs 6' -20' lan, and I h.rbaceou, groundcovcr? 2b.3. Docs <2S'lII of it..;~ cover i~ ~';l"'::'\;;::··'· . berbac.ousigroundcDvcr or the ,hrub byer consist of inv~iveJe,olic plant species from the list on page In Q.2<_ Estunine W~tJands. 2e. t I~~-w<lland listed as Nalional Wildlife Refug.,. Nabonal Park. Naliona! Estuary R.serve, Narural Ar.a Preserve. Slatc' Par~ or Educational. Environmental or Scienlilic R.serv.s d •• ignaled under WAC 332·3()'ISI? 2c.2. Is lbe w.tl.nd >5 acres? _ ..... NOI.: If an arca contains palcbes of s.1t tolera .. vegetation thai are I) les, than 600 fcci apan and that ale sopar.l.d by . . mudflal~ that go dry on I Mean low TIde, III 2) si:pai-itled by tidial cbarinCis Ihal are leSS lban 100 feel wide; an the: vii.lated .......... to be considered 10C<lber or i, ::e c~:~I~~~I, f :r~i.:::.~.~~;~~:.:~~ .. :~:~.~ .. :' .... ~~ .... _._ or is lhe wetland <1 acre? ...... _ ..•......... _ ...•........ _ ............... _ 2c.3. o.,;;~!be "'edand meet II least 3 of Ih. following 4 crileri •....................•.......... _ •......... -minimum exi$li~~ ~~;~~e ~r h:~ :;I~ed' '-'~~i-' ,.0 disrurbance such as dikinS, dilching. fillins, cultivation. gruinl or the prcscncc of ..... oaLive plant sptties (sec . guidance for definid~D~ . ..;~·44.;!t, -'_";"~('h: , b"- ·surface waler con~ii~~'~iih riJai ~~itwa,~,;-,t; or tidal frcshwaler: ~ .. ~~~>~ '~;c;;~;,~~ ~~,.:.~ :,'~D:t::;· .. !'" ·al leas! 75'l11 of \he ".lland haS a 100' buff .. of . ungrazed pururc. DpCO ""Ier, sbrub or foTest;., .• :. ·bas at I.ast 3 of the following fearurcs: low marsh; high marsh; tidal channels; I'goon(s); woOdY debris; ol.:r.,i,:'~, contiguous freshwater wetland. : -::.~~':1~~;;:. -'·~-~I-:·~~.::'-.. 2c.4. Docs Ihe weiland meol all of tbe four criiens under 2<3. (above)? Q.2d, Ed Crass and Kolp Bcd .. DYES: Calegory I o YES: Ca~gory II o NO: Go 10 Q.3 o YES: Calegory I o NO: GO 10 2b.2 . "-"', o YES: Go to 2b.3 o NO: Go 10 Q.3 o VES: 'Cal~gory I o NO: Go 10 Q.3 DYES: c::alegory 1 o NO: Go 10 2c.2 DYES: Calegory I -.~, ," I: ' o VES: Go to 2c.3 o VES: Go 10 2c.4 o YEs:,Cllegory 1 o NO: Caleg"'y D ,'.i. 2d.1. Are eel grass beds prcsenl? ................................... __ ... 0 VES: Cat<gory I N~ . go, 1o 2d.2 2d.2. Are there noaring or noo·no.ting k.lp bed(.) presenl Wlih ".aler than 50% macro algal cover in \he monlh o of August or Sepl.mber? .......... ~; .... :; ............. : ............ . o o YES: .Calegory I NO: C.legDrY D Q.3. Category IV w.tlands. 3.. Is the w .. land: I.ss Iban. I acr. JIll! bydrologically isolaled i!D.d comprised of 0"; veg.tal.d class Ihal is domin.l.d (>SO'lll .... al cov.r) b)' one sPoci.s frDm Table 3 (page 19) or Tabl. 4 (pag. 20) 3b. Is lhe "'.lland: less lban Iwo acres"~~d. hydrologicall), isolated with one vegetated class, and >~ or areal cover is any combination of species from Table J (pag. 19) 3e. Is lhe weiland e.caval.d from upland .nd a pond smaller than I 3crc wilhoul a surfOice W31cr conneclion 10 sirca.ms. lakes. riYers. or Olher wetland :md h:.s <0,1 acre of Yegclalion • YyEs: ~31<gDry IV o NO: gOl03b DYES: Calegory IV o NO: go 103c DYES: Calc gory IV o NO: go 10 Q.4 Q.4. Significanl habibl ulu~. Chc:d boa IN, qual .... Answer all qucslions and enler data requClcd. 4a. Total wetland arc. ? EsumalC area. selec. rro"m choices given: ~ >200 40· '99.99' ,0· 39.99 . '·9.99 •• 4.99 0.1·0·911 <0. i., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4b. Weiland classes: Cirtle !he well:md classes below lha. qualify: ,; Open walcr: if the arel of open walcr is > 114 30e Aqualic Beds: if !he an:. of aquatic beds> 114 acn: Emergent: if thC an:a of emergenl class is> 1/4 oc'" Scrub-Shrub: if !he an:a of scrub-shrub class i. > 1/4 acre Foresied: if aiel of fOrosled claSsi. >1/4 acre ' ." 'oCciusa" Oncc:Jw Twoc1asSu ~cJWa ~.~~ o,cck lhe appropriate bri~'i~ ~the-~'~~ Dr weiland" cja~ses. FiYCc1assa 4c. Plant specie. diyersily. For each weiland class (at righl) lIIat qualifies in 4b above. count !he number of dlfferenl planl . species you can find Ihal cover more Ihan S __ of the &found.; : ! . ;. ~. ~~ ',t,':: .'~~; ~': ~".'~ ... ' . You do nOl have 10 name them. ScOt.: by checking bo.~s alrighl. ,.' 4d. Slruelural Div.rsily CUI • species indw I ". f Aljuaoic: Ba:!. ], . >3 I £moo,..., 2·) 4.' " ., . >5' I ~b-Shrub 2 3·4 .... r. >4 F ...... ed. .':. 3·4 ;X;,~ ,. >4 ->. =" .~, 'r'; .. :-.' If the weiland has I foresledclo.ss. add I poinl if each of.lhe fonowin, .. classes is present wilhin !he foreSled c1as. and is bfrgcr lhan 1/4 acre: . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ·uces :.-SO' 1>11 •••••• _ ••••.••.•••••••••.••.••.••••.••••••••••••• :.,.; •••••• : •• :.L.; .•.• ~ YES 0 . lfce. 20' • 49' I.n ............. : .•.........................•....... : .... : .. :.;;.;;;.; .•• ;; ru" 0 .herbaCcous ground cover:: ..••..•..•.......... _ •.•.... : •... : ...•• _ ••.•.... :_ .....• " YEs 0 , ..... :siirubl;~: •.••.•. : ................................... _ •. : •.•........ ,: .. :,.: •••. :~_ .•.•• :: •• '. YES:. 0 Abo add I poinl if there is any "open'woler" or "aquatic bed" cws immcdial.1y nullO lhe foresled area (i .•. Ihcrc is no . " .... ,'''' scrub/shrub or emergeDt vegelalion betWeeillbem)._·;_ .. _,-... _' ;, YES 0 ~: -;-~ ., " ,,' . ! ."' ","U' 40. Decide from !he diagranu below ",hcIhcr inlerspersiori belwecn weiland classes i. high. rnodenIe. 10. or. none? If you Ihinl< !he 'mounl of inlerspersion fan. in be,wecn lhe di.grams score accordingly (i.e. a moder.,oJy high amounl of inlerspenion would SCOR ii 4. ",hilt. . . ~: llirb mnderalely low amouDi would scOi'i: ;; 2);'· " ' .. .• :.'~.r H;ChIMo.Icmc Mod. ...... t-IM~IC ~ l.Dw .~ . None .... ,.' .. ,' ----.... 4f. Habitat F .. lures AoiS;';~~~~~~lions below. circle fealUres lhal apply. and score 10 Ibe right: ". "'":" i':;..-""",' r<· .~ c~··:t. '~~: 9"' Is lhere evidence III .. !he oPen 01" .. " '.. ..;,: "andin, ..... er was caused by be.vcn? ............. __ ._._ .. _ •. _..... YES Is • heron rookery loe.,ed wilhin 300·? .................... : ..............• Are rap'or DCS". loealed willlin 300·? .............................•......•.. Arc lher~ ali~ast ) $landing .k~dii-c'es i.;g,s) Per acre grea .. r Ihan 10" in diameler .. :'breasl height" (DBH)? ........•.... ~ I • -'. ~ "r. • Are Ihere al leasl J downed logs per a~ ",ilh • diome:e! >6" for ., ~oSl 1.0', in le,~~'hL ................................ . Are there areas (ve!el3led or .. u~!~·&e~~ied) wi.hin t~ we,l:md Ihal ale ponded for 01 leaso 4 monlh. OUI or lhe year. and the weiland hils nOl qu.lified as haying an open woler dass in QuCSlion 4b. 1., ....... , ....................................... _ .. . YES YES YES YES YES 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o = 6 S 4 3 2 I 0 Sc.". 0 ] .0 5cOfO 0 I 2 3 0 I 2 0 I 0 Sc... , 3 o , . ," Department of Ecology Wetland' Rating Dat~ Entry Western' Washm ton Form 4C-COn?tClion 10 Slrr .. m~ (~~ore one .~~~~~ O~"') .~;~~ . 4,.1. Does lhe weiland provide hobi, .. for fIsh at any lime of lhe year . ~ docs it have a ~~~n!~ ~s:urf~~.:W~I~ co~~t~~n ~?_.~.~~~ , 4g.i i:~:~ :~i:·~·~~;~·;:~~:~~~~~i;:~~~~;;/~~i;:~:;:::··· .... YES 0 6 '.'. have a seasonal surface walet connection 10 a fish bearin& stream, .. YLS 0 4£.3. Docs the wOlland function 10 oxport organic m:lllc,r Ihrough . :a surfac.c waitt connection 81 an times of the ycar 10 • . :" . perenonl soream .....•..•........• :~ •..•.••.•.•••.•••.............•.••..........•..••... YES 0 • 4,.4. Docs lhe weiland fuoction 10 expon organic man .. Ihrougb • surface water connection 10 I stream on • seasonal basil ......... __ YES 0 Score .... Clisoln, bulTcri oft • Kok of j., ~ on .... ·rDIID,.;ft, foar cb:riplions.· U Ihc r ... cfiI;o" "' .... bun", do not .uclly malCb !he dcocriplion. X'Qn: eilhcr • poim lU,her or Iowa dcpoml;", 011 _htlbcr Ihc buffers ....... or niorc "'rndcd. Forest. saVb:;;ati~e z,assl:iiMJ'or'ope;; ~~'cr bufr~r'~;" . an: presenl for mOre 1b3D 100' uound 9S __ of the '.; ,.,~' circumr~~~~.~~::;-~:·' 1:; ;"':.~'.: ..• ~ ,./'" .. : .... !'~ ./~.\;~; FOr~I."~;;;'." native ua;';-Ia~d or open ;~~,'; '~~'rrers wider Ihan 100' for more lhan In of the weiland circumference, or • forest, scrub, grasslands, or open walcr burrers for more .han SO' around 95 __ of lhe circumference. . . :.';:j: Forest, scrub. nalive grassland or open "alcr buffer. wider thaD 100' for more Ihan 1/4 of the we,land circumference. 01' I forest. scrub.' native g,rassland. Or open w .. cr buffers for more than SO' for more Ihan 112 of the weiland circumference. . f No roads. buildings or paved are •• wilhin'IOO' of !he weiland for more Ih:lll 95 __ of the wedaDe! circumference. ~' • .:: "' .1 •• ' ,".' ". No roadS. buiidings or povcd are:.. .. illlin 2S· of Ihc'<; ~., '.', Weiland for more Ihan 9S __ of the .. etland circumference;' .. m: ·r ::':~~';,:-'.:,~,~-,,: ~:!~·~~; .. r~:i.~~~\"~1i5·J:;..i--t:· ':-;.~~~:!,~'.t~-;': No roads. buildings. or plved areas withiD SO' 'of Ihe ,,,'etland for more Ihan 112 of !he wcoland circumference . f'lIyed areas. indusnial aJeas or residential CODslrlIClion (wilb les. IhaD SO' betweeo houses) an: Jess lhan 25' from Ihc weiland for more lhan 9S __ of lhe circumference of • !he ",etland. . .' . , . ,- Sc"", YES 0 S YES 0 3 YES 0 2 YES 0 2 '·~O ; ~ .'!' 41. Connection 10 olh~r habilat areas Select !he deSCriptiOD which bul malches the si'e being cYaluoled. . Is !he wetland connecicd 10. or pan of •• riparian torridor at least 100· wide conneccin& Iwo or more wetlaods; or. il t~ aD upland connection prescm >100' wide wilh good foresl or shrub cover (>25 __ cover) cOMccnng it willi. Significanl Hobi"'l Area? ·Is !he weiland connecled 10 any Dober Habiiai A"';;; ;;'i,J, ei!he. I) • fO"'Sled/shrub corridor <lOO· wide. or 2) a corridor !hat· is >100' wide. bul has • low vegelative cover less lbaD 6 feet in heighl? . ; . . ',:';.: ·Is !he weiland conneCled 10 • .;r " pari of. a rip~~ ~orrid~ between SO· • 100· wide wilb scrub-shrub or forest cover connection 10 olher wetlands? ·Is !he weiland tonnceled 10 any oilier Habilal Area ",ilh . narrow. corridor «100') of low vegelalion «6', in heighl)? ·Is lhe wed:md ind ilS buffer (if !he burrer is less Ihan SO' wide) complclely isolaled by developmenl (urban. residenlial willi • densilY greOler Ihan 21ocre. or induslrial)1 .YES 0 3 YES 0 0 PrDj.eI W.,t1.1od Nom. lLl £~.:..' =k.-.::;.::....Je=tJ=vf.=~-=Ar<..:c!.:::.....:..~~-/c...:..."S"-Io-=-.: .... _.--J11 {) DesiCn by Seon T. C1aJ·Pook 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 Na~eofR"er~,&k~lL,", 9"'e~ Co~nlY \=;;"") ProjectNamc ~",J.?.,. 1)oJ~v ..... .l f,-,.,tt. .... S\.:>t.-.. Form We;iand Na";":;'C ".:. . .•. '/ Gov'L Jurisdiclion of Weiland: --Xv\:: \..J\\ 0\... 'L!:t A\~~jt~&W})~';;~~ R~ )'-'>\ Sq->t" Localion: L I. :.~f •. 2; .. ' tl1, ?f~<.~i~n ..•.• ,!.ow~.~i!,~. r~g~ 2nd. Edition Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Data Entry Western Washin ton Publlcatlo • 93·7 4 Sources of Information: (Ch;ck .11 sourc .. Ihal apply). ': .. '.:: '.' Sile Visil ~ USGS T<>p<>~~~p ~. NW1 Map !it. A.rial PI>o'O ()c Soils SUrvey [i. Other Info ..... . : WJ.c:nlbc Field Dal. . '.",', Calrgory II D' C·· ' .. ' . IV'" fonn IS complet. enler C.lrgory ,I." .,; " ..... ". .' al.gory "_ :'. Calegory hac: D' Cal.gory III D c::J ,: Scon ~~s:~gli~a~::~~;'i;:"b~~~~~~: i~i~~;iin'or':~i~;i~~::~ d~'i£'i;:~oI:" find someone wilh the expertise 10 answer ahe qucslions. Then, if Ihe answer 10 .. -.;~. queslions I .. I b and I c are all NO, contacl the Natural Herilag. program of DNR. . 1 ... Human c.uud di~:~'~b~~~;~~:'~~~~:<::<'~>~~" (';" ;~~:~.;:\:'t-.~: !~,.;.< ~'~:'" .~. -!~ :.,', :.;.? '.' .. ~: ~. Is Ihere significanl .vidence of hu~-caused changes io lopograpby or. .'.<.'; ",. hydroloKY of lhe weIland as indic ... d by any or lhe following condilions?, ·.ey:" . Consider only changes Ihal may have laken place in the lasl 5 decades.. TlIc impacts of . changes done earlier have probably been slabilized and lhe weIland ecosystem will be 'c1ose 10 reaching some new equilibrium thaI may r.pr.s.nl • high qualilY w.,land . . , ·~0~·:·:~~~~~·~·~:,:;':·;i\~:·;··· ::'~:';';":'''!~.?:' :-~:.~;. :·~~·!~·:·.i: ~ Aruwcrs Ial. lal. lal. 1a4. . laS. 106. Upstream walershed > 12 ... impervlo'lS ...•. , .. ' . Weiland il dilchtd ~~d ;aicr no'~ ij'not ~bslru·cted. W.,land has been graded, fill.d, logged. Waler in w.tland is conI rolled by dikes, wtirs, .,c. Wetland is &rau~C~;~!:~t-;~:~~::~f~t~ :'~~;:~.~~:' .. !:/".:' :, r. Other indicalors of disturbanee (Iisl below). .... ~ •. , •• ':. I" ••. r< ,~."". _ •• , ,. o Yr.: Co 10 Q.1 o r~~; Co 10 Q.l ~.s: Co 10 Q.1 o Yu: Co 10 Q.1. o Yos:(;o 10 Q.1 " O·h~: Go 10 Q.1 • .' J'!" ,~. . .. '---~------------------'FM. N~: .~o 10 lb •. lb. Ase there populalions of .. on:nali;'.l'lanlswhich an;. currenlly" 0 YES: go '0 Q.2 l' pres.nl, cover more Ihail 10'iI0 of tJie ".tland; and appear 10 be'·,,·· 0 NO: .~ .. o_" 10 I c in~!.dini'naliv. populalions? Bri~ny ~esl:ribe any non-natiYe - plant populalions'and Inronna~?-n ~~~~s~~:!' :-:~ .. ~~~~~.!)/.~ .. ~.::.;:~ I " 1', Ie. Is then: evidence of hurruan-caused disl\~rbances which have . visibly. degrad.d waler quali,y: Evidence or lhe degradalion .of waler qualilY incJu~:. direct (unlre.led) runoff rrom road. or parking lOIS: presrnc.. of hiSloric .vidence, of w.st. dumps: oily sheens: Ihe smell of organic chemicals: or livesloct UK. Briefly describe: . '. " ....... ,.." Q.2. Irrrplacrable Ecologi •• i Fial1clion. Does lhe wetland • haye al I ... t 1/4 acre. of organic soils decper than 16 inches and lhe weiland is relatively undisturbed; OR. '.. .'. (If the answer is NO beciuselhC: w.lland is disturbed bri.ny describe: ' :.'·'''·~:··;:;·.''f· Indicalors of disturbance may include: ' J-_-W.'.land has be.n groded.filled, logg.d: ~". . -Organic soils. on the .surface are dri.d·out for . . . more than h.lf of the "."r".,..'( .. *---.Wetland receives direct slonnwater nJnorr from urban or agricullural areas.); OR • have a forested closs Bre .. er Ihan I acre; . OR •. ,::.·.;,·· .... '.' ,'. • have characteristics of an esruarine system; OR • ho.., eel gross, noaling or no ... noaling kelp beds? 2a. Bo,s and Frn. o YES: go 10 Q.2 o NO: Possible Cal. I conlact DNR %(NOlo.lI: go 10 Q.3) o YESgolo2a o YESgol02b o YESg~i02c o YESgolo2d Arc any of lhe thr .. following condilions mel for Ih. are. of organic soil? 2&. J. Are Sphagnum mosses >common ground coy ... (>3011» and Ihe •. coyer of invosiv. spedes (sec Table 3) is less Ihan 101l>? ,;.' I~ th. area ~f sphagnum moss.s and detp organic soils> 112 acre? . 0 .YES: c .. "gOry I Is ih. orea of sph.gnum mos;'s ailll d~ org~nic~~ijs 114. 112 ac;e? 0 YES: Calegory II 2&.2. Is there an are. of "'t~ni~ ;~il ~~ic:h has~ en;.r~~rii o NO: Go 10 2a.2 class "'ith :it least one species from Table 2. and cover of inyosive species is <10% (sec Table ))? Is lhe ar.a ~r·h~ri,ac.ous planls and detp org.nic soils> 112 .cr.? 0 Is lhe area of h.rb.ceous plants and deep organic soils 1/4. 112 acr.? 8 YES: C ... gory I YES: COle gory II NO: Go 10 2a.3 2 •. 3. Is th. yeg.,aUon • mi .. ur. of only h.rbaceous pl:u>u and Sphagnum mosses Wilh no scrub/shrub or ro~sled clOlSses? Is ~ ":.;i' of h.rbac.ous planls, Sphagnum. and deep organic soils> 112 acre? Is lhe are. of herbaceous planu. Sph.gnum. and deep organic soils 114· 112 acre? Q.2b. ~alun rorcsled ".lIand. :;" '. 2b.l. Docs SO ... of the cover of UpJ>CT foresl canopy consisl of .vergreen trees older than 80 yean or deciduous trees .: older IhaD SO years? NOI.: lbc size or trees is oftea Dol • measUre of age, and size cannot be used as a surrogatt for age (sec guidance). " ... 0 , ,: .. :',f" ,. ., :'. , 2b.2. DoCi SO ... of the cover of fO;;,,1 canopy consisl or evergreen lrees older Ihan 50 years, AliI2 i. lhe structural diversily of lhe forest high as characterized by an addiuonal layer of trees 20' • 49' lall, shrubs 6' • 20' tall, and • h.rbaceous groundcova? 2b.3. Docs <2S~ or-Ih~ ~i~1 coyer in~j ~::""r:~" .. herbac.ous/groundcoyer or the shrub layer corisist of invuiv.Jexolic plant species from the list on page 19? Q.le •. ESluarine W.t1ands. 2cT' Is tb; w.'I~d ii;ltd as National Wildlif. R.fuge, National Park, Nalional E.slu~ Reserve, Natural Art. Preserve. SIDte Park.. or Educational. Environmental or Scienlific Reserves d.signaled under WAC 332-3().151? 2c.2. Is Ih. w.t1and >5 acr.sL .... NOle: If an ma' contains patches or s41h tolerant vegetation that are I) less lbon 600 f.et apan and Ihal are separaled by mudnats IhOl go dry on I M.an Low Tide, ll.[ 2) srpanied by lidal chanDels Ihal are I.ss lhan 100 feet wide: . DYES: C3Iegory) DYES:' Cal.gory II o NO:·GoloQ.) . DYES: . ~lItgory ) q ,~!l,: .~ii io 2b.2 o YES: Go 10 2b.) o NO:" Go 10 Q.3 o . YES;'.c~I~gory I o NO: Go 10 Q.3 DYES: Cal.gory I o NO: Go 10 2<.2 DYES: Cal. gory) . :',,', : ,:. all the v.gelaled areas arc 10 be considered together '. , ',.,,":'- or is :::~::I~~~' !;~:r~~~.:~.~.:'.~.~.~.~~~:~~:~:::::~ .... __ .. :i;;;,~~~ ;;"'0 '2~:3 or is .he w.tland <) a .... ? ___ ..................... _ ................... "... 0 YES: Go 10 20.4 2c.3. Docs the w.,land meet .Ilcasl 3 of th. following 4 cril.ri ........................................... . -minimum eJ.iSti~;:e·~1~~~ of huma~ ~'I~ed dislurbance such as diking, dilching. filling, cullivllion, grazing or the presence of noD-Dalive planl species (sec DYES: Calegory) o NO: CatcgorY iJ !uidance for defini~~'~~~::5~;~~~~:.~~~,:~~f~~~~~;_'~ ~", . ~ -surface water connection with tidal s'aJtwater~ ",. :"~ .. ' 1 < ~,." ': ...... or lidal frelhw31er;' .~t~~:::~~~"c~~:{.;.:. ;.:.'":~ .. ~.;~ ~ ".'. ·11 least 75 ... of the weiland has a 100' buffer of . ungraied pasture. open water. shru~ or :foresl: ' ·has at leasl 3 of the following fealUres: .Iow, marsh: high .; . ,,~.,/ "·i:,.: mar~h: tidal channels: lagoon(s): w~(,!,,!,"s: or>,:~!t}. contiguous freshwater wetland. ,-(~~~~.;t~;:. . .... :~: . ;'~~~~.::t::> '.; ~ ., 2c.4. Docs the weIland mcel .n of the four crileria : uDd.r. 2c3. (abov.)? Q.2d. Ed Cross and Ktlp Bcds. 2d.J.· Ar. e.1 grass beds pres.nl? .......................................... O' YES: Cal.gory·) 2d.2. Arc there floating or no ... noaling k.lp bed(s) pres.nl with grealer than SOli> macro algal cover in Ih. monlh of August or Sepl.mb.,? ............ ;;:: ... :: ....................... . Q.J. . Calegory )V ,.ellands. 3.. Is the w.,land: less Ihan I acre AIllI hydrologically isolal.d AIllI comprised of one vegelaled class Ihal is domin ... d (>80% .real cover) by one sped.s from Table 3 (page 19) or Tabl. 4 (page 20) '. 3b. Is lhe wetland: less Ihan 'wo acres and. hydrologically isolalcd wilh one vegelated dass. and >~ of areal cover is any combination of spc:cia from Table 3 (page 19) 3c. Is Ih. weIland ." .. al.d from uplanil .nd • pond smaJ1er thiln I acre withoul a surface Willer connection to strcams. lakes. rivers. or olher weiland. and hOls <0.1 acre of vegeti:uion o . t::'0: go 10 2d.2 o YES: Category) o NO: C .. tgory D o . YES: Calegory IV ~NO: gOl03b DYES: Calegory IV M... NO: go 10 3c ":" DyES: Ca'tgory IV p\'NO: go 10 Q.4 " , ., Signilicani habitat ?alur. QA. Answer all qucslions and enrer data requested. 4a. TOlal wClland arca . , , . Estimale area. select from choices given: ClICCt boa lhal qual .. es lImI = >200 0 6 40· 199.99' 0 'S 10· 39.99 O' • 5·9.99 0 3 4b. Weiland tlasses: Cirrle!he wed""d classes below Ihal qualify: 1, •. 99 9,; 2 .O.I.O.II! ~ I .' <0.1.0 ... 0 Open waler: if lhe arc. of open waler is > 114 acre Aqualic Beds: if !he area of aquatic beds > 114 acre • of classes Scon: Oned .... ~. '0 .:( -Emergenl: if the arca of emergenl class il > 114 acre' Scrub-Shrub: if Ihe area of sc:ub-shrub class is > 114 acre Forested: if a.ea of foresled rlas. il'>114 acre Twoc ...... 0 n....c ...... 0 . Fourci ..... ' 0 Check lhe appropri~I~ t:;,. y';';ti~ ~~;,.;~ ;;i ~Ila~d clas~. fi~~i~ 0 10 4c. Plant spe~ie. diversilY. • spciics :. in dasa -. For each wetland class (at righl) thaI qualifies in- 4b .bove. counl the number of differem plant species you can lind Ihal cover mon: than S'lo of lhe ground. -.... ., .. ,.,.: ',::' . ~~.-. :;-.. You do nOl have 10 name them. Score by ctiecking bol •• al right. I 2,' ., .. 4d. SlruClur:a1 DhersitJ '" ~'.' l;',r' ,'; ., .... -~ ,-0->'" .:o:;t::).~;~.~~~t}~.-· If lhe weiland has • forested rlas •• add I 'poinl if each of the following' !;,T';':-' chuses is pres.nl wilhin the forested class and i. larger than 114··acrr.,,:.·, ... L· , ., 0 0 0 0 0 0 -lr •• S >.: S(J' 1011 ..................................... _ .... : ................. :,.,:_., ... : ..... , YES 0 ·lre'S 20· .... -49' .. 11 ....................... : ................ _ ......... :.,.: ...... :, •• : ... :: YES 0 .herbaceous·.·ground cover ..... , .. , .. ;;:.:: .. : .......... :: ........ , .... _ ............... YES 0 .shrub •... : ........................................ , ..... :,: ...... ,::.:::::.:~ .. , ....... , ... , .... YES . 0 Also add I poii .. if there is any ·open waler" 0. """""tic beer" c .... s immedialely nut 10 the foresled area (i.e. there is no .. scrub/shrub or emergent vegelalion berween th.m) ...• ::... .•.... , •.• YES 0 "', 4r. Decide from lhe diagrams below whether inlerspersion bctw;er:n weiland classes is high, ~Ie. low or .none? If you Ihink lhe amounl of inleispcrsion falls in bilwi:eri. the diagrarN SCore accordingly (i.e. a moderal.,y high .moum of inlerspersion would seCft i 4; while: •. -.' moder.lely low amauDl would scor.., 2): " . ";iii", 0 Hi,lVM;;.;m.; . 0 .. '. Melde .... 0 LowlModcr>Je 0 Low 0 NoM 0 ..... ---4r. lIabilat Fe.tur .. Ans;;'.:r·q~;"IiolU below. circle fearures lhal apply. and score 10 the right: is there evide;"e th~t the o~~ t~r;:.::," '-. -. .', '::' , .... standing_.wales; _as caused by beavcrs? ............. ~ ... _ .............. _ •. :,,' 0 YES Is a hc:ron rookery localed wilhin.300·? ................................ _ .• YES 0 o I •. 2 0 I 2 " i 0 Score: ) . ' o Scan: Are raplor nestls localed wilhin 300·? ...................................... . YES ~ i Arc: lti.re al ieul 3 standing dead ire«;s (snags) Per 'a~' gr.alc:r Ihan 10~ in diamelet' at .. biCD~I,~.ight-(DBH)1.. ................ . Arc: Ihc:re al least 3 downed logs per acre .. ilh a di.meler >6-for at least 10' in lenglhL ................................. . "', .. ';: !,;. l;--:rl~ ~;. t, .' Are lhen: are .. (vcgelaled or un;et~i';l~d) wilhin iiiC' weiland Ihal are ponded for al le"'1 4 months oul of the year. and lhe weiland has nOl qualified as having an open walel class in Question 4b. ?.~ ....... _ .......... ,.:-............................. . YES 0 .. YES 0 YES ~ 4C; Connection 10 Slre.ms:···. (S~~r. ~ne·.nJ"cr' onl,.) ~~} .,:t-~ ... ; ~.; -_! '. 4g.1. DOes lhe weiland pro~i~ 'h~bil~t for fish ~ ~n1;i';;;;'~i theY-ear -'. . Atm does it baye a percimial surface w:il" connection "to. fisb 4g.i ~:;;l;:::iZ~·~~~~·;,·:t!~~~hi:;±~~;fi;;~~~:J:·;· .. ·}~ 0 6- have a seasonal surface waler connection to a filla be:1ring Sb'eam. .. YES 0 .. 4,.3. Does lhe wC:lland function 10 upon organic maner Ihrougb " D surface waler connection II all limes of the year 10. ' '. ",. '. perenoi" .tream ......•...•.•.•.... :: •••....• " ••.• , .................................. :. YES 0 4 4g.4. ~ lhi: wetland 'fuDction'iDCx~ri organic.~il~ throUgb ......... __ ,. I surface waler connection '0 a sueam on • seasonal basis ___ .•• _. YES 0 4h. BUrrt:rL··~. or'; " .. ::::,:' : .·~I ;.!,= _."" "-,;.;; ••.. : •• -:/-....... ,. Scon tile niiim, butTers OD I aaIo 011·5 based on .... loDowin, loUr tksCnptKins. .' U .... condition 01 the ... 11 ... do ... Cllactly matrh the dox-riptian, :occn either I poinl N,her or _ Ikpencfinl .. whctha the bullm ... lea .. ""'"' clep>dell. Score Forest. scrub. ~alive'&Msland Or-open ".Ie.. buff~~' ~'d.~<:··.~··:; . ,.~ :~.,;. ;,:.::.,!.:;..: are preStnl foc rIIIlIi lit ... 100' around 95'1o·oflhc··'·'. >".,-: .. ' .. ' YES G· s. ~~:~f~~:rT}'::~~~:·~1t~:;r~~~t~(J~~:y·<, ,~~,; ":"<.' ;,.,'" ForeS..-scrub. native grUsJand or open water burrers .":" '-. wider than 100' for more lhan 112 of the wetland YES 0 3 ·circumference. or a fortsl. scrub. graulands. or open ;' waler burrers for more Ihan SO' around 9S'Io of lhe.,.. .-;" ." ',', ." '~~;;:fTr' .~;:, ... !·,~,~,.~~];~,~!.;~tD~;~/~;;·;;iE~:::· .. ;,.,.,;,v ':.: . \' . Foresl. scrub. nalive g .... land oc open waler buffers. ' widc:r than 100' for more: Ihan 114 of lhe wetland: :' . , .. , .. Circumference. or I fores';' ScruD; native'passbod: or' YES 0 2 ,,:. opeD waler buffers for more than SO' for mort lhan 112 of lhe wetland circumference. :" " .. '.'" ' No roads. building. or p~,;e.i ~as within 100' of the weiland for more lhan 9Sc)(' of lhe weiland circumfen:nce. YES 0 2 . No r.;.~t~;~in'"~;;~;-~~:;iit~:~r·~.b·!.,,;~~,·. if "",.;,j .. 'k,,!~~d I.,. ~~i~~;~li~~·;~~~,;~WtJ~~~~:~~,~~;~)(1 No roads. buildingS. or paved areas Withi;, SO' or the wetland,,:>..; i,'i::'~f"'.·· for more Ihart In of the weiland cin:umference. Paved areas. industrial areas or residential construction (with less Ihan SO' between houses) are less lhan 2S' from. YESOD the wetland for more thaD 9S~ of the cin:umfe~nce of-' . ~ ,;-',,'. ; : ~ . the weiland. .,1.~.:. .. ;~ •• ~:.r: :",;" "; ...: ... ~... ' .. '-: -..,.. ", ~~" ~:t .. '; ,r:!. .. 41. Connection to other habitat arras . ., . ;" Selecl the description which best malches lhe sile being evalualed. ·Is the weiland connecled 10. or pan of. a ripari~n .orrid~r at least ICMY wide c'onnecliDI fWD or more wetlands; or. is ~e Sea .. . an upland connection prescnl > I 00' wide wilh goOd forest or shrub cover (>2S'lI> cover) connecting it wilh • Significant Habilal Area? >.}>"c· • ~ .1' '._ " ~." • _: ...... ; ,~ ~ f ••• ~ /" • .Js lhe weiland connecled 10 any other Habilat Area' with eilher'· .. I) • foresl.d/shrub corridor dOO' wide, or 2) a corrid'" that .. is >100' wide. but has a low ;,egelative cover less th .. 6 fCc:t in height? .,. 'oj ...... -Js';': ~elland connecled lo.·or a ~~ Of.~~P~::t~~~ between SO' • 100' wide with scrub-shrub or foresl cOver· . connection 10 other \lltcllands? .Js the weiland connecled 10 Iny other Habilat Area wilh . narrow corridor «100') of low vegelation (<6' in heighl)? '-:.;:"'.'," .Js the wetland and its buffer (if the buffer is Jess than SO' wide) complelely isolaled by development (urban. rcsid.ntiDl wilh a densilY grealer Ihan 2Jacre, or industrial)? YES 0 ,I: .. , :. \ YES 0 YES 0 Projrcl Wr.,,,;;d-N~'m. 1 ..... l'Ya-..:..:..· "'=",=lg.."'--I:::g=C""~'\~=\t ... ~~~J -="Et-~~e=-=~:::..\'=o"';'''''----III T Dosien by SCOII T. CI'y·Pook S 3 I I I I I I I .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. f'::~~ ~~:::::.: Catt,ory C.ttgory II ~ Catt,ory IV Ca •• gory hac: c:J Catt;~~; III b 0 S~orr Q.l. High QualilY Na,"ral Weiland· •. · . ADS~ef ,his question if ~ h~~-e.'ldeqUale i~(~tion or expt:rience to do so: If not find someone with the expertise 10 answer the questions. Then. if the answer IO~'-<{ questions I .. Ib and I c U! aI~ tl0. c"ntaci the Natural Herilage pogram of DNR. 1-. Human causrd di·s~u~·b.~n~:;~·::'.::~~;:;:f.,~/~~':: .~::;,,~~;':_ ,:~'.~.~~ ;'~:" . Is there significanl evidence of liuma".c.~sed ch';'g~:·.~ lopog,~phy or hydrolo" of lhe w.lland as iiIClical<d by anyoflhe fonowin, condilions?.. .. Consider only ch.ng.s .hal may have lak.n pi ... i. the lui 5 cleCod ... 'Th"impOcts of changes done earlier have' probably hccn SI.biliz.d and lhe w.lland ecosysi.m will be close 10 reaching some: new C'qu!libri~m thai may rrprcscnl I high qualilY weiland. : "-:~~: .. '<"~~!;:.:'\~'>~~:-'_" -.:I-'··!~~'i~.:· ~ .. , .. :.:::-~_:. ~t~nswcrs hI. Upm •• m .... I.r.~d~12.,.. impervi"';~. 0 y~~ Go 10 Q.1 1.2. W.,land is dilched and waler now ii nOc obstrucled. ·0 Y .. : Go 10 Q.1 103. W •• land has been graded. fill.d • .!2Ucd. ~Y's: Go '0 Q.1 1.4. W •• er in w.,land i. controlled by dilt ...... in .• tc. 0 Y .. : Go '0 Q.1 laS. W"land is grazed. --' ,'. :. ',. 0 Y .. : Go 10 Q.:i la6. Other indica.ors of d;';'urb~~~ dist bi;iow) ", 0 Y~~; Go '0 Q.1 '. ~f~.~. :-. ... :~:, ..... ~~~,. . '!'" l' -.".'~ .. 1----------------------j.F. No: Go 10 lb'. i I b. Ale thc~ populalions of non-native pla~lts ~~ch an: cunen")' ,. presenl •• over more Ihan 10'il. of the .'!",land. and appear '0 be invOlding native populalions? Brieny describe any non--n.arivc plan. popul'lions and.lnforma.ion s.o..,.ce(.>:.)'l,:'.~;Ii'\ ". ,.',.' E====~31' Ic. Is .here .vidence of human·c.used disturbanc.s whieh h ... visibly degraded w.,crqu:'li,y. Evidenc. of I"" degrad.lion of waler qualilY .include: direcl (untreated) runoff from roads or park..ing lots; presence. of hisloric evidence. of waste dumps; oily sheens; Ih. smell of or!.nic chemic. Is; .,. IiveSloct usc. Bricny describe: Q.2. Jrr~placrablt E~olo'l:i~~1 Fu·n~tion,. Does thewetl.nd • have •• I.as. 1/4 acre of organic soils dttper Ihall 16 inches and lhe w.ll.nd is relatively undisturbed; OR' ... (If the answer is NO beciuse the wetland i. di;turbc:d bri.n, describe: ",;' ," ~? .~~: ';',"" - Indic.lon of dislurbance may includ.: OR • W'lland has been graded. fill.d. logg.d; ·Organic soils on the surf ... arc dri.d-oul for more than half of the year. ,:; .. ' ". .. . . -Wellomd receives direci stOm1water runoff from urb:ln or agricultural areas.); • have a forested cJass grealer than I acre; OR .. , .•.... " . ,. .' have char.lcterislics of an estuarine system; OR • have .. 1 grass, noaling or non-no.,inS k.lp beds? o YES: go 10 Q.2 , o NO: go.o I •. o n:s': go '0 Q.2 D NO: Possible Cal. I con loci DNR . o (NO 10 an; . go 10 Q.3) D YfSgolo2a ~ES80102b D YES go 10 2c o YES go.o 2d 2a. Bogs and rfnS' . '. ,." Are any of the three rol1owing conditions me;"ior Ih~ ~ea or organic soil? 2 .. 1. Arc Sphagnum mosses I common ,round cOV'r (>30'il.) .nd Ih. ~ cover of invasive specieS (sttTabl. 3) is less Ihan 10~? Is lhe .... of sphagnum moss.s ;ind deep organic soils> 112 acr.? 0 YES: Ca;~iory I Is the ;u~a of sphagn~m mosses and deep org~ruc soils 1/4 -112 :lcr(L,' 0 2 .. 2. Is there ... ar.a of org.;';c soil;..hl~b has an .mergent 0 -:. class with al leasl one specics from Table 2. and cover of invasive speci.s is < I O~ (sec T.ble 3)1 . Is lhe arc. of h·e;b~~.ous planlS .nd deep organic soils> 112 acre? 0 Is lhe ar •• of h.rb3Ceous planlS and deep organic soils 114· 112 aCI.? 8 YES: Cal.gory II NO: Go 102'.2 YES: Cal.gory I YES: Cot. gory II NO:. Go 10 2 •. 3 Department of. Ecology . Wetland Rating Data Entry Form Western Washih ton P",:~I.~ato 2nd. Edition 2a.3. Is the vegel.tion a mi .. urc of only habaccous plants and Sphagnum mosses wilh no scrub/shrub or forrslcd c1asses? Is lhe area of h.rb.c.ous plants. Sphagnum, ~nd d •• p organic soils> 112 acre? Is lhe ar •• of herbac.ous plants. Sph.gnum. and dttp organic soil. 1/4. 112 acr.?·., •.. ".. . Q.2b. Malure foresltd wflland. ...•. 'l-.; > DyES: Cal. gory I DyES: Cat.gory II D.NO: GOloQ.3 2b.l. Doe. s~ of lhe cover of upper foresl canopy consist DyES: Calegory I of evergreen.tr«s old.r thai! SO yean or' deciduous Res .. !;71' NO: Go io 2b.2· older .h .... SO years? NOle: 1lx sizc of trees is oft.o noe :'( a me.aswe of age. and size cannol be used as • surrogale for ' age (see guidance).' .. ' , t:-", ., 2b.2. Doe. SO'K. of the cover of forest canopy consist of ' .vergreen .... s olda Ih.., SO yean. A.IiIl i. ~ structural div ... ilY of lhe forcs. high as charac •• riz.d by an .ddilionall.y .. of trees 20' -49' lal~ .hrubs 6' • 20' lall. and a h.rbaeeous groundeov.r? :, 2b.l. Docs <25% or·;t:.c areal cover in ~ .:,~:~';", ... ' . r ~ herbac.ous/groundcover or the shrub i.y~r· consist of .invasivc.:n,olic plant species from Ihc lisl on page 191 Q.2c.. Esluarin~ WCII:ands. !, . 2~. i: 'Is '!'" weIland lis!ed as Nalional Wildlif. R.fuge. . .:.,., N.uonal Park. Nalional Esluary R.s.rve, N.tur.1 Are. . Ptcsrrvc. SIOlle puk. or Educalional. Environmental Of Scienlific Reserv.s designaled under WAC 332-30-lSI? 2[.2.. Is the weiland >S acres?_ .. _. . NOIe: If :in ar •• conlains palches of sal. loler.nl vC!Clalion thaI an: I) Ie .. lhan 600 f.et apan and Ihal are separaled by mudn." IhO! go dry on '. M.an low TIde • .III 2) sep .... I.d by lid.1 cha.m.ls Ihai 'aie less Iban . 100 feet wide; . . all the v.~e.I •. ied ..... arc 10 be c!',,;,ider.d logether . or is :::~:~11:1r~~r :;~~:.==:.:~:.!.::.~.;.~~ .... ~::::.'.:: ... : ......... . ~_is I.h~' weiland ~I. acre?~ ..•.•....• -..•...•••...•.• -........••...•.. -.. -.•. _ 2c.3. Doei the w.,land meet at ~.3 of' thc following 4 crilcria. ......................................... . ~.'~'.'" ::~ft:~ •. ~',' '.~_": ~)i1t~._. ", ' .. -minimum existing evidencc of human rrJaaed .. ,.'. ;, . disturbance such as dikin,. dilehinr;. fillinr;. ,"ltivation, . gra%.ing or Ihe presence of noo-D'live plant speci.s (see ,uidancc for definiti~~)~,~.l-\~.;!.:i,.j"t 'i:;';~~'" . -surface water con.:M:ctioit ~itb tiC:bi s~iw;u~·I.·~ .: .:; i~:~ ~~~;a~:2bli~; ~·f~l~.'t~:~;'· ungrazed piLSture. OpeD wIttT. shrub Or foresl; ·hasalleasl3 of the following fealU~::I~:" ;..~~; high marsh; tidal channels; I.goon(s); woodjdebris; 0I'.",,;,{1.'; contiguous freshwaler weiland. ,,:-,\~:~~:t~~ , .. !>?l:::..:. 2c.4. Does Ih. ",.,Iand meet all of the four ailCri. under 2c3. (.bove)? Q.2d. Ed Grau and. Kdp B.ds. D YES: Go 10 2b.3 ~ NO: Go 10 Q.3 D .YES: C:".gory I ~ NO: Go 10 Q.3 DyES: Cal'gory I D NO: Go 10 2e.2 DyES: Cal.gory I ;"" .. '" D . YES: Go 10 2c.3 < D YES: Go 10 2c.4 D YES:'<:al.gory I D NO: Category 0 D YES:_ Ca"gory II D ~o;'~~I~gory ID 2d.1. Are.e1 gr.ss beds pr.s.nl? .................................... : ...... D YES; C.legory I NO; g~ 10 2d.2 ',l:;._, 2d.2 Are lher. no.ting or noo-noaling k.lp bed(s) presen' with greal.r than SO~ macro .Igal cover in lhe monlh of August or Sepl.mb.r?. ............... ,:,.: .. : ...... ~.;;;:: ...... .. Q.3 •. Cal.gory IV .. etlands. 3.. Is the w.,I.nd: I.ss lhan I acre iIld hydrologic.lly isol.,.d iIIllI comprised of one v'g.lal.d class Ih.1 is domin.l.d (>SO'.I. areal cov.r) by one specieS from Table 3 (p.ge 19) or Tabl. 4 (p.ge 20) .. ;., Jb. Is;he w'll""d: I.ss lhan Iwo .cr.S·~~d .. hydrol~gically isol.,ed with one v.gel.led class. and >90'1 of areol cova is any combination of species fioin Table 3 (p.ge 19) . ",.: 3.:. Is lhe w.t1and exc.val.d from upland and a pond . smaller lh::.n I ::.ere without il surixc w::.tcr connec1ion 10 str~ms, lakes. rivcrs. or other wetland, and h::'i <0.1 acre of vC'getiltion D D D YES:. Cal.gory I NO: C.I. gory 0 DyES: Cal.gory IV [j( NO: go 10 3b DYES: Cal.gory IV Ci( 1'10: go 10 3. DyES: C.'.gory IV ot NO: go '0 Q.4 Q.4. Si,nilic'a~~"h~~i~t '-.alut:~: :~~,; ~: 11::~:o: Check boa lila, qua/if ... Ans~ciJaJJ q';eslioM'~ eril~r dal~ R:qu~l~d ~' 4a Totol w.t1.~d :are.-' , .'.' Estim:ue area, select from ch'oices given: 4b. Wetlan~ c1os, .. : Cin:k the w<ll""d class .. b<low that qualify: iICtS XlIIS 40.1;:': ~ .•. !. 10· 39.99 0 • . ,·9.99' 0 3 1, •. 99 0 1 O.l.O·9?.o I <O.J',."q 0 Open ",ater: if tho Iii •• ·of open·wat .. is > 1/4 me tolclasscs '0' Scan: o Aquatic B.ds: if the an" of aqualic beds > 1/4 ac", One class . 0 Emergent: if the area of emetg.nt class i. > 1/4 ocn: TwO ciaSsu : 0 Scrul>-Shrvb: if the ~. of scrub-shrub c1os. ii > 1/4 acre . n.r;,; clWd ~ ~::~e: ~;:~~!J~:e:o;!r.: ::r:;:7~~;;~~d '~Iasse •. ' :'= ~=',' B 10 '0 ,.:.-, 4<:. PI.nt specie~ ~ivenity. .:' ... ;,1 ',:" 0 ... ·. ·.i~. in dlSl . Scwe , ': -~ ~i'!' I For e.ch wetland class (at right) that qualifies in ' '.', , > .• ,." ,:': . 4b .bove. count the number of dirre",nt plant sPecies you can find that cover mo", than S'iI. of i 0 3, 0 the ,round. :I .. :: .... ::.';,.,':," » 0 ',"." .,.'.,. :. I., 1·) You do not have to n.me them. .•. , :0 """li'" """>S~' 0 I , ,.,,;.:, , ....... : .• ,,-. 1 F~·"):. ",,' .. """:"" -1 ~ c 4d. Siruciural Divtrsily '. ~'.: .';--:..~ __ .~·.:."il-:.:':;:' ;',Q.."!:.. i;:.::~~;[t~::1~~~~~~~~r~·?· If.he wetland has. foreSled'diisi,'.ild·1 point if each of me f~"~win& T.' "" classes is present within IhC ro~sted class and is Jarger lhaii 1/4 acre::~""~' ". :1: . ~ o ,; ., :::~~~'ro?~: i;!I.;:~.;::.::::::.~ .... ~ .. :: .... :: .... ::~.:::::::::::~:~:~:~~~::~:~!:~::~;~~:~~:: ~:.~ ·~ht,bacrous." ,round ·covei~::=:::.:.::':-... :.: .... :~:~ .. :.~ .. _:~·~~~ .. ~ ..... ~ .. :::~ .... :'~ fu'" "0 ,:'., " ,I ·':~·hr~tt.~ ... :.~~.-: ... _ ........... _ ....................... ~.~~~:~: .. ~::~~::.?~ .. ;~::~~.~_.~ .. :~~ YES! 0 . . Also add I ·p..ini if \heR: is any ·open w .... • or ·aquatic b< .... class immedi.tely nut to the forested 8rea (i.e.lhen:.is no' ... ,,'. :,., ,crub/shrub or emergeni vesetation beiweeD them);;:;..;: ...... : .... · .;).-YES 0 '.1. _.<J' ._, .-~ ••• ,: •• ", • ~".-•••• " • .•. i-;. : o o I 1\ j o I i· o I !: 40.. Decide from the diagrams below ... hetber inte .. persioii"··..-'··· between wetland classes is high, modente,low or none? If you think the amount of inters.,asiori fall. in between . .. db' Sc"",' the diagrams score accordingly a mod",,"ety high amount of interspersion would . 4, while. . m,HI~rat"v low amouni ' 2);'''' . .. -:": :;: Hiiii 0 ·"~hZ ". _t,~ L. Hi~ 0 • ",'M~ .~ ' . . ' ~ 7'" , " LowlMod.r. 0 Low~ 0 ,,; N~ 0 0 ". ~. --.... ~" ;'. 4r. Habilal F.olurn .! ,'. -,~ A·,;;;;;;,;!'question. b<low, cin:le features that ,pply. and score to the righl: Score,: YES o Is a he.on rookery located within 300·1 .................................... . YES ·0 YEr< r !'. YES,IZ(' Are r,!,,-or .nesv. locOled within 300·.1 ......... _ ......... : .. _ ............. .. A~e i;';;r~ at least ) SI'nding~~ci'fr~~isna,i)p;,.: acrc. ,reater than 10-in di.mc:t .. ai.'1lr.east !!eight" (DB H)? ............... . , . '''.-; . ""·"'/')'ft't .,.,:-: .. :~ -. Are .he~ at leasl ) dow ned 10,. per acre with' "'. , . " di.meter >6':. for at lust 10' in Ieng.h7 .................................. .. . ........ '~".;.: .:~':, ::. _;;~~~;;..~~:~\~' ,iZ:.i:~:.~.1 :;. '.~' ':< " Are tbere liieas (v.getated orilli."get,ted) "i.hin the ' .• we.l:md .hat :are pond.d for ai le"'t 4 monlll' out of thC' year. :md the wetland has not qu.lified as having an open waler class in Question 4b.? ............•......................• _._ ....... _ .. . YES -,<,,:-': ", Departm~'nt of. Ecology Vl(etland R~~!n.g Dat~ Entry . . Western' Wash," ton Form 4" Connoclion 10 Strums. (S.ore one answor only.) .' :,:' , 4g.i. ~ t~ ~ .. la~d·Pi-ovi...;·h.j,it.t for fish'~ .ny ;i";';'hr tm; y~~ At:!12 does it have. peenmal surface ",.t .. connection to a fisb . 4g1 ~!·~~~::;:·~~~~~·~lt~~~i~'::~~:i;~::iilii~;~i~:·~:··~ 0 6" have _ stasonaJ JurfKe waler connection 10 a fish be:arinS srream ... YES 0 4g.3. Does the wetland ruocli~n to export organic motler tbrough J a~~~a:i:~:::ac;~~.~~~.~~.~:~ .. ~i.7:.~:~.~~ .. I.~.!~.~ ..... ~; .... :.: ... ~ YES ~ 4~.4: DoeS the' wetl.';d ruoclio~ to ex~ org~nic man.:r 'througb .' a surface water connectioo to • s,",am on a seasonal basis_ ...... _ ... YES 0 4h. Bul'!'~r.s.· '!' :,,::.:~. ;:!;p~~-'. '~·:~.f'1':" f1i,~:.l'·,5;Y:;::·~ .. :: .7:~.\~·;,,-.~.rS-~:~· ... ~ Scan: ..... 1isIin, burrm oft i Ink 011·' baS.4 on die 100Io..;,,'I ... ·dc:scripIions. . U III< .ondition 01 III< burrcn do ..,. uacl/y _b rho: descriplim. J<on: cilhrt • . po;nI IUJhcr Of 10_ 4ependin,'"' wholhol the bull ...... 1_ Of __ 4eJn4ed. . .j Fora\, scrub, natl~eiJi.ssl:i,;d.;.·i;~~watabuff~l:, ';' an: pn:senl for more tIWr 100' .rou,nd 9S'iI. of the < .. :," ci::~r~7:)~\':::. ·~~~,:."f'~:i~p~!r~!'It;~~l;~:' .... Foral, scrub. native ""ssland or-open water buITers wider than 100' for more than In of tho wetland cin:umf=ace. or • forest, scrub .. grasslands, or open w.t .. buITers for mon: than SO' around 95'" of the ~r:~rrf7e. :.l::'t:':i:::V!?;~,k··\ ." 'YES 0 , YES 0 Fores\, s~b. native grassland or oPen wat .. buITers wid .. than 100' for more "'an 114 of tho wetland·", . YES 'r/ 1 circumfcrena:. or a foreSI: scrub, D3liy~'passland:'or ~ open .... t .. bufr .. s for more than SO' for more than I n of the wetland circuinfe",nce. ' 1 ,~;. •. :.... . <- !: .. No ro.ds. buildings or paved areas within 100' of the wetland for more than 9S .... of.he wetland circumfe",nce. YF.S 0 1 .•• '1::" No roads, buildingi .,;. pa"e.t iu-c.s within 15~' or IIM; .... ; we.land fo. more than 9S'JI.'of the wetland circUmfen:iia;! '" " 2.[ . -;"';~~'B'-~ .:.i·\· .. ~~~~tb~~~~.~~0fP·;;~}1·.i:ci .. ,"j~~7t.;.ij ". ~ 0 . No roads. buildings,'or p:i"ed :Ue..s'witlUn SO"oC the ":etland for more .han In of the wetland ciri:limfen:nce: ::>.; . >~~ ';'" , •.•• c· Paved areas. industrial areas or residential corisu\iclion (with less than SO' bet",een houses) are Jess than 25' froID thC wetland for mori than 9S'iI. of the'cin:umre~rice of lhe wClland. .-'~·--:~f~1·:~{~~: " .. ,~.: ."-." .. : YES 0 0 4i. Conntclion to; olh~r h3bitat art:as Select the descriplion which best matches tho site being e~aJua .. cL ·Is the wetland connec't~ ;0, or pari of, a riparian cOITidor at Ie ... 100' wide connectin, two or more wellands; or, is then: aD upland connection pn:sent > I 00' wide with good fon:st or shrub cov .. (>15'iI. cov .. ) connecling it with a Significant Habilal' Area? .Js the wetland conneci;d t~ ~~7 o~~i~il~'A,;,1!id; ~i;i,;;r .. J) • fon:stedlshrub corridor <J 00' wide, or 2) • corridor t..al . is > I 00' wide, but haS • low veget~li"e cover less than 6 feet iD height? .,-: , • ',!..' ' ..• i~ ~.~ r;~.~; ~ ':'i~~}~*:~'~: ~_- ·Is the wetland connected to; or a·~t1: oj-:~ri;Ji';;;'~;';;;diir between SO' , 100' wide with scrub-shrub or fcire.1 cover connection 10 other wetlands? -. ' ·Is the wetlani:fconnected to any other Habitat Area witb narrow .. ~~dor «100') of low V<&e':oti.on «~:, inheightl? . ·Is the wetl""ci .nd its buffer (if the b~rru ii ies~ !han 50'. wide) completely isolated by developmenf (urban, rai~enlial ",ith a density gr.~ter than 2Jacre. or industrial)7 .' . Dl:siCn by SCol1 T~ Clay· Pooh YES 0 YESt(J , : YES 0 0 I I I I I I I I I ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Na~e of Ra!r K /1~ r-:uq . , .~.~ Coun,y l?r''?J Projcctt-'ame ~.,.L<.V t%Q..MN<\.v,! hfekl$/-"'" 2nd. Edition Department of. Ecology. Wetland Rating Data Entry Western Washin ton Form Publleallo 193·74 ~~::!~i#l::Yd';~~,~'?~~t;,!r~la;,% ~ i A7:;; Locallon ~& C o.a.V· or ·1'2q-u d • ., I~ t 2 7./~ Sirl~~ 2 •. 3. Is tbe vegetation a mi>lurc of only habaccou. plonlS and Loca,ion: .Nk. 4.,.~! Nf:.~;~~ ~~'~"n,~,~~~~~i~,?~.~';'ge ~ ~.:~::: :;'h'::b' a:~'ouh .nopl'anCfUt.bi, s'phhfU.bgnOurm,fO"'an'd,cddcCclpa .. e.? Sourrrs or Informal,on: (Chrrk .11 .ourers Ih.1 apply) '." .•. ", .... ,;,:. ", .' • Sile Vi.it ® lJS.G~ !~, ~~p. ~. ". N~,t'~~,!Il.. A.~ri~lPh.~~~~ Soils S~rvey ~ organic soils> 112 acre7 DYES: C .. egory I Other Info·· .. : .... , .. ' c' ... " ... ,'. . . ... . Is the arc. of hcrl>accous plants, Sph.gnum, .nd deep' .. 0 yES: CategOry II organic soils 1/4· 112 a.",? . '." '.' 0 .. When 'The Field [)a.. . . Calogory II r'v'1 .." .. . r---'r-:::-::-:::-:-_:--:--:-_-.--:-~_.:.-. _______ .....::=-N:.:.O::...: ,.:Go::,:lo::..:::Q;::.3:...._ fonn i. complele enler Calogory. I .'+; ;'> ... :.' ~ Calogory ~V .... .' Q.2b. Malun fonslod wotbnd •. Category here: c::J C.I.gory mO .0· ... Sco .. :3'1 ~~,:~g~·if:::~:~:1;I;Iu~~~~o~~~~;:j~i~ii~~~·~~~~~:;~ dO:O:~ If n~I" find someone wilh lbe expertise to answer the que-Slions. Thcft. if the answa 10',·· . qucstion. I .. Ib ancIlc;.r~ alll'l()' CO~,.~t ~e Nalural Herilage prowarn of DNR. ,. )L Human caus~d ~!;.~rb~n~e~l.~l",~,:(\;f::;~~:~~J~ 1,::-:,:_~ ~.~:~ ~ /~ r' .";-1'" Is there significant evidence of Iiuman·cau,ed change. 10 topography Or hydr~logy of.he wetland as indic.,,~. by a;,y~or.l~ follo~!ng cODditions? " " ConSIder only chan,e> Ihal may.havelaken place tn the lasl5 decade .. 'The impacts of changes done e .. lier han probably bee·n .!abililed and lhe weiland tt~sy'sl;;in will be close 10 reaching some new cquilibrium ~al may represenl a hip qualily wctland. ':1:';:';):;~:~:~~;~:it?~\~~ :r'~~.;~>~~.t~::~ ~. ~':i" ,~.~~:.;~~" ,cbec,'Aruwen 101. Upsueam w •• er.hed >12'j1, impervious,· . '". 0 Y .. : Co 10 Q.l I 02. WeIland is ditched and ,;'iiei' now i~ riOt obstrucled.' 0 Yos: Co 10 Q.i 1""'';;''-'.1 -"':>1.3. WeIland has been waded, fill.d. logged. ··j2(Y .. , CO 10 Q.i 1.4. Wa.er in wetland is conl;olled by dikes. weirs. etc. 0 Y .. : Co 10 Q.l laS. Wetland is graz;;d;·;,.:n;:':" il'oP.F' c',,>,,,,.:,.: :'",. 0 Yrs: Go 10 Q.l i.6. Other indic"ors '~r cfi';;;;b~ni"(ji~l&i~;')'o : .• 0 j'ts: Co 10 Q.l .,: ..... ~ .• .";.;_::;;: . .: :';':~".' ... ~~ .... ; .. ". ·i' ~:. : : I'.'.~~~ ... ~ ! ..----------------.:-' . .:..' _ . .:., .. .:., ... _, ---t ~:' c ••• " lb. Ne the", popul •• ions or non'Dati!e plonu which an: .. currentli~':· d YES: go.o Q.21· presenl. cover mor~ than. I O<;!,. of the ."'etland. ·and appear 10 be':, 0 NO:' go to I C . , inv;u:lir1i. n;\lj'lle POPUlaiio~~~ ~~~~y.~C$Cii~ ~1 no.narive· .. : ~ r ~" .. ;~""" ""-~ ::~'~~:'''('r ,'" Ic. Is .hc", evidence of huinan .• ausrd disiurbanCcS which have· . 0 ··~Es: go to Q.2 , visibly degr.ded walchjuOli,j." EvideiiCe of t~' dcgr.ida.ion of water qu.lit), include: direct (unrreal«l) runoff from roads 0 NO: Possible Cal. I or p:lfking lOIS; presence: or hisloric evidence. of winle conl3ct DNR dump.; oily .herns; the smell of or,.nic chemicals: 01 livestock usc. Brieny describe: :.~.! .~ .. I' Q.2. I"~plac~ablc Ec·~i~&ic-;;.I. F~'n~,·i~nl.·i~ ':;:" Doe. lhe well.nd • have at leasl 1/4 at,." or organic s~ils deeper Ib ... 16 inches and tbe Weiland is relaliveIY.Ddisiurbed; OR .: .' ' .. >'. . (I( die answer is NO because the ... ellond i. diSfUibCd brien,. describe:-1':~ .r.~.i ..... ; ';~:t{:!.~~ ~'!~ f."":' : ... ~ ~'. : .. ,,, '.:' • .;-" .~: Indic3lon of 'dislurbanee may inciude: OR . Weiland has been graded. filled. logged; ~Or&3nic soils on the.surface are dTied.oul for more than ii~lr of the' year; ~' .. i,,"i;;' " ' .. ;. !' . • Well:and receives dirrcl slOnnwater runoff from' urban or :1Igricullural asCIS.);· ... • have a forested class gn:aler Ihan I acre; ~ OR ". "J:.>~1.. ·~··r""'..; , .' .",i.. . • have' chanctcrislics of an esruarine syslem; OR • huve eel ,rass, noaling or non-noaling kelp beds?, ~ (NO'::~~; . go '0 Q.3) O· YES go 10 2a o YES,ol02b o YES'~o'i~ 2c o YES go t02d 2a. Bogs and Fens ., Are any of lhe three following condilions ~i r~i:;k nr~a~} ~~!an~jc s~il? 2a.1. Arc Sphagnum mosses a common ,round cover (»0'i1» and the cover or inv.s; vc species (.ee Table 3) i. less Ihan 101107 is the a;e~ of' spharnu~ ..nos~c~ -;~d ~cp organic soils> 112 acre? 0 I~ lhe :an;a of ,ph~gnum ';"';sSes· ,"id d~ olganic ,oils 114· 112 .cre? 0 o 2a.2. is ~ an area of ~~a~{c 'soii"~k~cb has an emergent -class wilh at least one species rrom Table 2. 6lIId COVei' of invasive species is <10,;\ (see Table 3)? .. ~( ., ~.-.', ," Is lhe are. of herbaceous plants .nd deep Of,.nic soil. > 112 acre? i. the a ... of herbaceous planlS and deep organic ,oil. 114· 112 acre? o 8 YES: C.te,ory I YES: Ca.egorY II NO: Go to 20.2 .. ' i- YES: C.tegorY I YES: C.iegory II NO: Go 10 20.3 . . '. . ... 2b.I, Doc. SO'JI. or the cover of upPer forest canopy consist. 0 or evergreen trees older than 80 yean or deciduous tree. ,. 0 . older Ihan 50 years 7 No.e: 'The siu: or trees i. ofteD not '.. • YES: Category I NO; Go ,~ 2b.2 . I measure of age. and si~e cannol be used as I surrogate fO(' .ge (sec guidance): ;. c.·' ." ,.' "... ,. '. ' .• 2b.2. DoCs SO'JI. of th·. rover or rorcsl canopy'conShi of evergrttD trees older Ihan 50 years, A.!!!l2 is lhe .tructural diver,il), of lbe forest high as characlcOled by an additional layer or trees 20' • 49' tall 'hrubs 6' • 20' 1.11, and • herbaeeoul groundcovcr? . 2b.3~ Docs <25~6r i~ a~l cova ~n' ~("~~'~1,~-:::~~:}:": ~,: .. -~ .-, .,.' berbacrouslgroundcovcr or the shrub layer· con.ist or invas~velexOlic planl species from lhe lisl on page 197 Q.2c. Esluar;no Wotl.nds. 2c: i. is·ihc weiland listed as Nalional Wildlife Refuge, ,. :.: National Park" Nalional Estuary Re.erve, N.tural Area _',:: Preserve. S131e Part.. 01' Educalional. Environmenl,J1 or , ...• Scienlific Re.scrvcs de.ignated under WAC 332.30-1511 2c.2. Is.he Weiland >S .. re.?_ ..... NOle: If :mare·.·cont';ns patches of s.1t loler.nl ve!C1ation Ihal are . I) Jess than 600 feel apart and Ih.t are .. p .... ed by mud!1"~ Ih.1 go dry on • Me,," Low,Jidc, lU _. o YES:G~ i~ 2b.3 o NO: Go 10 Q.3 o YES: i:;'I~gory I o NO: Go 10 Q.3 DYES: Care gory I o NO: Go 10 2c.2 DYES: Ca.egory I 2) separated bYlidal charmcls Ihal are less tbon 100 feet wide;" , "".f,; all !he vegetalrd ...... a,., 10 be comidcn:d log ether .. in calcu)al~n& ~ .~elJ~~.u~;:,w;.":-i; .. ,:.:_;.:-_:~.;!-:~.:' . .':-:: .",!,' or is Ihe weiland I·S ..... ? .. _ ....................... _ .... _ .. _ ........... _ 0 YES: Go to 2c.3 .or i. lbe weiland <I aae? ..................... _ ..... _ .................. ~ ... _ 0 YES: Go 10 20.4 2c.3. Docs !he wet land meet at least 3 or the followi ng. ~~~.~.~~~:;:~;~:: .• ~.~.: .. ~~~:~ .. "::.,;~; ... __ •..... _ .••. -minimum exislirii, evidence of humali related.'!" disturbance such as diking, ditehin" filling. cuhivatiou."· Br.ozjDI or the presence of noo-Dative plant species (_ guidance for definition):~_~:, :.!f.:.~,:.~:'(_,~~ .. ,..... -r·o.·":' ' _'"-, ..... -surface waler con~ti~:'~~~ ~~'~ii~i~~:f!' or .idal frc!thw31cr; (S:~~:~~~~~~.;;;-~:~~:~;.~ l.~ -.o~;f~::~~;~.~~ .. ~: .. :-. " . ·alleasl 7S-" of Ihe Weiland has • 100' buffa of > . " ungnz'ed pasture. OpeD water. shrub or foresl; <.~<:-~, ·has .. leasl 3 of the following reatun:s:.iow marsh; high mar.h; tidal channels; lagoon(s); wOod-; debris; or:'" -.. contiguous freshwaler wetland. .~:~~7~~c ~-'{ "'" 2c.4. Docs Ihe wetland meel all of the four cOl;';. under 2c3. (above)7 Q.2d. Ed Gro .. and Krlp Bods., o . YES: Category I o NO: Category D 2d.1. Arc eel grass beds present ? ... _ .... _._ ........ __ ................. _ .. ~ 0 YES:' Cal~gory I NO: go to 2d.2 2d.2. Arc thne nooring or noD·nOOling kelp bcd(s) present with greater than 50'i10 macro algal cover in the month· o of Aug.st or S.ptemberL .......... : ... ~::::·.~~: ......... :' ..... : .. :. o o YES: Calegory I NO: C.legory U Q.3 .. Cal<gory IV wrllands. 3 ... Is the wctland: less Ih.n lac", aruI hydrologically . ISola.ed iIIllI compri,ed or one vegelaled class Ihal is dominaled (>80"" =al cover) by 0 ... · 'poci« from T.ble 3 (page 19) or Table 4 (page 20) Jb. Is lhe wetlond: less Ihan Iwo acres ~~~ hydrologically isolated wjlb one vegelaled class, .nd >90<;1. of .. cal cover is any combination of species from Table 3 .(p.,e 19) 3c. Is lhe wetland e.cavated from upland and a pond . slTlOllJer .han I .Jere wilhoul a surf3Cc water connection 10 streams. lakes. riycu. or other weiland. and h:as <0.1 ,Jcre of vC'gC'talion DYES: Calc go!)' IV » NO: go to 3b DYES: Calegory IV Ci("NO:. go.o Jc o YES: C~'egory IV ~ NO: go to Q.4 Q.4. Signilicanl habib. ulu •• Answer a1l quesrions and C'Dfer dala requesled. 4a. To,al w<,land :un -. Estimalc arca, Stlett from ch~jc~ ~ven: 4b. W<lland c1as.<.: Circle th< w<lIand classes below ,h., qualify: . Op<~ w~,c:r. if ,he M<I of opeD "'81 ... is > 114 acre - Aqua,ic B<ds: if 1he on:a of aquatic beds> 114 len: .. Emergent: if th< area of emergent class il > 1/4 xn: Scrub-Shrub: if 1he ..... of scrub-shrub class is > 1/4 acre For<;'ed: if ar~' of foresied class il > 1/4 acre Check ,he appropri~,~~ii~d.e~~;,,~'~r:";.ibnd cia~l: >200 0 40· 199.99 0 10·39.99 g 5·9.99·' 0 1· •. 99'., 0 ,0.1.0.99. 0 <11.1 .0 6 , • 3 2 I o .ofe_ St ... ci..d_ 0 0 T .... d ..... 0 ::::::, ~ 'fi""d~'O 10 4<:. Planl species divtrsi,y. Seore ~ For nch we,land class (al right) that qualirlCS in " 4b above. coun' 1he number of differem plant species you caD lind ,ha' cover mort than 5'i1> of ,he ground; . : .' .. ,.,. . .. , '! :-!',';" . Yau do nOi have 10 name lhem. -. Score by ch<ek.in& bo.es a, righi. '.' . ;~ .: : .. "- o o o I .. · ;:ar 2·) 100.. 4.5.0 o 3·. >C o o o i' 4d. SUutlural Diytrsily :lX'! .r· ... ",-.-: ... ':.! •••.• ~ ;.:-~~:i;.r~,,-.. r:·;:.~ -;" .~,·r .. If ,he w<,land has a fores'ed clasl. add I poinl if each of lhe following -. c1 .. ses is present wilhin th< fortsled class and is larger than 114 ae .. :.' '," .. ~, ·lreCl· >. -50.:' 1.11_ •••••••••••••••••• _ .............................. _, ••• ~; • .:' •• ; •• '-.;-' •• . • " ... : 20' ": '49~ 1.11 .................................. _ .... __ .•.. ;;;;,:...:.. ..... : •... ';.' ·herbacrDuI· around cO'Yn::::; ...••..... ;._ .......... : .. :·.:.. ....... ~: ..•.......... :.=- -. . s hr u bs::: .. }. ::: ..............•............•...•...... ~~~_ .:~'.:.~:. :.::.~;'~:~~.:. ~;. ~ :.:.: _ ... ". Also add I point if Ihc:rc: is 3DY MOpen water~ or M.q~~.i~·b.cr c1as. immcdiaiely nexl 10 lhe foresled If .. (i.e. Ihc:rc: is no .. ' sCnlb/shrub or <me'genl v<gelation bc:tw~D Ihem) .. --'_.;; ..•. _ ... 4r. Decide (rom lhe dial~ams below ..-helha' intcnpeisioii'~'" ~, H' betweta wetland classes is high, ~e •. ~~ ~. n~ne? . If you Ihink Ihc amount of inleHpCrsioD falls iii bctwcc:n lhe wagrams score accorwngly (j.e. a moderalely high amount jntc:rsprrsion would ~~ a ... while _ . !;- mc>de:roltly low would seore Ii 2);". YES YES'" YES' .. ~ YES' YES ~ ~ jll.. l!( o o o I 2 3 o I 2 3 o Scon:"! .. :.' ~ , LowIM_ 0 0 /'lone 0 0 ... --4r ..... H.bilal Fulures A,;,w<f 'que~,ions below. cirel< f<a,urtS thai apply. and score 10 Ibe righl: ~~:~~:ge~~~::~~c~e~ii~~~i~?~:: ......... :.~:: ... ,.: .• n ......... .. !.' Store . Is a he.on rookery localed wilhin 300·? ........... n ............... n .... .. Are .. plor neslls located within 300·? ........ n ............. _~ ........... .. Arc lhe.e a,ii", 3 .. anding de.d trm (snags) per' ari~ ,.e .. er.lhan 10" in di.me,er at '"breasl heigll1M (DBH)? .......... nn •• Are Ih<.< al ~~:~I 3 dOw~';;I~g; p.; ~ w;;.; :' ".: . a diam<l<r >6M for at leasl 10' in Itngth? .... n ............................. . f. >.; '-::'·.i,~:~~~~1:.~~·~r. "." . A,e lhere artas (veg<la,ed or unv<gelot<d) wilhin lhe' . weiland that art ponded for al 1 ... 1 4 'months oul of lhe" ye:u. and ,he w<lland has nOl qualilied as having ;in open waIn class in Question 4b. ? ..................•.................................. YES 0 YES 0 YES e( YES D( YES .~ YES 0 ',. J.' t·· ":,. ' .. }. ~~ •• ' •• •••.•• _ • Departrn~n~ of Ecology Wetland Rating qat~ Entry .. ' "., Western" Washm ton . Form 41-.. Connection 10 Sln.ms.· (S~or. orie' ani ... r only.) . 4g.l. ~ Ihc w;'l~d provide 'h~bi~;f;r.~·~ ~~i"imc ~i Ihey<.. St= . ~_:;~~~~~~~.~~r::.~~~~J;f2:r~~0~~~~~i.':~~.~~tL.· YES 0 6 4g.2. Docs ihe wcllaiM! providoi 1i.1i habilal seasonally Alil2 doe. it have _ Kasonal surface wat~ connection 10 a fish be:arin& stream. .. YES o • 4&.3. Does lhe "'elland functio~ 10 .. port organic m,mer Ihrough" ~ surf~ Wala' COMCC:lioD ~1 ~1Ilimcs ~ ~ y~ 10 _ '. . perenDlal Slr<am ............... , ....... _ ... ,.·.;.. ..................................... _ YES 0 4g.4. ~ ihe ;"clland fu·.,ciion '0 e~p.,n ~;g.;Uc ;""n~ Ihroulh .'.' .,. ,.' _ surface water connc:clioa 10 _ strum on • sa.sonal basi ..... ~ ___ • YES 0 4h.. Bun:~r~ =~: ~ '~.ro;:: ~.:' . :::;. ~':'~ .;-:J .. ~~~:.~.: y~: '~::'. /!: .. Ci~~ ~.~' .• :.N?;':~".'. __ ~, ~. ;". .. Store thO nistin, buITrn On a seole 011·5 based on die follo"";o, four daCripcions: U !he eondirion 01 die buITm do no< e .. clly man die description. Jt<n eilbtt a poinl hi,hct or 1..-dcpcodinl on whclhct .... buffer> ...,1 ... Of mom dcrndc>l Fores!. sen.!.. iwive'lmsl~iid ci-iJiCiI·w'i'ih"b.iireri ': ~., are prcstni (or ..no;.e thaD 100· around 9S~ or lhe .:. , ~!;~;t~~r~:~~~:::;J;)Ef.·£~~~i~~S:~f.~~i~.,:; .. ' " :, .' Forest; scrub: nalive "",sland or Open water buffers 'wider than 100' for more Ihan 112 of lhe well.nd circumf ... <nce. or a fore ... scrub,.. gnssbnds. or open water buff.,. for more Ih,n SO' around 9S .. of lhe .. i ,,,~:;~~nce~ '. ,"" :::i;!;;:~~!~~~;;:;:':':.: '~:~'.~: FDres!. scrub. Da,ive grassl.nd of open "'at ... buff<n wider than 100' for mo~ than 114 of lhe weIland,· .. circ:VlDfer<nce. or a forcsi. Scrub. n.tiv~· "aSslane( or , OpeD wal"!' ~ffers for more ihan SO' for mort lhan 112 of lhe )'relland circumfertm:c. ".: '.'., .,. . . No roads. b~ildings or paved m .. within 100' of the . w<tl.nd for more Ih~D 95'i1> of ,he Weiland circumfe«nc .. ., St .... YES O· 5 YES 0 3 YES 0 ,'.'1' ' . ,;: ~:.,I:~::t;~~;:~~:~:l~f~;~~~f:,~:~~ .. ~::,~.: .:: . -,'; . Weiland for mOre Ihan 9S'iI> of th<'weI13nd circumference. ', ...• ' . iu·:.· '.~, ';.;,;/~~~;~.f~~ ~.~~ ... }~p.*~I·~1":~t;.'~~j:fe~.:ct1s, .. !'~;·;·:- No roads. buildings. or paved .... as·wilhin'SO··of llie ;,ielbnd .. ,:, for more Ihan 112 of Ihc weiland cirtumference .. :, .. t ... . ... -., .. ...: .. Paved areas. intfusb'iaJ ami Or residCntiai coDStruction (with less than SO' bc:1wc:c:a houses) an: len Ihan 25' from 1he Weiland for mOre Ihaa 9S .. of 1hio ciicUmf~nCe of. .' ';~>,." tbe wetland. .<J.<:. ~ .... :.~. ·:·.·~;·~j, .. ::~:~·\;.~f/;;~·:.: .~~. !"_., .. ;~ .:~;:~;~ ;;'. 4i. Conn~('.ion 10 oth~r habitat _rras . ~. Selcci Ihc description which be .. malch .. lhe si,e being evalualed. -Is th< weiland conncc:\~.i io. ~ pan~r. ~ rip:.n~a<orrid~ ; least 100' wid< connectin, Iwo or more Weiland.; or. i. Ih<rc: aD upland con...ction preSCnt >100' wid. with good foi-est at--· . shrub cover (>25 .. cover) tonntenng il with a Significanl Habilal ,. Area? :'.'" ,,:-;!,,"',' :-:f»,;';:.::i;h·f .i~~.-;;~' ~.: :;'~\' -Is lhe weiland connecled io""y 01hci-H.bi'at A .... with either. I) • forested/shrub corridor <lOO' wide, or 2) • corridor that ... is >100' wide. bUI has. low vegei,uive cover len than 6 feel ia heighl?',.:: . ~ . ; . _, ,:, ,£i} ,~":;;.;~;~·0;:.~f,it~ .. ~" .. "; . -Is Ihc weiland connetl<d lei. Or a pan of. a riparian corridor bc:rwe.n SO· -100' wid< with scrub-shrub or foresl cover' . connection 10 olber wetl~? . '.' ... ; ... ,", .. ", .... ·Is the w<lland connecl<d 10 any olber Habilai Arei ~ilh narroW corridor «100') of low v<getation «6' in heighl)? .. ,~. :~', ~: . ! ':, .' -.. .~, 'i" :.' ·Is lhe weiland and in buffer (if the borr ... i. Itss than sO" wide) compltl"ly isolaled by developmein (urban. re.sid<ntial wilh a densilY gre~le, Ihan 21acre. or indusmll)? YES 0 .r .• ' ~., YES 0 0 Stan: YES 0 YES 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q.J. High QualilJ Nalural W.lland';"·'·:!~i'·' ".,." ';; .. e·, .. c:'".: .. ~, Answ~ Ihis question if you 'ha~e 'ldcq~~IC:' inf~,ior(;;: e~f;eri-~~~',~ do -~~~~'"If not find someone wilh .he exPertise 10 aruwcr lhe questions. Then. if the answer to>.- queslions I .. Ib lUJ!I"c.~ all !:IO. CO~"'tllhc Nllun! Herila,.pro"am ~fDI'IR ... , 1 L H uman caus~~ ~~~~;~ba~~·~s.~t~<:):)~:t:~::~:~; ~~-~~~~/~:~.:·t;;:-·:t;·.:~~~~t~~.·~ .:~~._ ::~':'t ~~:~. Is there significant evidence of tium:m--c3used cbanges 10 topography or hydrolo,y of the w.lland as indic~led bJ ,any of lhe following condilionl? ' . Consider only changes Ihal may have lak.n pl..:e in !hi: lui 5 deCOdes: 1bC impacls of changes done .arlier have probably bee;' slabiliz.d and the weiland eCosysiem will be close 10 reaching some new ~quilibriu~ thai may represent I high qualily weiland. . . "~'~f!!: ~':~~::~ ~~!:".l;:~:\:";~ ;,~'~~lt··_~.;,::·t,~~~r":~ ;~~y_~' .. ~ ~.;~~fnswcrs lal. Upsueam walershed >12'ltrimpervioul .. v, '." >: ;, D Y~s: Co 10 Q.1 Ial. W.lland is dilched',;nd wi ... r now is'not ';bslrucled.' D Vos: Co 10 Q.1 la3, WeIland hiS been graded. filled. 10Ued. aV'·s: Co 10 Q.1 104. Waler in w<lland is conlroll.d by dikes. weirs •• Ie, D V •• : Co 10 Q.1 laS. W.lland is grazed:'" ~'i'.i', ",.j';,. '"",,' ." "-:",," D V .. : to 10 Q.i 1.6_ Ocher indicalors ~f di~iu'b.;.c:e(lisl bel~,;.r'·' ,,:' D V.*,'Co 10 Q.1 .r 1 ·l ... ····~,;..~. ,. ~ ... , :"'r~·.·· .,. ,"':~~.h. ":'~='-'~!'i'!;; ,;,:..-:...: lb. lb. JIve !here populalions of non-native pianu which an: cunenlly"'.' D presenl, cover more Ih~ 1M. 0{ Ihe.we~land. and IPj>e., 10 be'", 0 Invading nallve populalJo~? Bneny descnbc Iny oon-!'4'rive- YES: ',0 10 Q.2 NO:' go 10 Ie .~. ['W ..,.~;o~ .. "'~ ~.~,,-, '1':' "" I c. Is Ihe-re evidence of human-caused disrwb;mces which have . -: 0···· ," visibly d.graded wale' qu~IiIY, Evidence of lhe degr.ldalion '. YES: go 10 Q.2 of Wiler qualilY include: direet (unlr.aled) runoff hom roads 0 'NO: Possible cai, I or parkin& 1015; pre-scricr-." of historic e:vide-Dce. of wasic . ..~. contac1 DNR dumps; oily sheens; Ihe smell of organic chemicab; Of livesloct UK. Brieny describe: Q.l. Irrrplactable E.cologi~~i Fui'ICt;ons . . :. ~ .. '.~.:. ,. /. -" Doc:s lhe Weiland • have al 1 ... 1 1/4 acre of organic soils deeper Ibm 16 inches and the wetland is relalively uodiSiurbed; OR .... , . ." ,. (If the answer is NO because the Weiland is disliui>ed brieny ·'·:.P·, desaibe: .r:~ : ~~: .. :::;\..< ~; ..:.-.>.li;;',~~-.'. ~~ Indicators of dislurbance may inciude: . Weiland has been ,,,,ded. lilled. 10Ued; -Organic soils on thc __ surface are dritdeoOut for more chan iiillfilf lhCyeai-;;',;:::; ,': j{;~~i:~;,; go 10 Q.3) OR • WClitlOd receives' direct slofmwa'';' runorf from urb:m or agricultural iUCas.); • have-a foreslcd class greal~ than I acre; OR . ,.,b,:· '. • have charac1erislics of an-esruarinc sysrtm; OR • have eel p .... nOOling or non-noaling kelp beds? DyES gOloa -.;,:~ ~.' ". D YES gOlo 2b , ·l· D YES go 10 2c D YES go 10 2d 23. Bogs and Fens .. _. Are any of the three following condilions ~i for ~h~ ar~a of orgilnic'~~jl?' 2a.1. Are Sphagnum mosses a common ground cover (>3M.) and Ihe . cover of invasiv •. species (seeTable 3) is less .Ihan 10~? . Is the .area of spharnum mosses and deep organic soils). III acre? Is Ihe·area. of sphagnum mo''';s and deeP org~nic"soils U4' 112 ocre? 2L2. is there an are~ of ;;;'g.~i~ s~ii~hl~h~'~ ~merge~ ': . class wilh 0.1 lca.sf one species from Table 2. and COVet of invasive spe~ies. il .. <IO% (see Table 3)? Is the area of h.rbaceous pl.nls and deep organic soils> 112 ~cre? Is the oarca of herbaceous plalnu and da-p organic soils 1/4.-112 acre? O. YES: c~i.gory. I DyES:. Calego" II o NO: Go 10 2 •. 2 YES: C:iiegorY II NO: Go 10 2 •. 3 2nd. Edition Department, of Ecology Wetland Rating Data Entry Form Western Washin' ton .• P.u9bJi:l~lo '21.3. Is !he vegel.Lion I miXlure of only herbaceous pl~ts and Sphagnum mosses wilh no scrub/shrub Of rOTe sled cJasses? Is Ihc ~d 'of Ii'rbaceous plants: Sph.gnum. .nd deep' organic soils> 112 acre? Is Ihe area of herbaceous plants. Sp~gnum. and deep'·' organic s.oils 1/4· 112 .cre?· ,." ,.~ : .,' ,. ".' Q.2b. Ma ... re forosl.d .. elland. DYES: Calegory I DYES: Calegorj II o NO: Go 10 Q,) 2b.l. Docs SO .. of the cover orupper forcsl canopy consisl .. ,DYES: Calegory I of evergreen b"ec:s older chan 80 yean or deciduous trcc:. ~.. ' , older maD SO ye.,s? NOle: 11le size of Iroes is ofre. ito! q .. ~~: Go 10.2b.2 a measure ".f age, and size C~DOI be used as a surrogal. for .ge (see guIdance)."· .. ·, ,'"0,, ".,,, .... "',c;,."·,, ".', " 2b.2. Docs SO .. of Ibe <'civel' of for6i cinopy" con'isi of evergreen lrees older IhaD 50 yean. bl!l2 is the slrUcrural diversilJ of the foresl high IS ch .... cleriz.d by an addiliona! Ilyer of Uec:s 20' • 49' 1.ll shrubs 6' • 20' lall, and a herbaceoUs "oundcover7 '.' lb,3. Doe~ <2Soi'or tliCt.:eal cover i~·~~~ .. "";\:-· .. : . c',' herbaceous/groundcover or Ibe shrub J;;y~~ ~-;'~si~l~f . invasivelelolic planl species from !he lisl on pag. 19? Q.2e. ESlu.rin. WellandL 2c.l. Is ;J.e;'ellu,d ii,ied as National WildUfe R.fuge., ..... , Nauonal Park, Nlliona! Esluary R.serve, N.rural Area . .. Preserve:. Sial'! Park. or Educarional. Environmenlal Of Scienlilic R.serves designaled under WAC 332·31). lSI? o YES:' G~IO Th,3 o NO: Go 10 Q.3 b 'YES: C~I~gory I o NO: Go 10 Q.3 DyES: Calegory I o NO: Go 10 2c,2 2c.i. Is lhe weiland >5 acres?______ 0 YES: Category I . NOle: If ~ri ore. conlains palches of s.11 loler~nl .,erel:;uion Ihat ue I) less chan 600 fcci apan and Ibal are separated by ... mudna!~ I~a! go .dry 0" ~MeaJI lo~ Tide, Ill... 2) separaled by lidal channels thai .,e lesS lOOn 100 fe-c' wide; .":~ ~ ·i : '.' ,all !he ve~el~i«! an:as are 1.0 be considered logelher ..... "., ",', .~ ' .. ,'.,. or i. ::e e~::I~~;~ f:r:~~:::.:~~:~: ... ~~_'~.:~:.::~~:~ .. _ .. 2i"~~~ ~~ ~:;C:3 or i. the ..... Iand <I .cre? ........... " ........... __ .......... " .•. ".,,-'_ 0 YES: Go 10 2c,4 2c.3. Does !hi: weiland meet aI leasl 3 of Ihe followi ng 4 crileriL~" ...................................... . . • • • :';,~zt;~i'~~..;" .. :"; :~'J.~:i-.. ;~: ;~' ... ; _.', ·nunnnum eXlsllnl e-vu:lem:e of human relafed: -~ ....... -' dislurbance such as dikinl. dilchin" fillinl. cuhivalio .. -. gru.in& or Ihe prelence of noD-.Dlive planl species (see o VES: Cllegory I 0: NO: Calegory n guidance for delinilion);." ''',.'."",., ...." .... "" ': ",:. ""'.' .:. -< ... .surface water con~'iio~ ~~iii' tidal sai·i;;a.ei ~· .. i;'~.· .'!~ ~_l:f«.1." ': "! ,< ,~ .', ' ,,!:._ •••• .:'-" Of .~idal freshwatn: ~~L~~':.~::·:.:~-,::::i:';·~:··~~.:~/~.;.:.'c:·. "1 least 75~ of !he weiland has. IOO~ buffer of, ,. ;" . '.':' ungrazed p~ture. OpeD water. ShN~ ~.rores1:!.:, .:; ·has all ... 1 3 of !he following fearu ... : low. marsb; hi",., . marsb; lida! channels; lagoon(s); woody-debris; oi~liU;;W,:, contiguous freshwaler wet1and. . ... <.~~~-;f/~;. ;-~\-1l~~~~'~: 2c.4. Does Ih. weiland meel all of !he folD' cOICri. .ander2c3. (~bove)? .~ ,': Q.2d •. Ed Grass and. Kelp B.dL. 2d.1. Are eel grass beds presenl?: ______ .. " ...... " .. ___ .... ___ " . ..: ..... 0 YES: Cal.B~ry I .. ;: ; .. ' 2d_2. Are Ihae floaring or noD·nOaling kelp bed(s) presenl wim gr.OI .. Iban SO% macro alga! cover iillhe monlh of Augusl or Seplember?" .. " ....... :;.: ... : .. ".:".:.:;·::.: ........ Q.3 .. Cal.cory IV .. <lIands. 3 ... ,Is Ibe well.nd. less Ib ..... I acre IIlII hydrologically, lSollled iIIl4 comprised of one vegi:laled class Ihal is .. dominOied (>80\\ ... al cover) by one sPecies from" . Table 3 (page 19) or Table 4 (page 20) .. C' 3b. Is Ihe w.,I""d. less than two acr.s ~~~·~y~oi~gically isolate-d wilh one vegetaled dass. and >~ of are6lI Cover is any combinalion of species (rom ,Table J ·(page 19) le. Is the wetland eltav.led from upland .nd a pond . smaller than I acre: withoul a surface wale:r connection 10 Slreams. lakes. rivers. or Olhtt weiland. and hOlS <0.1 acre of '\Iegel.nion D. NO: go 10 2d.2 D. YES: . Calegory I o NO: C~I.gory D o . YES: Calegory IV ag: NO:' go 10 3b DYES: Cal.gory IV i&:' NO: go to 3c DyES: Calegory IV IA, NO, go 10 Q.4 Q.4. Significanl habib I .. Iu •• · : .. ,. A~wer all q~estions Ud CDla data feq~C5Ied. 0Mxt boa Lb., qualifIeS = Km >200 0 6 4O.199.9l1 0 , 10·39.99 0 Estimale arra. select r~ choiCes given: '-9.99" 0 1-~.99, 0 0.1-0.99 0 . ~:j.;: 0 0 4b. Well~d classes: Circle 11M: weIland classes below lhal qualify. Open w.let: if ihe arci of open wala is > 114 ace 101 classes Aqualic Beds: illlM: "",a 01 aquatic beds > 114 .en: . 0... dw .~ Emergen!: if !he area of .mergenl class is > 114 acre Two eras.u 0 Scrub-Shrub: if 11M: are. 01 scrub-shrub class is > 1/4 acre Tbi= clUs:cs 0 Fo;csi.d: if ",e. or foreSl.d class il >114 am: F;;.;i:~ .. 0 Chttlr.lhe a~~I~j,i;i'~·rht';;':"~i ... ;b~.i·~i~~·~s_·· Fi;.o~i~. 0 4c. PI.nl species diversilY_ . ' ... ' .. - For .ach w.lland class (al righl) !hal qualifies in 4b aboy •• counl !he number of differ.nl plant species you can find Ibal cover mo ... Iban S'J. of lhe gfound. ;.' : :~~.!:~~_::.~~~ .. , .. ;~~.~~~.-~;~; ;t~-~~: .' You do nOi. have 10 name them. . . Score by checking boxes .. t righr~" -~~..,' .. , ;t . .' ... ..';'. i'.c,.,,,' . .. :,", .... : •• 1" •. , ..... . '."'--:.' -I .. '1 0 ]·0 o >] '." I·, 2·] o ~-, 0 . ~,~.~, ....... '>;" 0 ,,,' ... ,,' "., .. co·, I Sfi;.S~b :.:'d~:: r .;,,: I .,. 2 J-e ".' .. ' >4 o o o ~ o o o 10 o I 2 . ] o I o I 1 ) 4d. Structural Diy~rsil7 .;~.~!<,.'-':I ~:~,::!' ::'y' :\" .• :!,-': "~:'f:;;:~~;~~~:~~::' rr the ", .. land has I lor.sl.d cl .... add I point if each of !he follciWiiii' :,r" ~ c1 .... s is ",es.nt wilhin !he ro~sl.d class and is larin lhan 114 iicrc:'-';'c"" . .:C :::: :i~;~: 1;~1;~;.;: .. :.: .... ::::~.::::~.~:::::::~::~:=::::=::~=:;;;;;:~::;::~~;:~~~ : . Seon: :' ·heJbace-oui around co\'er .• ; ...... :;.~:: ..•.• ;:::·_ •..•• :.:~:: .•• :.: .. :~ •.• ;..~.~~.::.' YES . .'. star u t;i:~'~:~~·:·: .... : .. __ ................................ ::.~~ .. ::'~ :~.:_~:.:~~::~: ..... ~: ... ; "~: YES .. . • ._ • _. • • ~~~ 1 ~ '!,,' .. ,- Also add 1 poinl ir Ihae is any Mopen w.la" II< MaquDlic beef" o fi!(1 0-i o '. clus immedialely nexl 10 lhe foreSled area (i.e. !here is no.:;" scrub/shrub II< .mer,eDl vegelalion ~eeD !he~)~:;'.-'.:':; __ ' YES 0 40. Decide: rrom lhe di.grams below ",hcIha inlenpersicin ." . •• t.: .. belween weIland c1 .. s .. is high •. moderaIe. low or none? .... II you Ihink !he amounl 01 inlerspersion falls in belween' . lhe diagrams scor. accordinglY (i.e. I moderalely high amount of inten~rsion would SCore .4: while .-', ---.. ::.- moder.lely low .mounl. would scon: i 2)'<" ,".C,··' 4f. H.billl Foalur .. ':'f' ." _: .... \ Hi,1i Hi'b'Modcnlc:. Mocic .... f".:" LOwlMocier... " ., ." Low ..,.'\." "'one AnS';'er~~~li~~s below. circle reaM .. s !hal apply. and score 10 rho righl: 0 0 0 ) ,. 0 0 }?1 o Ii t~~e ~~id~~e lho~~:~~~;'~~·~'··:::::~ ' .. :~::; .': .. :-' ;-,:' ._ .-ScOle' _ 5lanchn& wat~.~as c:iluscd .by bcavers? •.....••.•.•••••.. __ ••••.•.•.••..•• Is a heron rook." localed wilhin 300·, .............................. : ..... . Are r"p"Of neslls loc.lcd "'i!hin 300·, ...................................... .. Arel~. "I ieasl J ... nJing dead ir~ (~;';;is) Per 8cre' . . ,r.al.r Ihan 10" in di.me~.ral .. bre3J1 heighl" (OBH)1 ...... :_-:-.: .... Are Ih.r. 31 I.asl ~ dow~d·;~~;·~;-~·~t;~·· " . . a diaB1Cler >{,' ror al ".SI I O' in I.nglh?. ................................ .. . \~;. {!!,t;;'~~!~.~~I,.~~~~:.~ ~:~""'.' ";': .~._. Are Ihc!. areas (vcr.laled or unyegelirl.d) .wilhin lhe w.II";'d Ihal are ponded lor oi 1.a.1 4 inonihs o..i of lhe year. ond lhe: w.lland has nOl qualifi.d as having an open YES 0 YES 0 ,': .~ YES m k YES Ct{ w.ler cia .. in Queslion 4b-.?", .. .-.... .-.... :: .. ;.................................... YES 0 ,.i. Department of" Ecology' Wetland Rating Data Entry Form :.,. Western Washin ton ,-- 4," Conn.cllon 10 Slr.lms. (Seor~ ont.· .ns ... or., onl,.) .. : ...... . , 4g.1. r>;,.,.:'ii.e w;rI;";d Provi~ h~';i;~i"; fish';;; ~~; lime of lhe year Scon: . 4g.2. ~[::ili;·:E~t:~~£rgE~iI::;EillB~J£r~·::: YES 0 6 have a seasonal surface water connection 10 a fish ~3rinl Slream._ YES 0 4,.3. Does lhe wetland function 10 export organic moll.r Ihrough" '.'.-. -'. , • surface waler conneclion It all limes of the year to • perenoi.1 Slr.am ......... :L ..... :._ •... _." .. ; .... : .............. : ............ _ ....... YES 0 4 4&.4. ~;..;, ";",iand func;;o~ 10 ~~~ organic ~~~ Ih;ou~h • surface waler connection 10 • stream on I sc.uonal basi •..• _._ ..• _. YES 0 Sc ....... .w.;;" burr .... on .. I<."'~ I:' ~ .... .".; lon~-iri, lour clCScripoi;;'" . U !he condilion oIlhe burrm do not euclly _reb !he d<scripti<ln. JC'In eilhcr I poinl hiJhu or _ dcpmdinr 011 whether lhe bullers ....... or mon: dc..-. Forest, scrub; "aliveg;:u;iandOi open' ;'~Ier b~ff.~":·:·c~:., are preseni for man: !haD 100· .round 9So;(, or!he " -\';,'" : ~~r1~rmr::·:~1~~ ~:~:-;·~::~'~:.~:;:;f;"~~,.~·~f;:r:· Foreit,' scrub. native gra .. l.nd or open waler burrers wider Ihan 100· lor more than 112 of lhe werl.nd cireumfeience, or a fo ... sl, scrub, grasslands, or open . waler burren ror more Ihan SO· around 9S-" 01 lhe , .. ,,',' .. circumfereDCe. ~_ -f~;.' . :'~~~~i7. ;1.;.:'" .: .• , .... ~!.. -," .:~ .~ .. rL~:~;\·~· ... ..;"~., ;,~,::t;·· , ,:; 'I •.•.• l'.'.':'-' ::!-'': .' Foresl, scrub. nalive gnusl.nd or open waler bulfers .' ";!Icr !han I 00' I", more 1tW. 1/4 of the Weiland ". ' .. , circUmference. or a fores.. sCrub. native grassland. or ." ope~ Waler burrers for more !han SO' for morc lhan 112 or lhe weIland circumfe~nce_ :. . No roads. ~idings or paved areas wilhin 100· or the w.lland for more Ih~n 9S'J. of lhe ... lland circumfer.nce . .~ .. -!-k: .. ,i;.4'_c.;;~"i-",:. "'1i;"~; ., ... <. ..... : •• ~ ... '~._,. ';".~~'·.w. No roads. buiidingi or pDyed ~ wilh;~ 2S· of Ihe :,' "c .. ' • Weiland ra. mo ... Ihan 9S'J. of lhe Weiland 'circUmference;" ,.~. seon: .··'·:.:i,· YES)If J YES 0 1 YES 0 '::.i'! .Ill'" . . .:: ~·r,F-r,':.~·~~~:·~,je;:?-"3~t~~~~):;'~;'~~~~: ;t'~,~~~'i~:i~TI:>'f: .}J(.' YES 0 No roads. buildings. or p.ved are ... wilhin SO-01 !he wetlond '. ",". :, ,'.' lor more Ihan 112 of !he werland cirtumr.~nce. Paved areas. indus.rial ~as Or residential consrruc:tion (wilb Ie .. Ihan SO· beI"i:co houses) are less lhan 25' rrom' !he "elland for mOre Ibn 9S'J. of lhe circumfen:nce of . .~~:.;;: r' the wetland. ""~: .. ;. ~~:. /~ 4i. Connf'clion 10 otht'r habit. I art'as Sc:lecr !he d.scription which beSl malches lhe sile. being evalual.d. -Is lb. weIland connecied 10. or pan of. a riparian conidor 01 Ieasl 100· wide connecling two or more werlands; or. is lhac an upland connection present >100' wide wilh good fereSl or shrub cova (>25-.. cover) connecting il with. Significanl H~bil.1 ,'. Area? 'j-"~"".': _";:·~~j.o,0:-.:!: ~! .. -,I'.:~~'i'~' ,.,-",,:: ' -Is lhe weiland connecled io any olha Habilal A .... wilb tilher . I) • 10reSlcdlshrub corridor <JOe)' wide:; or 2) a corridor lhal -' is > I 00· wide. bUI has • low vegeialive cover less Iban 6 feel in heighl1 .... ,-'. . .. ,. .. ~: '.' .. -.:1: ",':2' .......; !1. ;:;;: ... ·Is !he weIland connecled I';; o'rii;;~"~f, ;. ;;~~';'~c;,njd';; beIWeen SO'· 100' wide wilb scrub-shrub or roresl i:ov~ .. ;,· (. connection 10 other wcllands? -Is 11M: werland .connecled 10 .n, orher H abilal Area wilh nanow corridor «100') of low v.,elation «6· in heighl)? -Is lhe werl:ind and irs burrer (if !he burrer is less !han SO· wide) , compl.ldy isolaled by developmenl (urban. resid.nli.1 ",ilh a densilY g~.lcr Ihan 21.cre. or induSlri.!)? , .. '. .' Daicn b, Scott T. Chit-Pool .. YES 0 0 roD YES 0 ) YES 0 I YES 0 0 C.IC.""m,,: 22 ..... I ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q.I. High Quality Nalaral Wolland i·', ""', "" .".," Ans";'cr Ihis qu~nion if y.;~ h.~~',;dcq~ale ini~'iOn'or • .i~rie~~~i~ dD;O~' If nlll find someone with lhe e~per1ise I~ answer Ihe questions. Then. if the aJUwer 10 ~.'i qucstions I ... Ib and Ie are a!!.!"C>, .eOn!KI the Jl/alura! H"i"'le propam of DNR.i .. 1 L Human caun~~ ~·f~~:~~·i;~~~~~~:·~-.. ~t'~~·:~~?·~:2.~~5'~~~t~t;·.W1::;:·~4::·.J~~-~~:;:~ ~:·::·~.~~ ... r:.:_, Is Ihere silnificanl evidence of Ii~.m.".e.used chillies. 10 lopOl"apJiy or. ,,''-.-hydr~loZy of lhe weIland as indic"ied by. any :of lhe followin& conditions? . ", . COnsIder only ehanles Ihal ""'y have ,aken place iD the lasl S decades.. 1be irripaclS of chanles do ... oarlier hove probably been stabilized and lhe weIland ccos'ystem will be close 10 reachinl some new equili~um thai rn.ay ropre..,DI a high qualily weiland. . I,,'. Upsueam wa:eisi~:g1;:iJj11t~:;Yi;~a;~n{i3~ttt~::70" Q.2 la2. WeIland isdilChCd~rid ";~'Cr nci .. is-nO. ~bSlrUct.d.;.:' 0 V •• : Go 10 Q.2 la). WeIland has been graded, r'lled, Ioned.. ' .. f3. V •• : Go 10 Q.2 I a4. Waler in weIland is conlrolled by dikes. weirs. dC. 0 Vos: Go 10 Q.2 laS. Wetland is &;ii~~~;~~'-S~~~~':~~f;:':(L.~~.:{'f!~:~":"';~!;~~-:" 0 Y~I: Go 10 Q.l la6. Other indicalors ~i'.i;';'~b~~~ iii~1 i;el~!)'tt :,.-,': 0 :V.'(Co 10 Q.2 .... _ .. H::'~' .. !~~~,.;""ft:-':;-:':~,: .. ":'.~ ... :.,;~;~ ": ... .,t,,,.\ '.:-. -:-;;",:':,{"J:d:-:' ;. ,,' l.' """ .. ~,.F~~,o,:GO 10 J~; ~~'.':. 1 :':', 7:~'-"':~~ ;.·~;~,c,;:-:p,"'·.~·;,;;!";;~ii: ~ .. ~.;;"~: •• lb. Ase the", populalions o.f ~ooi:~ati~e p'~n~ '!-!'ich~~~nlly;F 0 YES: go 10 Q.2 . prestnl •. COY?, more Ih~ J0\l; o~ the weiland; and appear 10 bel". '0'" NO: go 10 Ie . Invading nat1vc popu~allo~l? B~cny.~~scn~ any no ... na~v~_·. .' ":-!<.' .~ '",",,;.~ .... ":~~~"i17!'~'1'lt::;:;", Ic. Is Ihere evidence ofhuma';'eaused dislurbanccs which have ':. ,,,' 'O:~t;~~ 10 Q.2 visibly degraded wOler ojualiiY. EvidCnce of lbe' delir.Kialio~· . of waler qualilY include: direcl.(unarealed) runoff from roads 0 NO: Possible Ca •. I or parlUn,'ols; presence:' of historic evidence. of waste' contact DNR dumps; oily sheens; Ihe smell of OIgaruc chemicals; or !iveSlock u"'. Brieny describe: Q.2. Implambl., E<oi~"I~~iF~~~ii';n." Docs lhe Weiland • ha .. alleasl 1/4 ac.re.~f orlanicsoib deeper thaa 16 inches and lhe weiland is relatively' uDdiSIurbed; OR .... ,' .. : ",";' j." ,'.:',.- (If ~ .. swer is NO.~i:~us~lhe>wedand is disllubed'bri.ny deSCribe: ··:,?J1:~~~;1~\·.;i'-':~",,~::.~.\1·f;""··' '\_.';,"":,.' '-.,. IndicBlors of disturbance may include: .Welland has been gndCd. filled,lo&ged; ·Orlanic soib an the surface an: dried-oUI for " ., mOle rh.n h.lfof lhe ~".~,,-,~,">:!"'-,, ". ,,' '.: . WelhUld receive. direct slorm;'ale. runoff from urb::ln or ::IgricuhuraJ areas.); -'i' ~ .' .. , 0" ;J~i'~~~,.- go 10 Q.) o YES gOlo 2a OR • have a forested class lre-ata thall 1 acn:; ~ OR " ,. . • have charolclerislics ~~'~::~~~'arine s;~ie~; OR 1\YES ~~'~,2b o VEsg~'~2c • h.~ eel ,...ss. nO'lin, or non-noaiing kelp beds? o YESzol02d 2a. Bogs and Fons -",. . . Are any of the three following condilions met r~r ·ik·'cirea of organj~ ~oiJ? 2a.1. Art Sphagnum mosses acommon ground cover (>30'il» and the .. :.-cover of invasive species (see Table ) is less Ihan I O'il>? Is the area of spharnuni 'mosses .~d deep organiC soils> lIZ Krc? 0 .. ,"'; area of sph3!n~';inos~; .nd d.q, org'inie ~oiJs 1/4. lIZ acre? 0 i ..... ' .. :. :,~'~"'. , .. , ',.;.. • '''',,;";:,,'' .. ':<".'''' 0 2 .. 2. Is !here an .. ca of organii: .oil which h:j.-an emerge ... ' , .-· . cia.. willi al lea;, one ;Pecics from Tablt 2. 'ond coveT ;'f' inva5ive species is <1011> (see Tablt J)? .. ~ .. !-': .. ' ~ : YES: C:ii~iOry I YES: C~I~&~ry II NO: GO 10 2a.2 , "'-~";' .. ~: ", ;;,: Is the area or heib~cous planls ::lnd ~p organic soils> 112 :Jcre? DYES: C.,egory I Is lhe a;e. of he;b.ceous pl.nlS .nd d~p or~a~lc soils 1/4. 112 acre? B YES: . c.l.gory II NO: GO \0. la.3 Department of Ecology ... Wetland Rating Data Entry Form Western Washin ton', P.uJ'~I.~a~lo 2nd. Edition 2a.). Ii !he vegelation a mi.lUre of only herbaceous planu and Sphagnum moSSes wirh no .crublshrub or foreSled classes? I. the ai'd of herbaceous plants. Sphagnum. and deep OI'gaaic soils> 1n acre? Is !he arca of herbaceous pl""ts. Sphagnum. and deep organic so11l 1/4 -In acre?" . .'" ,--. Q.2b. Maluro forosl.d .. tlland. 1:._ .• ,!.:",.! , 2b.l. Docs SO'il> o.f lhe cover of upper farcsl canopy consisl·· . DYES: C.,cgory I DYES: Calegory 11 o No! CiOio Q.) :., . O~YES: Calegory I NO: GO 10 2b.2 .. :', :;.' ,._ . of evergreen IrteS older than 80 yean or deciduous Utel ,- older Ihan SO years? NOle: 1be siu of !fees is ohen nlll • measure ~f age. and size cannot be used as a sUrTogalc lor age (see luidance) . .-;-.... ~ ,;·,:;:.,r-j,· .'" '·.:'~hilt.;..:: .. ~~:., ... :'.'· .. ,.. .• '.:.: .. r!" .•.. ~ .. 2b.2. DoCs SO'l!.of the cover of fDiesI canopy con.;s! of .... 0 YES: Go II; 2b.) evergreen trees older lhan SO years, A.t:!U ~ is lhe "",clUnl diversilY of lhe fore .. rulh as NO: Go 10 Qj characterized by an sddiliona! layer of trees 20' -49' Iall shrubs 6' • 20' lall, and • herbaceous groundcoyer? '.,,,.' ,,, ", .• 2b.l. J~ <2S~~;r ~~··'~1 cova i~·~:~l:::~;~~!~:~}~~, !~~~:..~~ •.. ;.:.: ~ .. -d." YES": , .. ~~~gory ) herbaceousllrDundcoVCf or the shrub layer coo,isl"o( , '.' Il(r NO: inv~si:eI"olic plant species from thC list on page J 9? I \ Go 10 Q.) Q.2 •• · ESluarino Wellands. 2~.i.· is ~ ;':ellilRd lined as Naliona! Wildlife Refuge_ ., . . :",;;-National Park. Naliona! Esluary Reserve. N.lUr.1 Arco .. \. '." Preserve, Slale Part, or Educalional. EnviroDmenl.1 or ,). ~~i~~lir;c R.~serves designalcd under WAC ))2-)().ISI? DYES: Calegory J o NO: Go 10 2c.2 2<.2. Is lhe weiland >S aetes?....... 0 YES: Carelory J NOle: If an area conlains patches of sah loler-onr vegelalion thai are 1) less lhan 600 fccl .pan and Ihal are separaled by . mudnalS Ihal go dry on • Mean Low TIde. III .. 2) sep~;'ied by lidal chan..:ls Ihal are less lhan . 100 feel wide; all the vegelaled areas are 10 be considered logether ,:,... • '" .!.",."". --,;':. in c~cuJa~in,,}~ W~!~~~ arCL' '~\~.l'~.r.Ar. ... "~~j1 ~:':::,.J:.·iJ: "oJ ,''' •. '.~':=!".\ .~~.;"_;t.::.I .. ~ .or i. Ihe weiland l.f..,;~? ... : ... : ........ _ ............................ _ ... L 0'· VES: GO 10 2<.) . Or)s I~ well!,n.~ <I. ICre? ................................................. ~ ... 0 VES: GO io 2<.4 ic.l: ~~ ~ w~,i;.oo meet II ~, ) of d YES:,Caiegol)' J the following 4 trite-ria. ..•....••.... _ ..•..•.•..••.•••••....••.•.• .. . :',,,,.-1:,,''-''.';,', ".,.". ""., ,.", .. :,.,. 0 NO: Calegaryn -nunlmum eXJSllnz evidence of human ~1.led .. ~~\i ,;,~ '. . dislurbanc., such as diking, dilchin" fillin" euirivai;o .. ',. gruin& or the presenee of nDO-nalive pi ... species (see .• .'> .... ,; .. ,' -::~:::: ::~!i~~':'i:~·t~IJ~~·:.;~,: '" "; .. , or ,tidal fre-mwale,; ~Ti~;t~::.:~~:~-,~!~~~ {~::1[~;:~.~t.~.. .' r~;:?~'~~~,~ . ·al leas! 75.., of the weIland has. 100' buffei' of .,. , .. .-. ', .. . ungrazed paSture. OpeD walei'. shrub ;;, fofeS':.~.~~_, "'I:~"~t~·, ,'. -has al leasl ) of ohc following feaN";: low ';;arsh: hi . manh; tidal channels; laroon(s); wOOdj'debris; or contiguous fresbwIICI' wedand_ -.'.::~~~~: 2c.4. Doe. Ihe wetland meel all of lhe .four cri,tria under~ ~c3. (above)? : ~:~~~ii:~~:~:~~ Q.2d. Ed Gra .. and Krlp Bods. 2d.'. Arc cd grass beds pr ... enl? ........................................... 0 YES: Caltlory I . ~,~ .'. ;, ::".·1'.:; o NO: go 10 2d.2 2d.2. Are there noalinl or ROD·noalinl kelp bed(.) p~senl 0 YES:. CalecOI)' I with I"eal" than SO'il> macro alga! cover iD lhe monlh of AUIUS! or SeplemberL ......... ;;·.!.-.. ;.~ ... :.-.-..... .-.. : ......... 0 NO: CalelDl)' D .... , )a. '.Is the wctland: less.than I acre lIllI hydrologically;.- .. ' lSolaled;wl comprISed of one yelelaled class Ihal is domin.,ed (>8011> arcal cover) by one species from Table 3 (page 19) ... Tablr: 4 (page 20) ·.C 3b. Is lhe weIland: less Ihan Iwo ac~. ";'d, hydrologically isolated with one vegetated clus, and >90'1. of are.al cover is any combination of species from Table 3 (page 19) . 3e. ·Is ~he weiland e:tcavaled from upland and a ~d slTtlJJer Ih;ln I acre withoul a surface W:Jln connection 10 streams, lakes. rivers. or other w~l1::lnd. and h::ls <0.1 acre of vegetation DYEs: Calcgol)' IV (NO: gOl03b o YES; Cale~ory IV ~~O:.~O 10 Jc DYES: Calegory IV ~ NO: go 10 Q.4 Q.4. Significant habitat valor: ~ : :,. Answer all questionS aDd enU:r data ~~~Ied.. 4': Total weiland are. Estimale ~ .. select from,choices given: 4b. We.I""'!. ~Iasses: Ci.de !he we.l""d class .. below .h •• quatify: • Open wa.er: if '.be area or open WI'er is > 114 aue Aqu •• ic Beds: if lhc area or aqualic beds> 114 acre Emergent: ir lhc arc. of en-gen. cia .. is > 114 acre Scrub-Shrub: if lhc arca DC scrub-shnrb class i" > 1/4 .en: Fore.ied: if ar';' of foresled class is > 114 acre ,"" •• ·o ..... '".!!-:-·.~·._;.;. J':;~ '~:j -'; ~';'_"! .' '.'~' Check .he oppropria.e boll for the number of ... ell.nd classe •• <- 4c. Planl species diversilY. -,; ''-'' For each weiland class (al righl) 111.1 qualiflCl in 4b above. coumlhc number or dirr.,.,nl plant, , " species you can lind Ihal cover more Ihan 5110 of lhe ,found. ·f~.T: ',".: ~··'~:"'I'~'~~~::: :~:;/~: ,""-:' You do nOl bove 10 name lhem.'· Cbcd bo.l thai qualifIeS jgg XIlII: >200, fO 6, 40· 199.99 ; , 10:39.99 4 '·9.99 0 ) 1, •. 99 0' 2 0.1:0,99 0, I .. ,<0,1 0, ° 'o(clwcs Scorr ' Oned';' 0 ° Twoc ...... 0 3 "JbroC clWcS 0 Foard..... 0 ~"!d~)( 10 ° . Score by checking boocs al right: ,. .. ' ."" I 0 . ..'( ',: (.~~.,.. "':'., ~ ~!", ,':. :'-""\1"-, 4d. Siruciural Di.orsily .~ .,~ /~~}~tb,,": ~j -t t ) .. ".>4 ~ o I Z ) 0 I If the weiland has • foresled class. add I poinl if e.ch of the foJli>~n&" ::-,': , Scan: classes is present wilhin lhe forested class and is largn &haD ~/4 acre:;i!~,;::'~ 't· : '·.~::::~;;~~~i~~I.;~·;;::::::.·.·~:.·.~~~~~·.~:.~~~·.~~::·.::~~:::::::::::=:~;::~t:::ti~~ .:~ 11 ,-,cahcrbaceo'u~' ',i"rou:nd cover .• ;.::::·~::·;~:= ..••• ~·.~ •••.. ~~: .. & •• :.:.:':&au& •• ~ .•.••• ::"; YEs -~:. " ,-' ~~b;U"bl::~:.~ .............. & ••••••••• & ••••••••••••• u ••• :_ •• _;~~~~'~~'::"~:~~:~_~~' ••• ;:.r. YFJ~ K '; , Also add J poim if there i~ iny ·opeD ';":der" or "aq~~.i~ beer " class immedi.lely nullo the forested area {i.e. Ihcrc is DO.., ' scrublshrub or .mergent vegelalion ~CeD !hem):.::_.:.; •• .:. ... ~:..' 40. Decide from lhc diagrams beiow whelhcr iDlcrspcrsion"" ,,' ' bclwecn .. elland e1asses is high. rnodcraIe.low or none? If you Ibinl< the amounl of in.crsjiersioD falls in belWttU' YES 0 -, ,"Hir' 0 , lhe diagrams scor. accordingly (i.e .• moder.lely high , amounl of inlcrspersion would score .4; while a ",'N" moder"lcly low amounl would scan:. 2):"' ' H:~~;;;;';' )( MooJcrW'O lDwlModcraiO 0 2 Low 0 -0 o --4r. H.b~t.t Futur .. :'. '.~'.: r1(~·~· '. AIii",er queslions below. circle realurn III .. apply. and score to lIIe right: IS ihcr~~~id~~r th~, ~. ~~W~.·:·.::~:~~·: .. ':.' < ,slandin! walcr was caused by be.vers? ............ : ... ,._ .......... _ .... . Is • heron rookery localed wilhin 300·? ...... __ ........................ .. Arc raplor DCStlS Ioc: .. ed willlin 300·? ....................... : ............... . Arc lhere 31 leasl3 Slanding dc.d'tt~ isnap) per acre grealcr Ihan 10" in diam<:ler ii"bi • .,i heighl" (DB H)? ............... : 1\: .. ~;;;;:,.;.: " '. Arc Ihere 31 leasl 3 downed logs per acre wilh • diameler >6" lor al leasl 10' inlenglh? .................................. .. . _. " : ~, "_~::~t"'::'''' , ...... . Are lhere ";:;as ("relaled oi i.riv:gel:iicci) wiihi;;lhe . wel","d Ihal are ponded lor '1 leasl 4 monlbs OUl'o( the . year. and the .. elland has nOl qualified as having an open waler class in Question 4b.?: ............. ; ..................... _ .•........ _ .. . YES 0 YES O' YES,c ,"f-S, )( ~''r(' I YES 0 Department of Ecology Wetland Rating [)at~ Entry Form .< .. , Western Washm ton' foa 'e 2 4,. Connrction 10 SlrramL . (Store one answer ·onl1.) ~ " 4g,I, Docs the weiland ~~id. h.bil .. i';'lish ai .~~ Ii;'" ~(ih~ y~ir ' . Al:iI2 docs it have a perennial SUrflCC wala conneclion to a fisb bealins slream: ..••. · •. ~ .. ; .•.. :.~~:~ .. ;.::.. •••.• ~.~~ ... !.~ .. L ....... ~! .. ~.: ...... & •• :...:.~ YES 0 6' '4g.2. ~ d,i; weiJ~ provi~ fish h~bii~i ~-o~.ji; A.IiQ doe; ~ have a ~easonal surface waltz connection 10 a fish beoving slrearn, .. YES 0 4g.3. Docs the wetland function 10 e.pori Or,a';;c mailer Ihrough' ~7~a~~::~.~;~.~.~~.~~:~.~~:~.~,.~:~.~~ .. I.~ .. ~: ..... : ..... :::.: .. YES ~ 4g.4. Docs the weiland function 10 .. pan organic maner Ihrou,h '-' ," • surface w31cr conneclion to a stream OD I seasonal basis __ •.•.• __ YES 0 2 4h. Bu,!~rs.:" -c' ... -:-.::,,:~~!,:~,:,~!, '/,<;'~~":~rt-~·t;.:. ., .. :~ .. ~·1 .. : : ,~\::'" , Scorr lI>e-nisli". buffers oft • seale of .., ba>ed on lI>e foJtowm. four descriptions. U .... condition of lI>e burr ... do nOI uacdy nIIlCb lI>e doscripIion. ""'" ci ....... panl hi,her Of _ dependinl on whelhe. lI>e bulf ...... ksa Of ""'"' depodN. " Forest, scrub. nalin ,rl."b"iici or op.~ 1,;.ler j,urr~s ' , are F,escnl for more Ihan, 100' around 9S'iI> or !he "':, ',', cir:r:r.1~~:c~I:'::I~~2~;~~;:.:t~~f~·~~~~~},I!:·:,· '. Forest,' scrub. n .. ive ","uland of-operi "'aler burfers .. wida-Ihan 100' for more Ihan 112 DC the well.nd circumference. or • foresl, scrub. ,,,ssbnds, or open waler burren for more Ih.n 50' around 9S'iI> of lhe circumference. :,:,~, ....... , ," :---' ';~ .---.,~'. ,.'i, .'c, ~:::".' .;-..: ::.,,~.:.: ... !.:-;~~i;~,"r;. , Forest, .crub. n.iive ,ra .. land or .;p.;n· ';'aler b~ffcf~ , wider lIIan 100' for more lIIan 114 of the weiland :',>.:: . clrc:umferenc:c, or • fore'i. scrub. aaiive'passbiid:' or open _aler buffers for more lIIan SO' for mOre Ihan ' 112 of Ihi: 'weiland circumfen:nce. ... . ... .j' I .. _.~._,.,_., _ r··· ._.. .... . ... ',. No road •• buildin,. or paved are .. wilhi. 100' of !he weiland for morelllan 9S'iI> of the w.II311d circumference. Scooe YES 0 2 YES 0 No roads, buildin,s or paved ar .... wilhi. 2S: of 1hC}"" .",0-'" : .. wetland for more Iba. 95'i1> of !he wetland circUmference,· , .", " , ' ~:" " : ':"f:.,,'-.;: 'r .~ .,~~~ ~;..:.~~~~:R~(1i~)~!!~;i;~;1i\~-';;fvl~1::· ... ~~ : ... ~ ~. p: No roads. buildin, •• or paved arc .. will';'; 50' or lIIe wedmd ,,>---,';,,"j :"' for more Ihan 112 of !he, wetland circumference; ' .. ~,---.. ' 1.~,.· .;.~.-:..;...,:-.... ~', ... :....\a;.."', .• ".:-"-t~--'::'1 Paved areas. jnm!~rri~'~u or residential·coDsl~cdoD'·· (willi leulll.D SO' belween houses) arc Icss IhaD 2S' from !he weiland for more Ih'en 9SI(. DC the ciri:umfei.:nce DC Ihc "':llanel.', :. '::I,~:;,. "', :':, :.:~:, ' """,> d" -... " , :;' ~ . ~. '. 41. CDnnntion 10 oIhrr habitat aroas .•. !;~ "~" 6.·.· Select Ihc descriptioD ",:hichbeSl rnaich,,! I~ sile bein&.~valual'cI. ·Is !he wetland conned~ci io:« PM or •• ripan~D ~~dor ' .. least 100· wide conneainl two or more wetland.; d'. is lhen: an upland connection j>rcscnl > I 00" wide willi good foresl Or' shnrb COver (>2S'iI> cover) conncetin, il willi 'a Significant Habil" Area? ., .. ~ .. '.tl"_ .:.~";".':~."-\~':~ ·Is the weiland connecled io""y oilier Habilal Area "ilb eilhe, I) • foreSlcdlshrub corridor <J 00' wide, or 2) • corridor lhai ' is > I 00' wide. bUI has • low vegelalive cover less lIIan 6 feet i;, , heighI7" ,,. "" " '.'.-',-', ,1> ~:;' :: .. \:0 " ~ .:.:~~~Y:~:/:. ' ... :·;':'~;J·:~~~·i:::{:J;:,:~~· ·Is !he weiland connecled 10. or • pan of •• riparian corridor ' bclWecn SO' -100' wide willi scrul>-shrub or foresl COVer connection 10 other werlands! '. ·Is !he wedand connccled 10 .ny olhcr Hobilal Area' wili; , nanow corridor «100') of low verelation «6' in heighl)? ":.-": ·Is the wedud iond ils burrer (if Ihc burr':' is less !han 50' wide) , complel"ly isolaled by developmenl (urban, residential wilh a densilY vealer Ihan Vacre. or induslrial)1 ~. :.}' YES 0 ° ,-~~, ProjO<l WOII~~ci Nam. ~1~~.~"~~~~·~v~~v~J~~!~~~~~_~~~~IID£h]f I DuICn by SeDII T. Clay. Poole 7 I .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . Sire lDcalion ovt ~ lDcalion: ~ (. . . or ~ ~ or seclion '. _ Tow~ip"'" Sourcu or Inrormalion: (Chock all sour .. s t .... 1 apply) ':';:.;;;~'. . : Sile Vi.il r;'i USGS Topo Map C!C. NWI Map ~ Aeri.1 PhOIO OJ. Soils Survey B Other Info : .!,:f ;~. : .• :~.: ':::" (, ~::-'~" "'/ .. ~:;., ': -: ~::'-':'.:.:.~:~~':':.:. "-" ,::.-:.:. : When n.c Field Dal. '. Cal. 'or II.-¥-, rorm is compl.1e .nler Cal.co')' J .' '... lL.l..J , .'. Cale,ory h.,e: C:=1' " C~I;~~;:' Iii c:J Cal.cor, IV E:J' Storr o Q.I. High Qualit, Natural Wolland ; ", Answa this question if yo;. have aciequ.i. i.r"';;'alioti '* .'peri.nce 10 dO ~ci .. If not find someone with lbe expertise 10 answer 1M questions. Then. if !he iiUlSWCT 10 ~. '. queslions I .. Ib """ Ie arc all NO, ~ont.cl the Natura! Her!tag. progJam of DNR. IL Human caus~d.' ~~t~~~b~·~~'~~·~"~·\;·: '.~:~--:~~'::~;,~ :~;<?>\ ?~:; :;:~ ~"~' {~'" <: ?~,~': ,::". ;, Is there significanl evidena: of liu~~aus~ c;;';';i~'lot';,p.,~~pi,;';; . hydrololY of the w.tland .. indic.ted by any of the fo/lowing condirions? .- Consider only changes thai may ha.e tak.n plac. in .... lUi 5 deCadci Tbc impaCts of changes done earlier hlv. probably b..,n stabiliz.d and thr: .... tland rcoSysl.in will be clo •• 10 r.aching .ome new .quilibrium thai may represenl a high quality wetland. . '::~I:)~_~~':~,~ .~~~~,~~:: .~~'? ',;~~~:'!~~~/.:\ ~~t:;. ;};~';." ~-A~rs lal. Upm.am watenhr:d >12'J1. impervious. '-i ".::. ..' o· Y~~;"Go 10 Q.1; "2. Wetland is dilchr:d .nd w·at.r flow is Dot obstNcted.', 0 Y .. : Co 10 Q.1· 103. Weiland has been graded.fill.d. logged. H Y .. : Co 10 Q.1· 104. Wattt in "'etland is controlled by dikes. wein. etC. 0 Yes: Co 10 Q.z' laS. W.tland is ,raz.d." .'" .• ' ,! . ."." ,', .. ;,,,,.:.:"":"j 0 Y .. : Co 10 Qj '.' 136. Other indicaton or disnirba~~ oi~;i,;;i~.-.:» 0 Ye': Co 10 Q.1 , ~ '!'. ." ."":. ... -~. ~~,'. • . ",i'hi:-.:'" ~ 1----------------~:..::...~~.-:.rN. c ••• ": ,., ''". lb. Ase then: populations of non·nali.e plants which are e~ntly;." 0 YES Q . . 0" :goI0.2 present. cov.r more than IK or thi:. wciJaiid" and appear io be... NO: go 10 Ic , invadin& native papulalions'!' Brien, ~ejcribC an, no.riarive (t plOUlI popul'lIio~ a~ InfonnalioD SOt.iiCc(I);!.";,_";;::, .. ;.~.;'lt: , .':.i'.".:" :':Ar,.;: :;j~ I ' ." ",' .... ,,~:,:.".':: " ,!.~.~ .. t·;;·;l '~ -.- Ie. Is there e.idenc. of hu"",iI-.aused diSlwbanc.s which have' . "'0; ~ ; visibly deB",ded .. aler qualily: Evidence of the dcBF:idatio~ YES: go to Q.2 of wiler. quality include: direct (unlre.ted) Nnoff from roads 0 NO: Possible Cal. I or parlUnl iOir. presenc~. of hijimic evidence. of wasle contact DNR dumps; oily she.ns; th. smell or OIganic chemicab; or livesloct use. Brieny dc.scriM: Q.2. Irroplaetable. ~iol~ii~~lt~;'~liori~··:.;; Does the "'elland • have at leasl 114 acre or organic soils deeper than 16 inches and Ihr: w.lland is relatively uodisiulbecl; OR . .'. .. . . (If the .... wer is NO becaUse the wetland is dist;"b.d briefly dcsaibe: :~:-' .... ::!;. :},<.~. j.:~< ;",.'. ' Indicators of dislwbance may include: OR • W.tland h .. been graded, fill.d, logged; ·Organic soils on the surface .... dri.d·oul for more th~n half of ~ yeu;.: :.; <" , . ~ Weiland receives direct sl~wala runoff fn:nr~ . urban 01' agricuhural areas.); • have a foresled class '~iltcr than I acre; OR . :'.'::,~.'" ..... • have characlmslics of an esruarine syslem; OR • haV'C eel ,.ass, no~tinl or non-noalin, kelp bed.? . ..t' o (NO 'io 'an; go to Q.3) o YES go to 2a 9( YES go 10 2b o YESgot02c o YESgot02d 2ao Bogs and Fons . . .. , " """ Arc any ohhe three fonowing condilions mel for Ihe are-a 01 organi~ soil? 2 •. 1. Are Sphagnum mosses a common ground cov .. (>30%) and Ihe co.er or invasi ••• pecies (seeTable 3) is less than I()';I,? Is the area of sphagnum moss.s and deep organic .oil' > 112 acr.? Is tt.e ;uea of sphagnum inosses .nd deep ~;ganic ~oils II. -In .cre? • , • '. ." l" : +.: -~ '.: 7 _:. . ;t' ;., 2a.i. Is there an ar.a of organic soil which hiu an .merge ...... : dass with at.lcu.1 one spc'Cics From Table 2. and COYC1 of in.asiv •• peci.s is <l0'ilo (s.., T.bl. 3)? . Js the .rea o~ herbaceous plants 3n~ deC'p organic soils> 1f2 acre? Is the ~r •• of herbaceous plants .nd deep org.nic soils 114.' .~n Icr.1 DYES: c ... i.;;..yl o o YES:. Category " NO: Go 10 2 •. 2 o YES: c~i.gorY I BYES: Cat. gorY " NO: Go 10 2a.J' 2nd. Edition Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Data Entry Western Washin ton Form Publlcatlo '93·74 2L3. Is the vegelation a mi,,,,,.. or only herbaceous plan .. and Sphagnu.m mosses with no scrub/shrub or ro~sled dasses? Is the are. or h.rbaceous plant •. Sphagnum. and d •• p Of gaoi. sui Is > I n aCT.? Is the ., •• or herbaceous plants. Spha,num. and dcq> organic soill 114 • 112 acr.? '.,.' : ,'. Q.2b. Maturo fonsltd ... IIand. '1-: -..: '. -, -:., '~" DYES: Cal.gory I DYES: Cal.gory II o NO: Go 10 Q.3 2b." Does SK of the cover of upper rorest canopy consisl 0 YES: Category I :, of evcrzrecn trees older than 80 years or deciduous _s . .:;;(>ldCr Ihan SO years? NOI.: Tbc ,itt of trees is oft •• nOl~. NO~.~ 10.2b.2 . I measure or age. and size canool be used as I surrogate for age (see luidance).· ~,:' '"::',." , .. ~ i'l 2b.2. Docs SO'JI. of the co.er of fon:sl canopy consi.1 of .verg=n I ...... older Ihan 50 years. Al::!.D is the slNcru ... 1 diversiry of thr: for.st high as o YES; Go io 2b.3 .RNO:. GO to Q.3 characterized by an additional layer or llees 20' • 49' lal~ shrubs 6' -20' Ian. and a herbac.ous gJoundcoverh 2b.3. ~s <2S~ of thea~ co • ., in the '~;:";;i,,; :'. ::;0-.: hr:rbaccouslgroundco •• r or the shrub I~,er ~orisisi of in ... iyclc'OIic plant speci.s rrom the lisl on page 19? DYES: Cat. gory J ~ NO: Go I~ Q.3 Q.2e. Eslu';r;ne Wttlands. 2c.l. Is the w.tland listed as National Wildlife Refuge. ; .. National Par,,-National Estuary R.s.rv •• N.rural Ar.a :: '"< Preservr. SI:nr Park. or Eduealional. Environmental or . Scientific R.serves designated under WAC 332-31).ISI? ; 2c.2. Is the ... tland >5 acr.s?_ ..... ... t:·' Note: Jf an ~a 'contajns pllches of salllolCT;1nr vrreta.ion thai are I) I ... than 600 f .... pan and that are s.parat.d by mudflats th.1 go dry on a M .... Low TIde. lU 2) separat.d by tidal chanocls Ihat arc Ie .. Ihan 100 r ... wid.; an the •• getated areas .... to be considered together ,. DYES: Cat.gory I o NO: Go to 2c.2 DYES: Cal.gory J ~. :: ;~ c~:::~::!~~:~0..:;~:~~~:~:~:~:::;::~:~~:~:~:~~~= 8' ~~~ g: :: ~:! 2c.3. ~ the w.tland meet at leasl 3 of . the following 4 eriteri ...... _ .................... _ ............. . . . . 'y'~' ~·!·i;!.·[.;::--.. " ... ~_ :~.';~';';,' _' . ·nunlmum CX.lSllnC· CVJdence of human relaled· :,.:, disturban .. such as dilin&. ditching. filling. cultivatio .. · .. · graz.in, or the presence of no .... DOti •• plant species (see . guidance for definiti~~):~.'".: ,I ".:;~"" ,,:.,_.~ ·surfac.e water con~iion wilh tidai ~irW3rer~ or .. ~~aJ fre~hwaler.': ::~"":}-: :;:;'r>',:J)/~';:~ .;:~~:~[/ ·alleul 7S'JI. of the ,. .. Iand has .. 100' buffer of unlrazed pasrure. OpeD Wllef • .shrub,.Or:l~f:. ,. : ·has aI.leasl 3 or the rollowing r.~rures: iow marsh; hi", ... marsh; tidal channelS; lagoon(s); woOdydebris: «'"' ,,:"~"" conti guoos. freshw31r:r weiland. ~.: ~f.-~ ~':.~Y";' ~~.~:::·;.:."~ir Q.2d. E.I Crass and K.lp Bods. . 0 YES:. Cat.,ory I o NO: Category D 2d.1. Are eel grass beds pres.nl? .............................. _ ..... : .. _ 0 YES: Caleiory I ..£:\ NO: .10 10 2d.2 0: YES: Category I 2d.2. Are th .. e floarinl or noD·floating kelp bed(s) present with gr.al.r than SO'ilo macn> algal co.er in the month of August or Sepl.mber? ............ :: .. : .... ; .... L .. ; .......... ; ... ~ NO: C~tegory D Q.J. Calr,or, IV .. on:onds. .~ ~; 3a. Is the w.lland: I." than I acre lIIlI hydrologically isolat.d iIlllf comprised of one '.g.tal.d class that is dominat.d (>80'i10 areal co ... ) by one speci •• from Table 3 (page 19) or Table 4 (pag. 20) , 3b. Is the well""d: I." than two acres ';';d. hydrologic.lly i.ol.t.d with one vegelated class. and >9O'iIO of are.,) COVeT is any combination of species from Table 3 (pag. 19) 3c. Is the "'.tland .xcavat.d from upland .nd • ~nd smaJler lhan I acre Wilhoul il surbce WOlIC'r connecrion 10 Slreams. lakes. riven. or Olhc-r wCll:lnd. and ho:as <0. J aC'rr of vrger.uion DYES: Caterory IV 'bI: NO: go to 3b DYES: Cat.gory IV .Qit NO: go 10 Jc DYES: Cat.gory IV ~ NO: go to Q.4 Q.4. Sicnilica;'1 habib I ·v'~lu •• '. . ; " Cba:t boo IN, qual .... Answer all questions and cnt~ da't~ ~~Ied. 4a. TOlal wetland ",ea'" . Esum:Jlc area. select from choices given: 4b. WeIland cla5S<~: Cirtle: II>< well:md classes bolo ... lhal qualify: iIImoI :IDn >2011 0 6, 40. 199.99 0 , 10·39.99 s... '·9.99 0 1' •. 99 0 2 O.I·O·9!/,O 1 <11.1 0 0 • ofcbsxs ' Oncd ... o 0 Open w.'<r. if Ih< are. of open wale is > 114 acre, Aqua,ic Bods: if !he "'a of aquatic bods > 114 acre . ' Emergenl: if !he area of emergenl closs i. > 114 acre Scrub-Shrub: if !he area of scrub-.hrub class is> 114 acre Fores'ed: if arc.. of f ..... ied ciass i. > i/4 ocn:, " ' TwocJlWICI Thrice ...... .Fo..i~~ ttQ, ~ .. Check lhe appropriale b.;If~~·,he ~~;;.l,.. of w~;ia~d classes. A .. d ..... 0 10 4c. Planl specie. diversity. Class .. 'inS:' For each weiland class (at righl) that qualifies iii 4b .bove. counl II>< Dumber of differenl planl . specie'-you can find ,hal cover more !h ... S~ of lbe &found.· '!,..; ._:,: ,,' " _'_j .~~~', - You do not ha"f: 10 name them. :i 1 0 , 0 » 0 ,I 1 .. ' n .. , ~ , ;S'O I Sco..: by:~heckin, bo,es al righl. . . ~ . .' . ~~b"3J i ..... ~ F.......s 4d. SI ructur::al Diversity -,,; 1'," I i o ) .• J?f ~ 0 If lhe weiland has • forcs~d cJasl~ add I pain. if each of'~ r~ilowinl .~'. "'; classes i. present wilhin !he foresled c1as. and i. wger IliaD 1/4 acre:'· "':' ,', ·trces .';;,'( so· '1.11 ...... _ •••••••••••••••• _ ........... _ ••• _ ..... :.:.:: •• ::.L:.';;;:;;:.:. vis 'A9 'Ir~' 20'-• 49' .. II ... _ ............... , .......................... :._.;~ ... :.: •• ::;::'::::" YES ; J2s: -,--hc,"iu~~ous iround tover:: .. ~h ••• :~ ••••• _ •• :..::~ ••••• : •• :~:~.:~: ••••••• :...~._ •• ~.. YES ~ . :~hruj,~:~: •.•••..• _ ................................... ~~ ••.• :~~:.~.~._,.: .•. ~ .. :~ ........ ro, ~' Also acid I poi ... if thore i. any "open wale" 00 ·..j~~tic ~cf' class immedialely next 10 the forested area (i.e. Ibere is nO' scrub/shrub or ernerienl -vrgel.,ion betweeD lhem) ... _ .••... : .... _. 40. Decide rrom lhe dia,rams bolo .. ,.heIhes inlCrspersion" o o , 2 o I o I Z o 1 Score l I I bel.cell wetland. classes is high. rnodenste.. Iow_ or none? If you Ihink II>< amounl of intersper.ion falls in bo,wccn II>< diagrams .core accordingly (i,e, • moderalely high Hirh Scm: i 0 amount of interspersion would Ktft i'~i whilt .'" . mod"~lCly low .moual would scon:. 2).-" '. ' HirJv'M1>ltrW b!C Mo<JerU. 0 LowlModenIe 0 Low 0 None 0 4r. Habilat Foalnr .. "' _ .. :J. .• A;.sw',;,-qu~~ii~ns belo .... circle features that apply. and scon: 10 the righl: • ~ "'. . ,'7.:: '.... ," j";. i'.J --:-": .~ ••. ," "," Is Ih<re evidence !hat II>< open 00;·; '" , siandini waler wu caused by bcavcrs? ..•........ _ ....................... . YES 0 Is a heron rookery localed within 300·, ...................... :: ............ . YES 0 YES K YES f\ Are raplor nesl/. loc.'ed willlin 300·' .....•.... , ........... _ .............. .. Are 'h~;'; al ieasl 3 slandin~ dead ire;;s i.nagsi per acre grealer Ihan J()" in di.mc:lCr at ·brea.\.~eighl" (DBH)1 ............... . YES r( Are 'here al leasl J downed logs per acie wilh a diameler >6" lor ., Ie~sl 10' in leng'h?, .. , .. , ............... , ........... .. " l"~ Are lhere an:~ (vezet.,ed or IIn~~i~laled) wi,hin .he well:md Ihal are ponded lor ., leasl 4 mon!h. oul of lhe ye .... nd lhe weiland has nOl qualified as having aD open wain class in Question 4b.? ............•.•.•......................•..... _ .•.• " YES)( 5 • 0 Sc"" , Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Data Entry .. . Western Washin ton Form 4c-Connrclion to Str~.ms. (S~ore one anlwer onl,.) .. ~:;. .~ 4g,l. Does lhe w .. land provi.k ';abi~al for fish .; any iime of ,he ~ar ~ docs i, have ~ ~~~"!~ .~u~~ ~~1~ co~neclion .~o a 6~b , . 4g.2. i::~~ :::i~:;b~;~ .. ~~~:~~~t~·=:~~;i:~:~·~········ ns. 0 6 bave a seasonal surface walU connection 10 a fish bc.:uina sO"eBm.· •• YES 0 ' 4g.3. Does ,he w .. land functi~'i. 10 upon organic "","cr 'hrough' . .;, ~~:..a:t·~::~:::.~~~;~·~~:~~~· .. ;·1··~·~·:.~·:'·~··~········-........ ns K. 4g,4. Doa lhe welbnd function 10 .. pan organic mane Ihrougb a surface water conr>eC,ion 10 a sllUm 00 I seasonal basi._ ..... __ ns 0 4h. Bu~c.~· ~\-t~· ... t.; .. /:::'···:~l.t·: .. j':~. ··.:r ,~i_> _ ._;; .' _. . Sctft !he uislinJ lNIIors .... ,; Kale of '·S based on !he foRowinr lour dcscripjons. U Ihe eonclilion of "'" bullers cia IlOl eSlclIy malCh Ihe IIcscripIion. >nn .i ..... poinIlUrher or lower d!:pendin, ... whelhcr lhe borren ore .... or mon: d!:pwJcd. Foral, scrub. nalive 'I,:wJa~d or ~p.;n~ai" buffers are presenl foo rnoni dwllOO' around 9S~ of !hi: ,.-':., .": ", YES 0 S cirCU~fj~t<I~~;' ~;~~~!;:::.-:~!:;~(; ./.~,:;~'!~;~::' ," Forol, scrub. nalive grassland 00 open waler buffen wider than 100' ror more Ihan In of lhe "'elland circulnrerence. Or • fore.1, .crub. ,ras.lands,· or OpeD waler buITen for more lhan SO· around 9S~ of 'h< '.: ' ' circumfaence. . Foral, .C'rub. nalive: grassland or open wale buITen: wider th ... 100' for more than 1/4 or ,he ", .. land, circumrerence. or • f ..... ,. scru!>. native grassland. or open waler buffers for more than SO' foo more lhan I n of Ihe "elland circumference. l' ·r ... YES 0 3 No roads. buildings or paved arcas wilhin 100' of the YES 0 well~d ~~ ~r~I~:_~~~ ~.~ I ... :eI~~ c~~~f~~nec. No roads. bu.ikti~i.~ pa~ed ~ '~i{hiti 15-·"0' .hc\:,~~;J,)_:r; :~~ :'-'. . ~\ Weiland for more Ih •• 9S~'of Ihci ..... Iand ciraimfcrenc.;:':---:' ,,',..: .iu' .: . , ~ :~: It:~ :I:',{:,\~;", i;~1'J;:.¥:i~." .:' ~;~._.::-:!~~:\!i~/!~.:r. -... ~~. '!'ES 0 No road •• buildings .... plved ar;;;'.-;;'ithia SO"oflhC ""lmeI ,-"""'.;,, .,.,. for more Ih"" In of !he weiland cireumfeienc;,;--" , .. , PavC'd areas. in~sttiaf ~~ or ;esidcnua! a,oslrUctioii (with less Ih ... SO' belweeD houses) are Ic:ss ihaD 25' from II>< Weiland lor more lha~ ?S~,of 11M; circumference of __ . " . , lbe weiland. '-:-':"";;', ,:;_:~"~ -':·~'--!·i;'. /~'._::! -:',,: ..... ~; .~';';"'. ~. ;~.' 41. Connection 10 otbt'r habitat areas Selecl II>< description which boSI malches lhe site being evalu~icd. I' .' --. . Is II>c: Weiland connecled 10. or pan of. a riparian corridor II leasl 100' wide connecliD, two or more w .. lands; or. is Ihe:n: an irpland connection presenl > I 00' wide wilh good fon:sl or , shrub cover (>25" cover) connecting il wi,h i Significanl Habi'~1 Area? -~ , , • .• ~.:.~: J. _.~..,'. _ ·Is lhe .. elland connec;~d i~.~~ ~ilier i-iabiial Aiea ;"ith eili.cr I) a foreSledishrub corridor <l 00', wide. or 2) a corridor thai i. > 100' wide. bul has a 10 ... vegelative cover less !han 6 feel i. heighl? -' ,"" '~',-. ;'-.. ." " .. :".-..,,: :r>i';; ·,~::/'..:F~·;~~·,.,t·:·:.·r ... ;:;.: • Is II>< "'e ..... d connecled 10. oJ a pari of. a ripari ... corridoo botween SO' • 100' wide with scrub-shrub or forcsl cover , connection 10 Olher' WC1iands? ·Is II>< we .. and connecled 10 .ny other Habii., ATe~ ';'ilh narrow corridor «lOll') of low vegetatioD «6' .in heighl)? , .Js lhe we":md and ils bulTer (if !he ~rrer is .. s~ than SO' wide) compl .. ely isolaled by developmeDI (urb .... residenlial wi 'h a ' densilY gre~'er 'haD. 2Jacre. or induslrial)? YES 0 0 YES 0 0 Co"'r"" 111<22 ..... .~~I'IS~~~ Projoc. Woll~;'d Namo 1~~~·~~k-~-o-d-~-4-~J-~-A-~-e-~-5~-~~I[~J~ Des.en bJ Scott T. Cbl-Pook I , I I I I I ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I Na~, orR'I~If~4tqJ:v~ . ~edu0 Coun~. U'h) Department of Ecology. prOJeCINameT~~~'ev'l..!CJ:z:bt<:.h.:SI""'J. Wetland Rating Data Entry Form 'WcliandN.:...el? \\ ------"":'1 2nd. Edition Western Washin ton P,u9b31~C7a4t10 ~~ ivv~Je~r~\~c~~~jt~~~iU£e==~~~~~~~igV-tz];~~:: t .... -~·-~·--.... -.... -~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~ Localion p 2a.3. Ii lhe vegelaLion a mi"ure or only herbaceous pl",,1S and Loc:ll~on: .MJrL 4-of ~ ~ of ~1ion Sph~gnum mosses with no scrub/shrub or foresled classes? Sourr .. or Inrormalion: (Ch~rk 311 ~~ur~~ei ·ih~i ;pply) .. ' ,,'" ':'" I~ ~he uea or herbaceous planls. Sphognu;"'-and deep I;t . s ' . . . ' organic soils> In acre? DYES: Calegory I SileOVthiserilln'o USGST"r't-.1." .. ,. N~~~p'~ 1eri~!PholC;>Ilil'S.0!lsSurvry ~, r L_ rh-'-I S L_ • S b", .rel.o ""uaceous pants. p ... gnum, and dttp organIc SOIl& 1/4 -In acre? .... .., .... " .... ' , ., -,. DYES: Calegory" o NO: Go io Q.3 When n;. Fio1d Dall . Calr or ",1">7"1 rorm is complele enler Calegory I, . !. y ,~ , Calegory hcre,CJC3lrgory III c::J Q.I. High Quolil' Nalural WcI13nd·· Answer Ihis quesrion if you h3.e·aclequa;. infoimi.li.;,;·t,;·~.";ri.nc'lo do"~o:' Irn~ , find someone with lhe e"pcni~ 10 answer lhe questions. Then. if lhc answer Ut:;. ';' queslions Ia. Ib and I~.are ~I NO, conlaclthe N.lunl Herillge program of DNR. , .. lL Human cauSI'd ciis.urb~';~~;;T ~~~\.;~~\: ',:: /~:".':',-. ',,~.; "~;~~~~. ","; ~ :.'-: "'; t. Is there significanl evid.nce of~um~caused dw.ge.;o lo~g;.;,i.y·or '. hydrology or lhe weiland as indicaled by any of lhe followin, cODditions? . Consider only changes Ihal may have lake;' place in ihc: lui S dec!>"es. 11Ic'imp.;[u or changes done earlier have probably been stabilized and lhe weiland ccosysiem io;n be close 10 reaching some new equilibrium thaI may r~prescnl. high qualilY w.tland. , ~ '~! . .,j k::':.::'" :~~'.:-_ ':";·<'·:,t:~ .:,;". " .' ," ',:,:,::h" ", "~i" ,_ '.;' .. ;. -, f, .:}: 1" '. -, ".' • ;;~ ~~ ~nswrrs ; hI. Upsucam walershed>12-. impervious. .. 0 Y .. : Go 10 Q.l I a2. Weiland is dilched and Wiler now ii nOl obstrucled. 0 Yes: Go 10 Q.2 I oJ. Weiland has been graded. filled, logged. ~ Y~I: Go 10 Q.l ' ~~.'(\ltA ...... ~1.4. Waler in weiland is conlrolled by dikes, weirs. ClC. ~yu: Go 10 Q.l 105. Weiland is grazefl.'· :~.""-:,~:",;' :"',',t:":.'. ':' "j. ,':;. 0 V .. : Go 10 Q-i' i.6. Other indica.ors 'of dij"irbance (iisl below) , ' 0 V •• : CO 10 Q.2 , ".: ." .,! ~ .! r,'", • I-----------,-----·-···-----IF' No: Go 10 lb. • ~ , i. lb. Ne there populalions or non·native plants which an: currenlly.,· prescnl, cover more Ihan 10li or the .welland, and apPcar 10 be" inv:Kfjng nalive populations? Brieny describe any non.narive plan. populalions a~ Info...mati~~ ~~ce~~~-.~+~?,:;~~ ~", :+tr' I Ic. ~Is-I-h-e-re-e-v-:-ide.,-n-c-e-o-:-f:-h-uma-'--n.,..' c-a-uscd--:-cJj-'-,,-u-rb-ance--,-w-'-hi-ch-'h-.-veJ · visibly degraded ""Iei qu.liIY. Evidence of lhe degradalion of ,waler qUllilY include: direcl (unlre.led) runoff rrom roads or parkins lOIS; presence. of historic evidence. of waSle dumps: oily sheens; Ihe smell of organic chemicals; Of liveSiock u,e. Brieny describe: Q.2. Irreplacc3bl. Eeologl~al Fundions Does lhe WClI""d • have at leasl 1/4 acre of organic soils deeper than 16 inches and lhe weiland is rellllively undisturbed; OR (If the ansWCf i. NO because the w,Clland is disiurbed brieny describe: :h~.~ :::~;,.~ , .., Indicalors of disturbanc. may include: OR • Weiland has been graded. filled. 10Ued; ·Organic soils on the surf.ce are drird-our rOf more than half of IIMi yeu: ' '., " -Well~ receives direc; stormwalo ~nofr from' Urbilft or agricultural iU'cas.r. . • have a foreslcd c1as.s gre.uef than I acre; OR,.,., .. • have charac1eristics of an estuarine system; OR • have eel gr .... nO.ling or non·noaling krlp beds? o YES: go 10 Q.2 o NO: go'o Ie " '.' O. YES:.go 10 Q.2 o NO:PoSlible Ca.'. I conlacl DNR o (NO 10 all; go 10 Q.3) o YES go 102a (YES go 10 2b o YES g~;~2c o YESgol02d 2a. Bogs and Fens .' " ' . Arc any of lhe three foUowing conditions ~l for (he arn o(organic soil'! 2a. J. Arc Sphagnum mosses a common ,round cover (>30%) and Ihe cover of inv.sive species (sec Table 3) is Je .. Ihan 10$~ J~ the area of sphagnum mossc~ and deep organic soils> 112 acre? 0 Is I"'; area of ,phagnum'mosses and cieep organic 'oils 114 • 112 .cre? 0 2,,-2. Is lhere anarea of orga~ic soii which has an emergenl class with al leas. one species from Table 2. and COVeT of invosive 'pecics is <10% (sec Table 3)? o Is lhe arca of herbaceous plan .. and d=p or!""ic ,oils> In acre? 0 Is lhe area of herbaceous plants .nd deep org.nic soils 114· 112 acre? B YES: C~le~;;'y J YES: Ca;~g';y II NO: Go 10 2 •. 2 YES: Calegory I YES: C'I~go.y II NO: Go 10 20.3 Q,2b. M31urt fo,resled .. eI13nd. 2b.l. Does ~ of the cover of upper r;"'csi canopy'consi" 0 YES: Category I " of evergreen trtts older than 80 years or deciduous tree. ' . older Ihan 50 years? Nole: The size or trees is ofte. not 'JB--NO: Go,,? 2b.2 a measure of aBe. and size cannol be 'used as a sunogale for ' ",' ' ... age (see !uidance).' .... ' ... ", ,'l\:;'-' ''-.~.> .' , -;., "., 2b.2.. ~s SO,", of the cover or fore" canopy corisist of evergnen trees older Ihan SO years, AliI2 is lhe SlTUcrural diversily of lhe roreSl high as characlerized by an Iddilionallaycr of uees 20' -49' I.I~ shrub. 6' • 20' laII, aDd a herbac.ous groundeover? 2b.i DOes <25$;;'f ih;;~iul coves i~'~;'~'.::'::. .' herbaceous/groundeover or the shiub lIyer con',ist of inv~iYelexolic plan. species from the list on page 191 Q.20. ESlua·rin. Wellands. 2c. I: Is the well~d iiSied IS Nalional Wildlife Refuge •. , . . , ",;, NaLional Park, Nllion~ Esluary Reserve, N.rural Are. ,",. Prescrve~ Siale Park. or Educalion:lf, Environmenlal or Scienlific Reserves designaled under WAC 332-JO-I5J? 2c.2. Is lhe weiland >S acres? ...... . NOle: Jl an 'aiea conlains paldles of salt tolerant "cgelalion that are I) less than 600 feCI apart and Ih.1 are.separaled by mudl1al~ Ihal go dry on I Mean low TIde, .ill 2) separaltd by tidal chanoels Ihal are less Ih:m 100 feel wide; . all the vegelaled areas .re 10 be con,idered logether" in caJcul~~~n&,~, welhin~lI'Q. ~· .. "..tl -.'.:'~"" :,:,.4'.>:'.~;'~;.· : o YES: Go 10 2b.3 ~ NO: Go '0 Q.3 DYES: Cale,ory I a.NO: Go 10 Q.3 DYES: Calegory I o NO: GOlok2 DYES: Calegory I or is Ihe weiland I·S acr .. ? .... _ ........ _ ................ _ •.•... _ ....... _ 0 YES: Go 10 2c.3 YES: Go 10 2c.4 or, is .he weiland <I .cre? ...... _ .......... __ ........................ ___ 0 2c.3. Does the weiland meei al leasl 3 or Ihe following 4 cril.ria .•.................. _ ...•................. ". ' . • minimum existi~l-cvi~~ce ofh~~n rci~lcd . .',~. disturbance such as di~ng, dilchin&. fillinl, cultivaLion, grazing or lhe presenee of no.·D.li •• planl species (sec: -::::::~er ::~'1:D~ ;~;~"~'~;"~~;.r· , or tidal freshwater; ... :~.": :'/11,'; '. '.M, ... . . ,a;kast 75-' of lb. ';~~\;;';J;;;;'~'jbO~ ~fi~ ~t ung"",ed purure. OpeD waler. shrub or forrst;, ·has at leasl 3 of lhe followin, re.hIreS: low. marsh; high marsh; Iidal ch3nnels; I.goon(s); "'oody debris; or :0,"",; contiguous freshwater wedand. "7 ~.~.~~~~ • ,.,:' •••• , •• .;.,. 2cA. Does Ihe wetland meel all of lhe rour aileril under,2c3. (aboven ,>,:.,,;, ;.-, .:; Q.2d. Ed Gnss and Kelp Beds. DYES: Calc gory I o NO: Calegory JJ 2d. J. Are eel grass beds presenl~ ........................................... 0 YES: Calegory I o NO: go 10 2d,2 2d.2. Are there noaring or nOD·no.ling kelp bed(s) prescnl 0 YES: Calegory I with gre.ler than SOli macro algal cover iD lhe monlh of Augu" or Seplember? .......... : .............. : .... ;;;: ........... 0 NO: Calegory D Q.3. ,Calegory IV .. e"ands. 3a. . Is the weiland: less Ihan I acre lIllI hydrologically, . lSolaled iIIllI comprised of one vegelaled class Ihal is dominaled (>80~ a",al COVCl) by one 'pecies rrom Tobie 3 (page 19) or Table 4 (pag. 20) 3b. Is lhe weiland: less Ihan Iwo acres and. hydrologically isolaled with one vegnaled class, and >9O'ii of areal cover is any combiIl3tion of species from Table 3 (page 19) 3c. Is lhe weiland excavaled rrom upland and a pond . smaller than I acre wilhoul a surbce W:Ucr connccl;on to streams, lakes. rivers, or olhn ..... elland. and has <0.1 acre of Vt8cl;Il;on DYES: Calegory IV Ci(. NO: go 10 3b DYES: Calegory IV !iCl NO: go 10 Jc DYES: Calegory IV g( NO: go 10 Q.4 Q.4. Significant .habibt Yalu~. Check boa """ qual .... Answer all queslions ~ cnler data requesled. 4L TOI.I weIland ~a I!Jg = Estimale :atca. select (rom choices given: 4b. Weiland classes: Cin:1e the weIland classes below lhal qualify: ~n waler: if lhe area of open waler is > 114 acre Aqualic Beds: if !he aru of >quauc beds > 1/4 >en: £mcrgenl: if !he arca of emergenl class is > 114 acre XscNb-Shrub: if !he arc. of sCNb-sluub class is > 1/4 acre 7t"ForeSled: if are. of f""'-'Icd class i. > 1/4 .ae Check lhe appropriaie bOx for lhe: ;";ir\b;"of :"clia~d cI ...... 40. Planl species divnsilY. >200 40· 199.99 10· 39.99 '·9.99 1·4.99 0.1· 0.99 <0.1 • ofcJaucs o..cI';:' Twoclassa l10reeclasscs hur'i~ fi¥eciuscs o f o o o o {} o o o ) 10 CIus . ;iPeaca iDdaa' . ""'e For each wetland class (.1 righ.) that qualiroc:s in 4b above. count the number of differenl planl species you can find Iha. cover mo.n: .han 51), of lhe: ,round .... " ... " .;. ,r ,! •. _." You do not """" 10 name .hem. . . Score by checking box .. a. ri~~.~ AquaUcBcd Emcr,..,r . ' .; Saub-Sbrub FOfCS1rd ,. I ~,; 2 ).,' >i I 2·] 4.' >S I 2 ).4 >4 I j ).4 ..• >4 4d. Struc.ural Diy.rsi'J '·'i.'.;"· , . . ' .' If lhe wel1and hu • forestcd class. add I poinl if each of the lonowin, .: !:. classes is present within the fornled class .nd is larger than 114 acre:-·· ·"ee. > SO· •• 11 ................ _ ...... _ .................... _ •••••• .:. •• _.L: .. ,_ •••• ; •• •· YES ·"ee. 20· • 49· 1.11._ ............................................................ , .• ;.~;.. YES -hctbaccous Ifound covcr .•...•.....•..••..... : ......... : ........•. _ .•..... _........ Y'ES .shr·ubi~ ..................................................................... ::_ •.. __ .•. _.. YES Also add I point if Ihc:n: is any -open W.,co" 00--aquauc i>cer class immediale!), no' 10 lhe roresled area (i.e. then: is no scrub/shrub or emergent v.,elalioo between them)~._ ... : ..•. _ .. YES <k. Decide from .he dia,r.ms below whe:ther inlenpc:rsion ' .. Hi,b between weIland classes is high. moderate. low or none? If you Ihink the: amount of inlcrspc1sion falls iD bctwccri the: diagrams score aceordingly (i.e. a moder-lldy high arnoum or intcnpcrsion would sCoR • 4, while • modOfalely low amount would . _. 2).' H;rhIM~. Mooi.: .... Low/Mocknlc Low None ---.... 4r. Habitat F.,'uru Answer queslions below. circle fe.turn th •• apply. and score 10 the righl: Is lhere evidence th~. d;;; ;;;;.,;.; ;' .' . standing waler was c.used by be.",,1S~ .............. _ ..• _ ........ _ ....... . YES Is • heron rookery loc"ed wilhin 300·7 ................................... .. YES Ar. "'plor nestls loealed within 300·1.. ....................... _ ...... _ .... . YES Arc lhere al leas. 3 standing dead i.eeo Is"'gs) per arie gre.,er Ihan 10" in diameler.," "bieas. heigh'-. (D8H)? .............. . YES Are Ihe", al I. a" 3 downed lo,s per IC", wilh a di.meler >1,' for a. Ie",. 10' in lenrlh? .................................. .. YES Are lhere ~ .. (.egel.,ed or ~n~~g".'.d) ;"i,hlit Ihci· w.,land Ihal arc ponded foo-.i Ie ... 4 monllli oul of lhe y ..... nd lhe: wellandhas nOl qu.lified as h.ving an open waler class in Qucslion 4b.? ................................................... .. YES 0 0 I 0 2 0 ) 0 0 0 I 0 2 0 ) 0 &-I 2 0 ) 0 ~ I 2 0 ) Scan: Sc1>n: 0 , 0 )( 0 0 0 0 Scan: 0 0 K1: ~ 3( 0 ... Department of Ecology We~land Rating Dat~ Entry Form ":' ; Western Wash," ton Pa e 2 4~ Connf'ction 10 Str~.ms.· (Sc"re one' linlwtr onI7.) 4g. I. Docs ~ ~;;'I~nd provi~'b~bil~ r"; fish ~ .ny .ime of Ih. year ~ dOcs it have ~ pcr:~?~~ .. ~urf~ ~.~tcr tO~~I~on to I ~~b beanns strcam ....• ; •••••. ; ••• · .......................................................... YES 0 f> 4g.2. Dots tk ';"e";;.id p~vi.kfish iI~bi~~isc,.;on.liyAl:m d';'. i. have a Kasonal surface watu connection to a fish bc:mng str~m._ YES·O • 4&.3. Docs the wetland funcuon io e,pan organic "",IIOf .hrough . I surface Waler connection at aU limes of the yex to I . perennill stre.m ................... : ........... _ ........................... _ .. : ..... _ YES 0 4 4g.4. Docs lhe weIland funcuon 10 export organic mailer .hrougb • surface water CODnection 10 a stream on • seasonal basis __ ....... _. YES 0 4h. Burrers. Sa>rc the ellistin, bulTcn OIl I saioi 011·' ba>od "" the loDGWin, lour dtst-riJ>U-. U !he con!filion of the bulTen do _ ... clly .... "'b the ckxripti .... x-on: ci"'" I point hi,her ",10_ Ikpcndin& on whether the bullers ......... ...". do:,n4ed. Foresl. scrub • .iati~e ,rassland ;,. open waler burre .. arc preseni for more th:tll 100· .round 95')(, of !he ' . circu~~~~~~~~_:'-<~" ' .. "t.~ ~,::.~Tl .. ". f. '. "'~ '. ' .. ,.': ," • Fo~~~ sciui.:' n~live . ~sJa';" or open w~ler··bvrr~s Wida than 100· for more Ihan 112 of lhe weI lind circumference, or • fon:sl, sCNb, ".sslands. or open .. ala burre .. for more Ihan SO· around 95 ... of lhe . circumfa-ence . Foresl. scrub. Dalive: &Dssland 00-open walco burre .. widc:r thlD 100' foo-more .han 1/4 of the .. etland circumrerence. or • forcst. sCrub. Dabve pi.ssland~ or open waler burren for more than SO· for mon: lhan In of Ibe w .. land circumren:n ... r No roads. b~i1ding. or paved ...,as wilhin 100· of the·· weIland foo-more Ihon 9S')(, of lhe weIland circumference. , ,-'-'-; No roads. building. or poycd areas within 2S· of lhe' wedand for more .han 9S')(, of the: wetland circumference. jU ':·{~:;!i·'~·';;.; ;.:i-. ; .• ;' ·i~ :_"'I.<2~ ":'.::' :'~. ,:' No roads. buildings. 00-paved arc .. within SlY of the we.land ror more Ihan 112 of the wetland circumre",nce. . Paved areas, industria! areas « residential CODSuuction (with Ie" thaD SO' between houses) an: les. lhan 25· from the: weIland for more: .han 95"-' of I!", cin:umfe",nce of .. .. the: wetland. 41. Conn~C'tion to olh~r habilat IIIn:ll Selcc. !he description vo;hich besl malches lhe sile being evalu.,.d. -Is the .... land connccied .u.oo-part of. a riparian corridor II least 100· wide eonnc:ct.in& '''0 or more wetlands; or. is lhere an upland connection presenl > I 00· wide wi.h good fattS' or shrub covco (>25 ... cover) connecung i. wilh a Significant H.bitat Are.? .Js !he wetland connecieci '0 any othc:r·H;;bi, .. A",l ;;;ith eilher I) • forestcdlshrub corridor <JOO· wide, 00-2) a corridor thaI is >100' wide. bUI has a low vege.auve cover less lItan 6 feet i. bcighr? .Js !he weIland coonccled 10. or it pari of. I riparia~ corridor belWeen SO' • 100· ",ide: wilb scrub-shrub or fO"'51 cover COMccbon 10 other wetlands? ·Is!he ",e.land connec.ed 10 .ny other Habi.al Area wilh nurow corridor «100') of low Verel.UOO «6· in b.irbl)~ ·Is !he "'e.l""d and ilS burrer (if the: buffer is less Ihan SO' wide) complelely isol'led by developmen. (urb .... residenti.1 wilh • densi.y grealco Ihan 2Iacre. or induSlri.I)? Score YES 0 ) YES 02 YES 0 YES 0 0 YES G ,. YES 0 ) YES 0 YES 0 0 CllC,ory 11\ < 22 pIS. Not.. \ J C"',ory II ~ 22 pu. '-\d.~-tL~\UA:'?Sf-~.~.~._._._ ...;..i..j..; rMl ~"':: ....... :t+-'Iqq.. .. -._-':!~_~e"'._..;~:.(!.JQ"._=::_.!._-'_ .... {'-'_~~~LI~_ . .rL ___ ._. ___ . __ . ______ :.:::: I:: ~ _ T;I.: Sco,. QQJ ProIret W •• llnd Name I ~~4-r-~o"'\~V,,-yJ F,A-\eh.sio..,11 :)...1-\-\ Dtslll~:a bJ Scott T. Cla1'POo~ I I 1 I I I 1 I I I. I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I· I I I I Name 01 R.ler t..1ltrcf&v s-?h . .~. ,i.1 k County ~ 1.1 J ProjetlName S'\'vt:.\.",di.r f,Oy'€.vci"'~~S\bn Weiland Name J..]=X·· .), G';~'1. jurisdicli~~ ~I Weliand: 'R e '" -ro "'1 Department of Ecology , Wetland Rating Data Entry Form Western Washington p.uJ'~~~a~lo 'si~ '.: .. ~.~' -.. ' .. ~. -_~ .... r:' ~:;:.<~~ , Localion fi ..... ct \0 S \ eM .. f' $\.0;;} 2..3 --. Si'fee.--"F 2a.3. Is lhe v.ielation I mi'-ur. of only herbaceous plants and Loc.rion: ~ ~ of...1::tN *-01 se<:liO~ To:",nshi,p-?:3,rJ Range 5'G;. Sphagnum mosses wilh no "rub/sh,1Ib or fon:Slcd classes? Soure .. ~f Inform.lion: (Ch«k .11 sour'es'tli"I 'ipply) ... ,.,.,., ;~"'.: Is lhe ar •• of herbaceous plants, Sphagnum.'and deep Vi · ra ~. ro' . ", . [;t'\ organic soils> In acre? 2nd. Edillon DyES: Cat.gory I Sile 1511 ICS.. U~G~ To~ Ma~."':.."1~. t-:bp ~ '. ~ai.! Ph~~~ @,...S~i~' Su",.y '-'<\. O"'er Info . ,,' ,." .,-"., , ." ;.' .... .... .. . .' Is !he ar .. oIhabaceous plants, Sph.gnum. and deep DyES: Cal.gory II "';""n The ·Fi.ld DB,. . Category II CJ ~I-r-:-' .,.-:::--::-_or-:8:-:an:-:-ic_s_O_il:-'_'I_/4_. -:112_a_cr-: • ..,;?_,.:-' . __ ,_ ... _.; _. _. _'_" ._ ... _,_,_._. ___ .:::D::....:..:N::.O:,::_G:o:· :;0:..:Q::..:::3_ fonniscompl.",.mer Cate,ory,,, '>"'~.,.' ,. ~ .. ~~tc,ory ~,v.' , 1 r' Q.2b. Matur. foreSled ,..t1and. C."'gory here: c::J «;at.,ory III l..,AJ c:::J .. ,. Score 10 ,. ..' , 2b.l. Does SO'l. of the cover of upper forest canopy consist D YES: Calcgory I NO: Go 10 2b.2 Q.J. High Qu.lity Nat .. ral Wetland. , .•. '> of .vergreen trees old.r Iban 80 yean or deciduous tree. Answer Ihis qu."ion ify",,' hive .• "",,ual. information'';;: •• pcTience 10 do' so .. If not older IhlD SO years7 Not.: The size of liees is ofl.' nOt D find someone with lhe expc:r1ise 10 answer ,he qu"estions. Then. iflhe 3nswC'f tD~~;: a measure of aBe. and size cannot be used as i sunogale lor que .. ions I .. Ib and Ic aCe all NO, conl.tI !he Nalunl Herilag. program oC DNR. age (see guidance)., . ",,' ·', .. ·'v ".,1'"'" ' .. '. . -: .. '" .. L. 1 .. Human ("dS~d" Jisi~u~ba·~~;i~>;.';?·~\:·.:" :1;;:~:~·)··: :~·:':L~\;~"~~>~\~,~:: ~ ~;:: .. :,'; ;;,. ,::; ,:-': Is "'ere significanl evidence oC Jjunion-aused chanies.~ l.,popaPhi r:ti hydrololY of lhe w.lland as indic.,ed by ""y oflhe following condilion.?· . Considtr only chang •• Ihal may have .ake. plaC. in IhC la .. S dccad.i. The iinp.c1S of changes done .arlier have probably been Slabilized and .he wClland ttosy".m will be close 10 r.aching some n.w .quilibrium thaI may rq>resen. a high quali.y w.,land. ,-:'.:::' ',~ ...... ~ -, ~I. ',' ~ ~:..I".,~~. '-"":~:,~ :,~.:."" ChC:ctAnswcB "'"":::';-" .:., ~~, '~,.,! ~:··Ic.'." ; .. ..,'. : •. " 1.1. Upsu.am w.,ashed >12'il> impen-io.... . .. ,.. 0 Y .. : Go 10 Q.1 la2. W.,land is di.ched .nclw'aiu now is nOl obSiruct.d. 0 Y •• : GO.IO Q.1 -103. W.tland has been gnded,'i'illcd.lo&g.d. ~ V .. : Go 10 Q.1 I a4. Waler in weiland i. conlroll.d by dikes. w.irs, ClC. 0 Y H: Go 10 Q.l laS. W.,land is gra •• d.'.'·:"·;"" . "c].' . tl:.::' ;.'. 0 Y .. : Go 10 Q.l 1a6. Oilier indic.,ors 'oC d;sh .. ban~ iii .. beio;')J 0 Yes: Go to Q.l . , . '. '·l .. ~. ". ' I----------------'~ .. ''-. -~~t~r. c ..... •. :':; . ,~:"Jt'i..r,.~, .' ..... ,.:..; ." (. ' .. ,." • lb. AIe then: populo lions of non·n.live planlS which arc currently presenl, cover more I~",! !0'iI0 of !he. w;'lland. and appear to be i~';:tdin& nathre popul~lio~? Bri~f1y deScribe any noD:"na~vc plam populatio~ II~ ~ro~,j~ ~Our~~I):,~~"~:\ .. ~~.;: .. !,., -:''';;;'' 11--. -----'--~:, -------II' I c. Is Ihen: .vidence of buman-caused diSlurbancn which have visibly d.gr.d.d WOler qualily: Evi"'nce of lhe degiadalion of waler qualilY include: din:cl (un,rc.,ed) runoff from roads or parkinl Jots; Presence. of hisu)f'ie evidence, 01 wasie dump.; oily she.ns; Ih. smell of Ofg.niC chemic.ls; or liv.nock use. Brieny describe: , :~ '.' 1 I' Q.2. Irreplaceable .. Ecoi~'.i .. 1 Fu'nction~' Does lhe wetl.nd • have at I.asl 1/4 acn: of organic soils deepn Ihan 16 inches and lhe w.lland is n:lalively uncliSlurbed; OR .' (If !he answ.r is NO beca .... Ihc wetland is diSlurbed bri.ny describe:' :".,{~>~: .. ' .' .;<.}' ·~~ . .:!1!,,·>··;::.':·· Indiealors oC diSlurbance may include: OR .Welland has been graded, fill.d,loU.d; ·Org.nic soil. on !he .urface an: dr~·oul for more Ib.n h.lf of the year. ......... ~ . . ...... .. • Wet1:and receives dirrd siormwalel' runoff frOm- urb.m or apicullural ucas.); D"YES: gOlD Q.2 D. NO: gOlD Ic ,:.' byES: go to Q.2 o NO: Possible cai. J conlact DNR ':;" .... . : ~ ; ,rt(NO ;~~I( go to Q.3) o YES gala 2a • have a fortSl.d class gn:.ta Ihan I atn:;. 0 YES go 10 2b OR ....... .'. • have char.aClcrislics or an csruanne system; 0 YES go I~ 2c OR • have eel gr.ss, no.ting or non-noaling k.lp beds? D YES go to 2d ·la. 80cs and Ftns , .. '.' ,.;.., . ,'. . . Art any of ,he three folJowing conditions met rOJ the Mea ~f o~ganic soii"i 2a.l. Are Sphagnum mosses a common ground cov .. (>3011» and Ih. . cover of invasive. ,!'Cciti (s~ Table 3) is less than 101l>? Is the area of 5pha!nu~ mosses and deep or!anic soib > In acre? 0 Is th. area oC sph.gnu~ mossc. and deep organic soils 1/4 . 112 acrc' D D 2a.2. h!hen: an ar.a of ';;'&~riic 's~ii which bos an emergen. .. class wilh as 1 ... 1 one species fmm Table 2. and cava of invasi,:,. 'peci •• is < 10'il> (see Tabl. 3)? . Is .he ar.a of herbaceous pl.nlS and deep org~nic soils> 112 >cr.? D Is lhe;"ea oC h.rb .. cous pl.nlS .nd deq> organic soils 114 • 112 acn:? 8 YES: C.tegory I YES: C.,egory" NO: Go 10 2a.2 YES: Cal. gory I YES: c ••• gorY II NO: Go '020.3 2b.2. Does SO'JI. of Ibe cover oC fon:sl canop, consi .. of .vergreen uees older Ihan 50 year., t.l:!I2 i. the snucrural div.rsilY of .he fores. hi,h as chilRcl.riz.d by an >ddilion'" layer of trees 20' • 49' lall shrub. 6' • 20'Iall, and a herb.c.'!", poundcovcr? 2b.3. Does <2S~ ~f i~ ~ieal cover in !he '''', ;;;"'. . hest>aceouslgroundcover or lb. shrub' iaye. corhisi of' invlSive/cxolic plant species from lhe Jist on page 19? Q.2.. Estu~rin. Wetlands. 2c.l. Is the w.,land liSlcd as Nalional Wildlife R.fug... .. National Park. Naliona! EslUary R.serve, N.ruul Arel Preserve. Siale Park, or Educalional. Environmental Of Sci.ntilic R.serv.s desigDaled uDder WAC 332.30-ISIl 2c.2. Is lhe w.lland >S acr.s7 ....... Not.: If .D ",e. CODlains patches of s.1I lol ... nl vt!clalion thai are I) less Ih.n 600 feCI .pan and Ihal are s.paraled by mudnalS Ihal go dry on I M.an Low TIde, l!I 2) Kparat.d tiy rid'" cli_ls' Ihas are leSs than . 100 C.et wide; . D YES: Go 102b.) D NO: Go 10 Q.3 DYEs: , eai.gory I DNa; Go;o Q.) DyES: CaI.gory I D NO: Go.o 2c.2 DyES: CaI.gory I all the v.~~lait<l,areas on: ~o. be ~onsider.d .ogtlher . '. i ... or i. :~c::I~~;~~·;~:~;'{~:~~~:.:.~·.~'~~~~~:.:.~.~.~.::~::: .. ~-.;.O ~~:Go to 2'c.3 or i. ''''; w.,land<1 .cr.? ................................................. __ D. YES:.GO to 2c.4 .2c.3. D~ the ,,;cli.n.i ri>ed .. Ieasl 3 of .h. Collowing 4 critcri ...................................... ~ .... . -minimum exis'~~~·~~;~: ~f 'h~~~ %'j~~d' : !'" :,~. it. ,. diSlurbance such as dilUng, dilching. filling, cultivation, ,razing or !he pre.ence of IIOD-nalive plan. species (s.e ... ruidance for definition); '. ,.. . . .... '. . . ,::~~r.;.-.. ;·~ ...... "1J.;~I .. ' '.';" .;\,;" -surface water connectioD wilb tidal nhWaler ~ ot .. I"~~ freshwatcr:~:-~~~,~i·~~~~·: ~)~.~~~~.~!O~.:~.~~.~,-,:::, .~': ·atleast 7S'il> of iii. w.,land IW ii 100' bUffcO:of ., .,c .. " ungrazed pasture. OpeD walCT. shrub.'or rores.; ·has at le .. 1 3 of !he Collowing r.arures: I~w' marsh; high ... marsh; tidal channels; IaBoon(s); woodY ... d.,bris; or ,<i.iXi;'.;:: contiguous r~Shwaler wetland. . ... ~:t~~~~~~~.·. '::'~~:~:F ~< 2c.4. Doe. Ih ..... IIand meal all oC lhe four crii~ri. und.r 2c3. (above)? Q.2d. Eel Gr ... and Kelp Beds. D YES:C~,.gory I D. NO: Category n . .':. . '" :.',: . ·,· .. f',-· 2d. L Ar •• eI gra .. beds pres.nl? .............. : ...................... _; .. DyES: Cal.gory I . -.. "": ','. ,' .. 2d.2. Ar. !hcre noaling or DOD·noaling k.lp bed(s) present wilb gr •• ler Ihan SOli> macro Ilga! cover ia lhe monlb of Augusl or S.pl.mber? .......... ; .. ; .... ; .... ; ....... :~ .......... .. Q.3. Calcgor, IV .. ellands. 3a. Is the w.,land: I ... IbllJl I acre iIIIlI hydrologically isolal.d iIIIlI comprised of one .. ge,.,.d class Ihat is dominat.d (>SO'JI. .real cov.r) by one species from T.ble 3 (page 19) or'Table 4 (page 20) 3b. Is the w.tland: I ... than Iwo acres' ~~.i. hydrol~gically isohlled wilh one vegetaled class. and >9()'1, of are;&) cova is any combination of species Crom Tabl. 3 (pag. 19) . . . 3c. Is lhe w.,land .... v ... d from upland .nd • pond smaller Ihan I :Jcre wilOOUI a surface W:ollcr connection 10 streams. lakes. rive~s. or olher wetland omd has <0.1 acre of \legel:lIion • D, NP:. go 10 2d.2 D D Y.ES: Cal. gory J NO: CaICgory U DyES: Cal.gory IV ~ NO: go.03b DYEs: C3 •• g0ry IV i6l NO: 80 10 3c DyES: C.,egory IV ~ NO: go to Q.4 Q.4. Si~niricanl habibl v~Iu •• · .Answer -aJJ qucsri~ns" and t!llel' data requeued. 4:0. TOlal well>nd are •. Estimale area. select from cboicn given: 4b. WeIland classes: Circ" 1M .. ell:mel classes below that qualify: >200 40· 199.9\1 10· ]9.9\1 '·9.9\1 I· •. 99 0.1·0.9\1. <0.1 o o o ~. o o 6 S I o Open ... ter: if the ar<a of open wat .. is > 114 oae Aqualic B.ds: if the: ""'" of aquaue beds > 114 acre Emcrgenl: if thc: arca of emetgent cia .. is > 114 xn: • of clwes • S<tn Oncd ... R 0 Two ....... 0 ] Scrub-Shrub: if thc: "",a of sCl1lb-sJuub class is > I/4.en: n.ra;d ..... 0 6 Fourc""';; • 0 • f; .. d~, 0 10 Fon:"ed: if are. or fares led class i. >114 acre o,cck the appropriate t;,~ for lhe" ~~~~ or weiland classes. 4c. Planl specie. diversily. Ispccia Oass '". iadasa . S<tn For exh wetland class (al ri&hl) that qualifies iD . " " 4b above. count thc: number of different plant species yOU can lind that cover mon: than Silo of the ,round. . , : .... ;., .:.;..: .... You do nOl have 10 name them. 0 0 >] . 0 0 I 1 ] 0 I 1 I. 1·] 4.' '>, .', ···---....,.,~14=4---;--t . s.;;,b.~b .. ~.! Fon:st<d -,." " ,~ - 4d. Structural Dhusit, ':.":-j.~~., :.:-~: If the wetland has • forested class. "add I point if ~ti of the rojJo~ii& .".~, cbsses is present .. ilhin thc: fon:sled clas. and i. I"ia \/Wi 114 acrt:: ,. 0 0 0 ~ o o ·uees ,,::. 50~ lall .................................................... ::,::.~ •• :;;;; .. L;~.:L· YES. ~. o I l 5<"",, ···ue';s 20"~' 49; t.J1 ................................................ ~~:;;:.:;:: .. ~:.:.::.:::'· YEs' ~ ·:~~:~:t:!~~:.~=~:~ .. :~~.~~~ .. ~:::::::::::::=:~:~.-.... '-'-'-'-:'-::::::::':::~:::::':~.~~~::,::: g .. i AlSo add I Poi~1 ir then: is any ·opeD "' ..... or "aquatic bed" . cia .. immedialely nellt to lhe fOR:S1ed area (i .•. then: is 00 scrub/shrub or eme"eDl Yegetatioti betwee. the:m)~._ ....... ~.:~.. . 'YES ...... ~:: '-," .> -~~ Y, 40. Decide f,om lhe diagrams below whether intmpersioa CHili. tA.: be'''' .. n weIland classes is high. moderate. low or none? If you think lhe amounl of inler.pasion fans i. betweeft lhe: diagrams score accordingly (i.e •• modc:ratdy high . amount of inlerspersion would score i 4. whik a .. . mod .. alely low amount would scm. 2).' . .. HiJhlM_ ~ !""~' LowIModOne Low .',-~ ----.... 4r.· H.bit.1 r •• tOres Answei-·ciu~.,jons below. circle features that apply. and score to 1M ri&h': i; there ~~itk~e lhallhe ~ ~ .~:.';~ .. ~;:,. ~. ,.~ . .. anding ~atcr was caused by beavers? .................................... .. Is a heron rookery located within 300·? ...... ; ............................. . Are ropto, Desll. loc.ted within 300·? ...................................... _ Ar'e (here alleasl 3 standinc dead,~~ (sna&s)pa'ac~~··. , . ~r' grealer than 10" in di.meler at ·."bre .. t hei&ht" (DBH)? ........... _ .. Are Ihen: at leasl 3 downed logs per xre witb . a diamel.' >6" for al lea .. 10' in I.ngth? ................................... . --. .:'" . Are lhen: areas (vcge,ateci or ~ri~~g;".iedj within rh.;' wetland that are pondrd for at le"l 4 monllts out of lhe ye:ll'. :md lhe .. etland h .. nOl qualifird as having an OpeD walei' class in Qucslion 4b. 1 ...................................... : .•........ __ YES YES YES YES YES YES o S<tn 0 , 0 0 0 0 er 0 Seen 0 0 n 0 Ii( 0 2 Department of Ecology" .' WeHand Rating' Dat!J Entry Form .. Western Washm ton Pa e 2 .4c. Conne-clion to Streams.' (Score one' answer only.) -: • -. Score '. 4&.1. Does.he wetJa~d provide 'habi'" r'; r.~j, II any ti".;. ~f Ihe year ~ does il have •. ~~eni~ su~~ ~.I~ con.~li~. I~. ~ fish 4iit~:l:::~zti;;;~;;;'ri.~~~~~~i;~i.:;J:~;;;.~~:;.r ... ::.YES 0 6 have a seasonal surface waler conncclioD 10 a fish be;uin& sUcam .•• YES D' . 4,.3. Does lhe wetland funcii~n to •• port or,anic molt.r Ihrough . a surrac.c wata eonncttio~ 81 ~~ ,imes of thc: year to • . peru ... 1 s" .. m ....... :.; ... : ... ;;.: ... :.::;;.L ....................... _ ............. YES 0 • 4g.4. Does lhe wetland funelion 10 e.port organic mana through' .' , ' .• surface walei' coonceljon 10 • stream on I seasonal basis ..•...••... _ YES 0 4h. Burrers.. '; .:"!-' "\:; ,".:-...;-.f ":'.!; .~;.I:. '. ",: ~. :~:.f ._,'_ ': .... = .. t.,; r,',' . $con: .... nistin, b.;n.n oD i;"k';' j., h..e.t;;;'~ f~r roar cbcriPu-:. u the condition 0/ the bunen do not UlttlJ' ... II:b the de!<rip1i .... ..".. citlw:r • ","nl hi,her or lower eIopendin.,", """thoJ .... bullen lit .... or ...,.. eIornckd. Fo,est, scrub. native ,,inland;;' .;peis·~aler bu(f~r ... :\ .' ... an: prescni for man: than 100' .round 9S~ of 1M :.' .,. ci:;::r:.:;;s:!:".;,.~.,,::~,. :}?,';;E:;,:;>:'':- . Fo,est, scrub; nauve ~Slland or open .... 1 .. buffers wid .. than 100' for mcJfC Ihan In of the .. etland circumfc:rcnce .... fo",st, SC'fUb. grasslaDds, or ape. wata buffen ror mort: than 5~' around 95 .... of lhe . ' ,". circumfertncc. -.?';" .;~.~':' ;\ Forest. scrub. nalive grassland or open .. ata buffers '. ,,?der thaI! 100' ror mon: 'han I!~ ~ft!>c weIland . cIrcumference. or • forest. scrub. noabve grassland. or opeD "a'er buffas for more lItan SO' for mort: Ihan In of the wetland circumfen:nce. ~. ::.. . [( ~.~-. No roads. building. or paved an ..... ilhin lOll' of the wetland for mort IhOD 95 .... of lhe wetland circumference. ". { YES 0 S .... ,. YES 0 YES 0 1 YES 0 ';""-: ~ .. " •. --..--:,_ •• :, '~i1--'-. :.--';':~::"""!:,:.,,,:.~;. No roads.buiidingi Or pavCd ~w within 2S' ~f ihe' .. .:' . ..... Iand for mon: than 95 .... of thc: wetland circtimf~ti~ ".,. .., ' .. , .2l --.... (.' ~·'if:~·~~.~~T,~~:;aO~~jVit~'!'~}:t;-~~,~·:~~~~_:1Z~:~tr!.;!~;;-11:" .' YES 0 No rOads. buildings. or paved areas' within Weof thc;'~ri .. nd .. ·:';·:'·:,..··: ""; for morc Ihan In of the "elland ciri::umfeR:nce. ...... -. Paved areas. in~sbial areas « residentiai comiruclioD (with .... thaD SO' betM%Jl houses).n: ICIS rhan 25' from the we'land for rOOR: rltaD 9S .... or Ihe cimrmfen:nce or the weIland. "~,:,' .. ,;:;.-;.: ',.-' ............. ;.,:' 4i.. Conn~ction 10 olhrr habit.t arras Select the description wh~ch best malches the: site bein, evalua .. d. ·Is the wetland conneci.d 10. or part of. a riparian rDn'idor II .. .. I 100' wide connectin, ,wo or more wetlands; or. i. there an upland connection present >100' wid. wi,h good fon: .. or . shrub cov .. (>25 .... cover) connecting il with. Significan' Habital Area? .,. ~ """ '-':.-;~:.;: i;··r "'. :.' ·Is the weiland connected la any other Habill' Ana with either· I) • foresled/shrub corridor <JOO~ wide. or 2) • cOrridor thai is > I 00' wide, bUI has I low vegclauve tOVer Ic .. than 6 feet i. YES '::J , .. ~ YES 0 J heighl? ....: p' -: f' .~ . ".-, .'. •. ~.:f~!· .. " .. : ~~:" :':~ Jf:~,~.:~-.~-.... ~~~~: - ·Is the wetland connecled ,0; ... .,an of. a riPari';' corridor .. berween SO' • 100' wide .with strub-shrub or fonsl covei-' connection 10 olher wedands? .Js 1M wetland connecled 10 any olher Habit3' A~e,;, .. irli . .n";".ow corridor «100') of low vegetauon «6' in heigh,)? ·Is the .. elland and its buffer (if 1M burfer is less than SO' wide) . complelely i.ol.'ed by devclopmeni (urban, r .. idenlial with a density great .. Iha. 2Jacre. or industrial)? Not" CIICrOf)' II O! 21 pIS. c.trcory II I=:J C.t.~ory III CX{ YES 0 1 YES 0 YES NO ,?\ c.t<rory III < 22 .... ~~t.:·~ .. tg . . .~, . ' r,ojrel W.t1and N:am. 1 ..... 3±-=-!-:· _ . ......;"":.......t--.....!~=-=.:::;~:.:::..-....:J:.....&.:=.:...::~_·..::...S i_._ .... -.JII -i.. 7-:l: ~slc:n by SCOIt T. Cla,-PDO~ 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 Q.I. HiCh QuolilY Nala,al Weiland ",' Ans~c:o: Ihis que'lion if YiiU'h:i~fidcquaie i.r~li.m or exPerience 10 do ;0. If nol . find someone with lhe expertise lo'answer lhe questions. Theft. ir the answtt'lo·L;- queSlions I .. Ib anc!, ~c.arc "!! NO, f.~n""I,1he Nalunl Heritage program ofONR., . lL Hum3n caund" di~t~rb~:~~;~:,~·~~J~~;·-~;"'f,t~1:.:-;;::':-:·""/\~"~~;·.!}.'.l:,,;};~;~; -1';,,'.-'.. , Is there si&nificani ~;idc:~ of ti\l~~~~;~~' ~~i~~~;~~~~'~~~h; ';-'" " .. ' ... ~ , hydrolozy of lhe weiland as indici>ied by ony of the follo",ing condilion.? Consider only changes Ihal may hiv;, laken plaCe in !he lisl 5 decades .. ThC imp.cu of change. done earlier have probably been "abilizcd and the weiland ccosyslem will be close 10 ,eaching some new equilibrium tha! may'epc .. nl I hi&h qualilY weiland. f ~l;~tf~~·(~~ ~'.;:J~.~~{: ,~;Zft~:~~·"~:~;~:; ~;::~(;.~<~:·:~~f _~nswen , lal. Upsueam walershed >12-' impervious. 0 Yes: Co to Q.Z lal. Weiland is dilchCd rind ;;'aler now i. Dol obSlrucled.; []. Y":, Co 10 Q.Z -1aJ. WeIland has been graded,lined. logged. I!!t Y .. : Co to Q.Z la4. Waler in wetland is conlroJled by dikes, wdn, elc. 0 Yes: Co to Q.l laS. Wetland is &ralCd.~ ;"'~~~':;" ,,' ·~!~~ ... ;~:;ilr:'~~'':'':~l~~" ." \'T ' .. O. Yr~: Co to Q.i .' la6. Oth .. indicalon ~rd;·sivrb.;'';' (ii~beiow{~'! ,,,. :, .• : 0 Yos: Co to Qi .:. ;.~~.~ .. ,;.~~, !'.~:.··r..;·.·':l~~· ,.·,fJi;;!, ._'~c:,,~ ;~~-t, ... Jd:;.:;'.. } ~ ______________ :..:...~.:....:.:.....:...;;:.:.:.:." . r,. .'. r ,No: ~o 10 lb.' ~----------------------------~~ L-_____ -"--'-_----=---'-' __ ....:..w , c '.~J_~ ;!'.Ii~)-J:::· : .. :.JJ.]:::":'''''''' ~~'L' lb. AIe !here populalion. of non· native p!anu whi,cb an: currenlly(,,, O· YES: go 10' Q.2 !",ese~l. cov~' more Ih~,!OIIoo~""".W.I1and, and appe,,! 10 be:" 0 NO: go 10 Ic mv.,din& nallve populallonsr ~neny describe any non-narive ~, r'" .... '"'.~ ..... """~:~~1j,'#>;" 'ik"'l::"~;;' , · ;, ~~.".:,,~~,~.'~';"'~'"'' ".' - I c. Is Ihue evidence of human-caused diSlwbances which have' visibly degr.ded waler' qu.liiy.' Evidence of lhe Ckg,adallon of waler qualilY include: direCl (unne.led) runoff from ,oads -.• -.~-Of 'parlUng lOIS; presence:"'"or hiiiOric i:vidence. of waSle dumps; oily sheens; lhe smell of org.nic chemicals; or '0 YES: go 10 Q.2 o NO: Possible c.i. I conl.clONR liveslock use. Brieny describe: '\,.:' E==~"'='" ====11'.' : ~ ... ,' Q.2. Irnplaccable . E<olo"i~.1 F~ncr;~ns Does lhe wClI:md • have al leasl 1/4 acre of orgamc soils deeper iliaD 16 inches and lhe weiland i. relatively uDdislurbed; OR': .. , '.,' .. !' . (If !he answe, is NO because !he wetland i. dis;urbed brieny dcsaibe: ;:'~.~::::,,!:' "':":ii~t.~l}.··~ ~-:':" . '-,'';.: ... Indicalon of diSlurba~cc may include: OR . Weiland has been graded, fi ned, loggod; ·Organic soils on the surface ~ dried-out foc more Ihon h.lf of !hi: year. -;' ,", .. , .. : ." -Weiland receives direct stonnwait:i-nin~ff from urb~n or agricultural areas.);. • h.~e a foresl~d class grca~~ I~~ I ac-:e; OR '.:C,,' " ,', c,,,,,. • have characlcristics of an esruarine system; OR • have eel "ass. noalin, or non·noaling kelp beds? o (NOlo.n:· go 10 Q.J) o YES go 102a KYES!0102b o YES go 10 2c o YES go 10 2d 2a. Bo,s and Fens . . .. , . .,'" .. ,: .'.', .. Are any of lhe three fonowing condilions ~i r~r'I~'~~a ~j o~g3~ic soil? 2a.1. Arc Sphagnum mosses a common g,ound cov .. (>30'A» and Ihe 'j , cover of invasive species ("'Table J) i. 1m Ihan 10~? Is th~ ~~e; of spha!nu~ ~s~s ';;'d "deep organic soils> In. acre'! 0 .Is Ih~ WOfsp~.gn~";;;"'s~s ~~~:.~; or,anic soil. 1/4· Ifloc,e? B 2 •. 2. Is !he,e an area of o,ganic .oil whkh has an emergen. . . c11 .. wilh .. leasl one species fmm Table 2. ond COVet of invasive species is < 10\1, (sec T.ble 3)? YES: c.:~i;~ I YES: C.legory II NO: Go 10 la.2 .'~ .' . Is the area of herbaceous planls and dttp orranic soils> 112 acre? Is lhe .re.'of herbaceous pl.nlS and deep org.nic soils 114· Ifl acre? DYES: Calegory I 8 YES: CalegorY II NO: Go 101'.3 2nd. Edition Department of Ecology , Wetland Rating Data Entry Form Western Washin ton .. P.u9b~I_)a~lo lLJ. is the vei~lati~n a miuurc or only herbaceous pl."u and Sphagnum mosseS wilh no scrublshrub or forested dasses? Is the area of herb.ceous plants, Sphagnum. and deep or&anit soils> III acre? DYES: Calegory I Is lhe area of herbaceous plan ... Sphagnum. and deep organic soil, 1/4· In acre?'"i~" ~r:,~ ~.""·r;i':I.:.·~.,~,~ :·.It :. " ", 0 YES: Calegory 11 O' NO: Go·'oQ.3 Q.2b. Malurr forested weiland. -~., '''~ 2b. I. Does 50-' of lhe cov .. of upper foreS! canopy c"nsiSl .' of evergreen ITCCS older lIIan 80 yeus or deciduous trees '. older Iho SO years? NOle: TIle .ize of Irees is ofleD IIDI • measu,e of Ige, and size cannol be used as I surrogale lor age (sc:c guidance). ~"'" "''''''",'\ "., ',"""'", ,,' " .. ;' .. ,'>-;''''' 2b.2 Does 50"' of rhe coy .. of fo,.,.' canopy consist of evergreen tree. older Ihan SO year •• AliIl i. lhe' sirucrural diversilY ollhe lorest high as chanocle,i.ed by an sdditionaJ lay .. of !ree' 20' -49' lall shrubs 6' • 20' lall, and a herbaceoul groundcover? c DYES: Calegory I ~ NO: Go 10 lb.l o YES: Go 10 lb.3 [:i NO: Go 10 Q.3 lb.J. Does <25-. of ~~ areal cover i~ ~ :·~;"';;'i;".:" ';"""" , . herbaceous/groundcovu 0, lIIe shrub iaY~i·con.isi· of invasivcJuotic plant species from Ihc lis. on page 197 .:~ 0 Y~: Category 1 M. NO: Go 'oQ.J Q.2<_ ESluari"e Wetlands. 2c.l. Is the weiland li"ed a. NOlional Wildlife Refuge. , . ,0 YES: Calegory I ... . National Park. Nalional Esluary Rese,ve, N.rural Ai •• ' 0 .. , " Preserve, Slale Por", 0, EducalionaJ, Environmenlal 01 NO: Go 10.lc.l Scie~!ific ~es~.,. designaled under WAC 3Jl·J()'ISI? 2c.2 Is Ihe weIland >5 acres?_ ... _ 0 YES: CalegDry I Note: If ~n arel contains patches or sah tolerant veget:llion thai are I) less IhaD 600 leet apan and Ihal are s<paroled by mudnals Ib.1 go dry on I Mean Lo", lide. 1lI 1) s..paraled by tidal chancels Ih.i are less lhon . 100 feet wide;' . ""H'-,': an Ihc ;'egelaled areas are 10 be consideted 10ge1hcr ", , ." .<., .". • ..... ",' • ~r is li=:~::I~~~~·~j;~C~=::~:: .. ~~.:.:~.:~:::.~~~:.:.~~:.:::~'O ~~:~; ;o"~~.) , '., Or:: i. I~ ~ell.~~<I.acr~?."-;"""""""""""-"""-,,,,,,.,.c_.-0, YES:qo 10 lc.4· le.J. 00:;; ~ ~ellaNimcd ~t least j of Ihe follOwing 4 crile,ia .......................................... . . . ·i:i~;·~;;~l"~.i .. ~'~ J'~':.,; .... ; ..• ; .. -nurumum exiSlin& cyidcnce of human rdaled _"... > diSlurbance such as dillin&, dilching, lillins. cultivation,: gruin& or the presence of noo-Dalive plant species (sec guidance for dcfinilio~)~~:!':,,1-:,,;~ :-.~~ .. i~"7.f~ ,.~ .'<". ·surface Water con~tion ':ilb "tidJ S:drwaler':: O' YES:··C~;egory I o NO: C.legory n ..•. ~ or l.i~aJ freshwater; ~~h~;tr~::X ... i:~~;::;~ttr~::~,~,~ ... ~t< .~.'~': ·alle ... 75'lb of the weiland has 1100' buffer of ungnuccl pasrure. open Walef. shrub Or ,fOrest;,:; ·has _,Ie.asl J of Ihc following fearu~:}~; mar,h: high, marsh; ndal channels: lagoon(s); woody debris: or contiguous fresbw31C1' wctland. : :;;:~t~1~:~:-'-~ lc.4. Does !be weiland meal all of the four ai,;;';. unde, 2cJ. (above)? Q.2d. Eel C,a .. and Kelp Beds." .' -~. ld.1. Arc eel grass beds presenl?. ................ _ .................. _ ... 0 YES: Calegory I ',:."." •• ,'<"0 ,'.' •• ,,;" :,' """"."" .~!'''", ".' 0 .r.'?:,,~?,102d.l 2d.l. Are lhere ,noating or DOD·nO.ling kelp bed(s) present 0 YES C I Wlrh grealcr than SO'lb macro algal cover iD !he moDlh .. ' .. : '. aleEory or August or Seplember?. ......... :::~·~"-:::.:;: ... ::: .. :L: ..... :; 0 NO: Calegory U Q.3., Ca'e,ory IV wellands. 3L h lIIe weiland: le55 Ihan, I ,crew hydrologically isolaled ilD.l1 comprised of one vegelaled class Ihal is domin.led (>80'lb .re.1 cover) by one species from T.bl. J (page 19) or T.ble 4 (page 20).. , ,. Jb. Is ,he. weIland: 1m Ih.n IwO .cres ~~d. i.ydrDlo~i~~iiy isolalcd with one vegetated class. and >~ of are01l c~ver is any combination of species from Table 3 (page 19)' ' le. h the well.nd .. cavaled f,om upland and a pond . smal1er IhOJn 1 acre wilhoUI a surface "'::Iter connection 10 SHeams. lakes. rivers. or Olba wetland imd h4ls <0,1 acte of vC'geliJtion • DYES: ,C •• egory IV g:f NO: go 10 3b o 'YES: Calegory IV ~NO: &0103c DYES: Calegory IV I1!J. NO: go 10 Q,4 ~ .• -;. Q.4. Sicnirinnl habib I .~Iu.~ -' Cbcck box dIa. qu>lulCS ;. ~~ .Answer 'all quesI;oni. ~ cnler dar; ·~ucsled.· 4~' To.al we"and "",,,' ! :', f --.' • EsumalC arca. select from choices given: 4b~ We~land c1 .. ses: Cin:1c Ihc we"and c1:uses below .ho. qualify: Open ,..a'er: if .he arel of open wa.a is > 114 acre . Aqua.ic Beds: if 1hc an:. of aqualic beds> 1/4 acr. Emerg .... : if thC i.n:. of .lJICTg.nl clau i. > 114 acre Scrub-Shrub: if 1hc am' of scn,b-shiub c1asi i. > 114 acre ForeSled: if arc. of foresied clasS i. > 114 .ae "., '. ~ : ~,:v .. ,~,~"C"--t. ". L •• , .... '~-;: ',," .• " '. Chock the appropriale boll for !he Dumber of ,.. .... nd c1 •• ses. I<la '200. 40· 199.99 10· )9.99 S·9.99 1·4.99 0.1·0.99 . <0.1 'or cI.sses Onccl ... TwO'ciWa n".,.~~ F~CI~, Roce ...... 0 f 0 0 0 o ~ o o 40. Planl .pccj.~ divelSilY. CI_ .j~ .. For .ach weiland cia .. (al righl) ih.1 qualifies in 4b abov •• CDU'" 1hc number of diff.rent planl .pocia you can lind Ihal cover mo", Ihan S __ of the ,round. :{ --;.::. .~_~ ,-" ~_~ :~~:-.:~.;'~!~' ~;._~;-..... ". You do not have 10 narne: lhem. . Score by ch~iting bo.es al righl. '. :' "J ••••••• -.. ~ Aqua"" Bed Emorm ," ,,:1'- se;;;b-Shrub , .. ~ ':'. ;-.. '. ~!! iad_ , 2 ) . » , 2·) 4·' >S' , 2. )·4' ,>4'- . 2 )·4 ,i . ..:(~~, ...... ::. >4 ~; I r ••. " " 4d. Siructural Divrrsitr , .. ~. ,,(. : ... :., ..... <. ... If lhe weiland has 0 foresled clas.:.dd I poinl if eac!i of lhe foilo"';n,.' " , ; class.s is preselll wilhin Ihc fo",slcd cia .. and is largn thaD 114' acre:';" '''0' ." 0 0 0 0 :& 0 KI!Ir . 6 S I 0 o ) 10 Sc",. 0 , 2 ) 0 , 5< .... -Ifees ,>:, !i0; i"i ......... _ .... , ........... _ .................... _ .... "z;:._;".:;~"':.,_.. YES .. -g( .. ·~·,·,::~ti~K~:.!:.~~~:~~:~:~~:}:~:::::::::::::=~~:}E~~:::jt~~~~~~~~~t~···S: ~" Also add I poihi if Ibere is any "open ";ater" or "aquatic !>cd-. cia .. immcdioldy nexllo the fO"'"ed area (i.e. Ihcre is no c. scrublshrub or .mer,c" 'fegelalion betweeD Ihcm).~..::. .• ;;;;.;;;_ ,,'. YES' 0 .' • • ~._. . ... ~ '. ',r: .. ,.,.' - ~. Decide from lhe diasrams below whethu inlCTSpersioD . belWeen w.lland classes il high. rDoderale. low. or none?,. .,,' ,,' Ifyou Ihin" !he arnauDI ofinlcrspersion falb in belween ....... '-;l'! Iii,b 0 lhe diagrams ICore accordingly (j.e .• modcnll.1y high amoulll of inlersporsiou would SetR • 4. while.' •. , modcral.ly low amouDI would scOre. 2):'" . -·i., Hi,WModcmc 0 Mo.kl*: 0 LowIM~ )( Low 0 I'IonCO -- 4r.·, Habila' J:.alur .. '.' ;: A~·;';~··~;;'tio .. below. cirele fearures that apply. and score 10 lb. righl: ifl,*i~ ~~ide~e th~;::i:!-'-~~::!.·>!.~/. :~'~~.,;;_ . siandin, "'alet was caused by tic·.vcrs? .............. _ ...... _ ............. ; Js • heron rO<'''.1)' localeci wilhin 300·, ....... __ ......... _ ............ _ Are r,plor neslfs loc'lcd wilhin 300·?. ..................................... . Ai. ;he~~ ali~asl 3 nandini <k~d 1;.~~ (~~gs)~' acre . !realer Ihan 10" in di.mela. at :·br,e,a .. heighl" (DBH)?::. ............ . Arc Ihe'" al lea .. 3 do,,"ned log. per .cn: wilh . • di.meler >6" for '1 lea .. 10· in I.nglh?. ................................. . Arc I"':" arc .. (veg.l.ieci ~i'~~:~1~;:i~~;liunllM: welJond Ihal ar. ponded fo.. oi IWI 4 monlbs 001 of t"" ye ... ond lhe ",elland has nOl qualif •• d .. having an open .walCT class in Question 4b .. ? ....... ~ ...... : ...................................... . YES 0 YES 0 Y£s~ . .. ,' ~ . .. YES 101. YES~ .1 o '. Department of. Ecology . W~Hand ~ating Dat~ Entry form . Western Washtn ton Pa e 2 .4,. Connotlion 10 Slr.ams. (Score on. ans"n.onl,.) e' ! 4g.l. Docs the Weiland pro"ide'habil~ r';' Ii.d.~; ;~y lim. of the year . Scort: ~ does ic have 8 ~~niaJ !urf~ .~~It:t: c~n~~~D ~~~~ ~~b ' ... . 4g.2. ~~l ::i!i·i:;2·;,~t;~~b!i~;~~:~::;;i~~.ili5:;:;~r:c··· .. · TIS 0 6 hIve a seasonal surface WBler connection 10 a fis~ barinl stream:: YES 0 ... 4,.3. Docs the w ... and func.i~ii 10 upon or,a";c "",n.r Ihrough" ' ~~~-:i:I~.~:~3c:~:~.~~~-~.~.~.~.:I;.~;r~.:.~::.~ .. ~ .• ~ .• ~~.~.' .... ~~. YES ~ 4 4g.4. Docs the weiland function TO opon org.";I: mailer Ihrough . • surface wala connecliou 10 a ',",am DO • seasonal b .. il .• __ . __ TIS 0 4h. Buffers.' '.,.:, ,,;,,~ .. ;:~!.:.-":' '-;~';:---':-;:~"'~";:;': : 1'. < _:':-~" •• ;'-~ t .... ·, Sc"", ...... is.in, bUti.ri-';;.;~it';' ,., b.~.;,;;..". ron~;'r;;i,;'~~' U IIw: eMdilion oI1he burren do 1101 uX1Iy mooch IIw: dc>crip1i .... S«n .i ..... I .. .. poi .. hiJher or 10,-, deprndin,1MI .. he ..... 1he bufren .", I ... Of _ cIo:Jndeol .' ~iE,;~~~~::.~t~:~~~i~,i.er.:.l ... ~,.ff"t.:::_·:r.,::.£j~~::(:~ .. ' .~..o S' ·:_".-:.';:;:::;h·;,··;f:! ~: :: -<"_.:-..;. ~-.~; -::;;:~}~ 0;". • .' -.-.~;! . ~' ... .. Fores!. scrub. nali"e &f8SSJand or opon wala burrer. wider Ihan 100· for more lhan In of the w.ll.nd circumference. or 0 fore ... scrub. ,nsslands, or opon woler bvffers for mo'" Ihan SO' around 9S __ of the ,.. . .. ,. circumference. Forest. s~b. Dative ,r:us land or open waler burren . -1 ; wider.lban 100' for more Ihan 114 of !he weiland ',.r" ;-.. circumference. or • (oresi. scrub; nab.': paubJl~ or open "'al'; bvffers for more Iban SO· for mo'" than 112 of the wel'and circumference; . No roads. buildings or pa"ed an:as ",ilbiD 100· of Ibe wel'and for more Ih.n 9S~ of lhe weiland circumference. YES 0 YES 0 2 No road~ buiidirigs or ",,~cci ·are ... Wil~Di5~' oflhe':c,:"" ". e Weiland for more Iha. 9!i~of lhe wetland circumf .... ncc.' "v'" ...... :, ... JU ~ .' ·!·:;t~i·;5 .. f~_·~-~i-·:~ ~i,-;~~~?}~;\~i~l"'~'~~~irf~:.'";:,{tf..:·.~.c ":'-~"~ YES O· No roads. buildings. or paved are:"·wilhiD SO" of Ibe wed.nd· ,. , '-" . for more Ih3n Jq of lhe wrlland circumfereDC'e:-'~"<-'-" 'J:...,..~:; .~~, '.: :,,-,,;.-,,; :. Paved areas. indUs'trial ~~ or ~side~tiai ~hSINclion (wilb leu Ihan 50· beIW..,D hOuses) m less Ihan n· from the weiland for mo'" lhan 9S~ of lhi: circuinfe~nce of . che weiland.. . .. ;.:'" .. ':;:', .•. :..:.--;, .. ,~.';;,.", ",~,~;.:'.;;~" ; (-:.. 4i. Connrction 10 otht'r habita. arras Sclcci !he description which bcsl malches the sile being evalU.Ied. -Is 1hc Weiland connected 10. or pan of •• riparian COITidor al least '00· wide connceun, Iwo or more wellands; or. is lhac lID upland conneclion presenl > I 00· wide "ilh good forell 00' . . shrub cover (>2S~ coval connceling il wilh 0 Sig";ficanl Habit.t . Area? -Is the 'Wetland connected to any;~ Habil~ A~'~~d;'dthcr I) a fo", .. cdlshrub corridor <JOO' wide., or 2). corridor lhal is >100· wide. bul has • low vegelaliv. cover leu Iban 6 feci iD heighl? ,'," ,;:,.;. ., . . : i -.. ,,~' ., . .;'-..... :~?:.~!;'··L~~ ;"~":~'1.:~,:. ~ • Is 1hc weiland connccled 10. or • pan of •• ripariali corridor belWcrn !i0' • 100· wide .... ilh scrub-shrub or fo",.' cover' .'. . connection 10 olher wetlands? ·Is 1hc weiland connecled 10 any olber Habiuti Ar"; witli n":"ow corridor «100') of low "eg.tatio~ «6:~?,heighl)? .Js lhe weiland and ilS buffer (if the burrer is less than SO· wide) complelely i.olalcd by developmcnl (urban. residenli" wilh a densily gre.ler Ihan 2J.cre. or indus .. ;.!)? --.;i·· TISDO YES CJ .',' YES 0 ) YES 0 I YES 0 0 Noh. C.Ie,OI)' II ~ 22 pIS. CIICJory III ~ 22 J"S- =~.~~=-~=.-_-_.-..... ~:.==_-_-._-.==~~:~ ;.::::;·,:::X: ~;~I~S~~ I )~ I Dtsicn bJ Scon T. C1al'-Poo,," 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 , siie" loCllion~rr~.-~ __ ~~ ____ ~~ ________________________ ~~ __ ~~ Loc.tioa: 1£-1+ ~fJld~o~ >CCli~~ Vj Township '2.3.Jj R .. ",1l/.£ Soureel of Inform.l.on: (Chock .11 .0ureU Ih.t appl,) ',: ,: ,,':, ,:.'" Sile Vi.il'&' USGS Topo Map' ~ NWI Map.15-A.ri~i Pholo Ii:.. Soils SU"'OJ OLher Info ' ". ""'", ,!.,; . .',: ...• ' ,'.".,.,',', '.. .'"' .. '';',',''' ,,' ,. "'. . . When l11c: Field Oal' ~ . Calf.o"; I COlf,O. r,' II LAJ C I ," --. IV form is compl.te .nt'; 0 · .,0'1 Calegory here: C'lrg~r1Ib c::J" P :,:,. Seor~ Q.J. Hi,h Q';olily Nataral Weiland, , •. ' ,. Answer Ihis queslion if 'YOu i.ave ~dcq~ate iirr~ti.m eX i:~ pm~ I~ do io. If IlOl . lind .omeone ",ilh the e.Peni •• u; answer the qu.stioDs. Th .... iC the aruwer 10,.-,! questions I .. Ib ~Jc ~ .~! !'IO, contaci Lhdl.lun! ",,!,itage program or ONR. . JL Human (.us~··~~~'·~·~~i.;~·~:~?::t·;·~~.:'~;7/:~~~.:~,~;!:~:;~·~~::~:.<~:·<)'.t~< ~:\.::!";.:.:" Is there .ignificanl .vidence of Ii~-i:aused changes io lopography or hydrololY of the w.lland os indicated by ... y DC lhe rollowin& conditions? . ' Consider on'y changes Ihal ""'y ha'e laken place i. Lhe lasl 5 deCades. The impacts or changes done .arlier have probably been stabili~.d and lhe w.lland eCOsYi.rcm ",ill be close 10 reachin, some new equilibrium Lhat may represent a high qualily. ",.r1and. • > ::. "'r~:~~;~-':(~:;{~;~~~~'~~~: ;;I::!~t~·~ :~:'~t?;;£~;;~;: ~~.~nswt" h .. Upstrcam "'Dlershed:>12'1. impcrV;ous.·' "" D Y .. , Go 10 Q.l "2. W.,land is dilchCd and w'.ler now ii'not cibstrucl~d: D Yes: Go to Q.2 103. W.lland has been graded. fillrd, loned. D Yti: Go 10 Q.l I.... Waler in w.lland is controlled by dikes, ",.irs •• IC. D Y u: Go 10 Q.l :~: ~~:";:~;c!~:~·;:'~~f;~~S~'i;it;'~~f~ .. '!::~~;:~~::: ~:~ r. e... No: Go 10 lb •. lb. Aze Lhcre popul'lions of non·natiye 'plairu which an: c""';nl"".;, D', YES: go 10 Q.2 . . prcs~nl. cover more Ih"" I (Kl, of the weiland; and a"pc. 10 be ... ,. D NO I invi"lin& nati.~ populauons!' Bri.ny describe Iny noJ>on.rive', :,1010 c r .... ', ... ~"'~~-m~''''[~;''''''' "t~'" I c. Is lhen: .vidence or human-caused diSllllbance; ",hich have:" visibly d.gr.dcd WIler qu"lil,.· Evidence of lhe degi-adalio~' . of WIler qUllilY, include: dirccl, (unlrealed) runoff from roads or p~rk..in& Jots; presence.. or historic:: evidence. or waste dumps; oily sheens; Ih. smell or orga,,;c chemica's; or livestock usc: .. Bri.ny describe: <" o YES: go 10 Q.2 o NO: Possible cai. I conlacl DNR Q.2. Irr,p'acrable Ec~i-"I:i<ai ~;;n<li"n.', "". :~ :;' .. Docs the w<ll.nd • hove al .... 1 114 acre of organic soils. deeper LhaD 16 inches and lhe ",.tland is relnlive'y uadisturbed; OR ,;... . ""',' (If Lhc answer is NO becau": the w<I,aooi. disturbed bri.ny , describe.: ·t<,:J:~."_-':':f~ ~.~ ~_ ,,·~:··.,'o·;:-':"_<'.i:' .;{ '. "".".-.; .. Indicalors or disturbance may include:: • Wetland has been ""ded,. fi ned. lo".d; D (NOlo an; go 10 Q.3) ·Or,a";c soill on Lhc sulfate are dried-oul Cor . more Lhan hair of lhe year. ':c'.-'.' 0 ".:' '.' . W.1I31ld r.ccivesdirecl siomi"'.i ... 'runorr f;o,;;' DyES gOl02a urban or agricultural areas.}; ". ." OR • have a fore:slcd class ,n:atcr than I acn:; . OR ._" . • have chonclerillics of £u:i ~ruarinc s;'~t~m; OR • have cellr .. s, noaling or no ... noaung kelp beds? KvES BOI02b D YES go;~2c D YESgol02d 2a. Bogs and rens " .. Arc any or the three ronowing conditions mCl for lhe ~a ~r or!3ni~: soil?' 20.1. Are Sphagnum mo.ses a common ground cover (>30~) and Ih. ... , cover of inva.iv. spe~icS (secT.ble 3) i.lesSlhan i O~? .. . is ~ ar.a of ;phagn~m mo.se. a~ci deep organic soils> il2 acre? , 0 Is the or." ,or sph"gn~;;;: rOO.sc:s and cJcq, o;,a,,;c soils 1'4: 112 acr.? D 2 •. 2: ~ Lhcn an ar.a ~r a.'i~'~i~ j~il ~i.f~b ,.,;;; ..;, ~~g~nt • D dass wi,h at I .... one sp~ci.s rrom Table 2 .... d co"~r of invasive spe~.je~ is < I ()t)\ (sec Table 3)? Is the arca of herbaceous plants and deep organic soils> 112 acre? 0 Is lhe ~;.~ or herb.ccous pl.nts and cJeC,p org.nic .oils 114 • 112 acre? 8 YES: COI.gOlJ I YES: Cal~gorY II NO: Go 10 20.2 YES: Cattgory I YES: CaltgOlJ II NO: Go 10 21.3 .' ~. 2nd. Edition Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Data Entry Western Washin ton" Form Publlc.tlo '93-74 2~,3. j;"ihe ~~~~auon a mixture of only herbaceous pl3llu and Sphagnum mosses with no scrub/shrub or rOTe31ed d'lSses? . Islhe ;;,:.~ of herbaceous plants. Sphalnum. and deep orgaoic .oill > 112 acre? Is lhe.ar.a.of herb31:eous planu, Sphagnum. and deep orgao.c so,ls 114. 112 acre?" '. " , .... ,.-,. Q.2b. Malure forul.d .. etland. DyES: Ca'egory I DyES: Caleiory II D NO:" Go'io Q.3 2b. I. Docs 5O'lJ, or lhe cover of upper forest canopy ronsist ~YEs: C~le,oiy I of ev~rgreen trees older than 80 years or deciduous tree. . ' older Ih ... SO years? NOle: The size of trees is oCt CD bot NO: Go ~o 2~.2 a measure ".f age, and size .cannot be usc:d OS,I .unogal. for' ". ' age (sec lu,d.nc.). ',". "'''''. '" ".' "";.,.,,, y, ,,'.', .. ' : .: '" " .,; 2b.2. ~s SO';ll, 'oC thO cover of Coiesi canOpy' consi.i of ... evergreen Irc:cs older Ihan 50 years. At!J2 is lhe .tructural diversilY or lhe rorest high os characlerized by an .ddilional I,yer of trees 20' -49' rail, .~bs 6' -20' lan, and a he.baceous "oundcover7.· .. :. D YES: Go 10' :zbJ ){ NO: Go 10 Q.3 2b.3 .. Docs <2sri~r ;~'''-;:ea1 cover i~.h;:.r.:·;"!:L :!"~,."':'" , herbaceous/groundcover or Lhi: .hiui. f~y~;,;;~;;.i~,~r invI.i~cI"OIic pi"'" .pecie. from Lhc lisl on page .91 Q.2c_ ESluarine Wetl.nd •• 2C.i. i'-the ';'elland .iSlrd os Nalional Wildlire Refuge., , N"tional Park. N.lional Esluary R ... ",., Natural Area Pre.erve. SI.lt Park. or Educalional, Environmenla' or Sci.nlific Re •• rves d.signaled undcrWAC 332-3(}'15J? 2c.2. Is Ih. w.lland >S acres? ....... Note: If an area contains patches or sah loleranl Yl!gctalion thai arc I ) I.ss Ih3Il 600 feet apan and Ih.1 arc separaled by , mudna .. Ihal go dry on • M .... lo ... Tide:. i!I. 2) separal.d by lidal channels Ihll arc J ... lhan ., 100 rret ... ide; D _ YES:, C.;~gory I i:! NO: Go 10 Q.3 DyES: C'le,ory I D NO: Go 10 2c.2 DyES: Ca .. gory I . an Lhc v'lel.led areas arc 10 be consider.d logether . ::: :~c~:::I;~7:~;~~·~:~~~:~~·~.:~~~;!~~:;::·~~~:.;~;~:='B ~~~ ~:: i~:! 2c.3. Does the w.lland IItCCI al .... 1 3 of the following 4 criteria. ..•.••...... __ .. ___ .................... . '~;!.:~ . .:.-:~;:~.;~:. ~l.: ~;~ (".~?r~~: ~ .,-=. .' '- -minimum cxislinl evidence of human·rCJated~ ~ ~~ ..,. ,; ..... :. di.turbance .uch .. dillin&, ditchin&. fillin;, cuilivatio,;, gruin& or the prc:scnce of noo-Dative planl .pecies (sec: guidance for definitiO~);'ci~ ... ~.;-_:,.:., ,:;~!-~r'~;'; ~ '.'i~~l DyES: . Cal. gory I D NO: C.I~gory D . ~ . ·sudac:e water con~~o~ ;i'b'ti~ ~~IJ;;~:t~ or .tidal freshwa'ei;-t~;~~t~i \:;~ ·~·y-.;~;~·\\~~~H~:~~~;ri~·;' ~,:!,~;., -. ;:; , •. , '.':~ .';~!: : :'" ·allcasl7S'I. of Lhe w<lland has a 100' .burTer.of., .'c,'. ungrazed Pasture. OpeD waler, shrub or fofeSl: .. :.~", " ',. ·has at I~asl 3 of Lhc follo .. ing fcalUres: iaw manh; high., marsh; tidal channels; logoon(.); woody-debris; or!!::'",Wt contiguous r~shwaler weiland. ':;'~_~f~!~~1f '·:·;..%I,~~~'J:· 2c.4. DocS Ih. weiland meel an or the four cri;';';, un~~~. 2cJ. (above)? ~r~~~~{i:~~~~~ Q.2d._ Ed Grass and Kelp Bed .. : ; .. )-... --. 2d.1. Are eel gra .. beds psescnl? .......................................... 0 YES: CaleB"!)' I NO:. go io 2d.2 2d.2. ~re Iher. noating or noo.rioating ktlp bed(s) presenl "',Lh ",caler Lhan 50'>1. macro algal cover in the mOnlh of August or S.plembcr? ................ ·.:.::: .. :.: ........ ~~ ...... _. Q.J. , C.I~cor, IV ",.t1ands.. .:, 3.. I. the w.t1and: I ... Ihan I a ... lOd hydrologically, isola'td lOd comprised or one v.gclaled cI.ss Ihal is . dorNn.,.d (>80'.l. .... al cover) by one speci •• from . Tabl~ 3 (page '9) or Table 4 (pag. 20) 3b. Is lhe wrlland: Ie.s Ihan Iwo acr~;~~~ i.~~oi~~~~i;y isolaled -ilb one vegeta1ed class. and >~ of ar~ cov.r i. any combinauon of 'peci", from T ab'e 3 (page 19) . . 3c. Is lhe w.,land .. cavoled from upl.nd and a ~~d . smaller Ihan I :Jere wilhout a surfxe w:aler connection 10 Slre;Jms. lakes, rivers. or olher wetland, and h~s <0.1 acre of 'VC'gel.lIion D D o YES: Cal~£ory I NO: Caltgory D DYES: Calegory IV J2it NO: go 10 3b DyES: Calegory IV Jd\.NO: go 10 3c DYES: Calegory IV ~O,gOloQ,4 "";: "":'-:~:';" •.. ,· .... -;~'r<~'::·i' ~~~f:t~</ :;,.J.: .. " .. :,. ;'" ~;' ~ . ~ l' .p" :. ~ , QA. Slcnilic,;nl .... bibl nluo. Ans~aJl questionS ~ enler dala ~ueslcd. ~&: Total weiland area' ol'; ": •• :1. l~ Estimal. arc .. s.lccl f~ choic~ gi~n:' (beck boa Ill .. qu.alu ... A<Il:l Kl!B >200 0 6 01). 199.99' 0 J 10. 39.99 jjf .•. S-9.99·0 3 1 ••. 99'.' 0 0.1·0.99 0 I .. ,<0.1 0 0 4b: Y"clland c1~ ... : Ciftle the wCII:md class .. belOw lhal qualify: ........ ',;,. Open waler: jf the area of open "'.'er is > 1/4 aen. '01 c ...... · S<tn Aquatic Beds: if the area of aqua.c beds> 1/4 acre One cJ... 0 0 ~mcrgent: if the an:a of emergenl class is > 1/4 acre T_ d;....,;· 0·· "-Scrub-Shrub: if the area of scru.,:..hrub cia .. i.' > 1/4 aen: Thnic .iw.. -& 6 '-ForeSled: jf ..re. offoresled clasS ii' > 114 aCr" c,,'; FoUr cl ..... ' 0 Check the .ppropri~~e boi7';;:',~'·~~;;'~·;":;~;J.~ci ~i~s~.... fi.;e~~ > 0 10 4<:. P1anl spedes diversily. ,~ . '~'. . Class . in dass . S<tn : For each _Iland class (al right) that qualiflCS in·· 4b .bov., ~ounl the number of differem planl '.' specie> 100 can find Ihal cover IIIOre than 5,*, of the &found. .~.~" ",.:~,~;~~.:~;;~, .. :~; .. , :"1;f" ~: You do not .... v. 10 name lhem. . '.' Seo", by ch~ck.in, boles al righl. ..• ' .. : . '.,,---:--: ... Emcr,... .~ '." he: . ..". ,'" , '",''' .,' I ~~b.,:::;.! ~ '.,.' 0 I 1 ) 0 I 1 ) 0 ~ I 1 o ) 0 I 1 ) 4d. Slrvctur:a1 Diytrsily -!1_1~" ;f"".;-;';' ":;f,": .'l ...... !:"'.'? ·-!·~~i-:.l~~' r If lhe weIland has. foresled cia .. , add I poinl if each of the following '0" "i' Scare ~' classes is presenl wilhin the fon:slcd class and is larier dian 114 aCre:';' . ..'r-. " .;" :::~i:I~?:~; 1;~1:~;;.~~~~~ ..... ~ .... : .. ~~=~:~~::::::==~:~=~=:;~~=~::=;;~~~: :: ~ l' j .... ~. ,·.~~~ti~~:,.~;=~~.~ .. ~=~.~.· .... ~::::::::~~~:::~~~~ .... ; .. ::::~:::::~~~~::;}·~·:~::::'C. ::;J :~. : ." .' Also add I pain! if mae is any "open ",aler" or ".q;..ti~ bed'-. . class immedialely ..." .. 10 the fon:Sled area (i.e. there is no· i ; .. " scrub/shrub 01' emerjen! ve':"aI,i~~een 1hem)~_ ..... _ ,.i YES 0 40, Dedde from the diagramS below whether inlcrspcrsioa ,. '. between weIland classes i, high, inodcrate, 10 •. or none? If you lhint the amounl of inlcisperiioD f.n, ih bei • .e;; . lhe diagrams score. aa:ordingly (i .... nIodcmlely high arnou/ll of inlcrspel'$ioa would sCOR • 4~ while. '." modcri>iely low . would iCon: ii 2)::" . .;'>. -.... 4r. Habilat F.,.lun" o o . ~) lDwlM_ 0 Low,O ~"O 0 ,~ . : ,: . Ans"W~ ~~~ons below. circJe feature's that apply. and s~ore 10 the right: Sc"",' o ~)::~~~~t~,t. J"' .'~,~:.- '-' Department of EcolP9Y v:..'et!and Rating Dat~ Entry 'n.~· 'Western' Washm ton Form 4~ Connrtlion to Slreams. (Score Ont' answer onI1.) , , 4,.1. ~.he wetl.';" ~vid.; babi;;" ,.;. r.~·M ~ni li;':'~f ~h. y~.;. . -~ doc, il have ~ _~e.?~~~. ~u~~ ~~tc! Con~ti~D '~.~ ~~b._: 4g.2. ;:~ ::::~~:;~~~~~:~~~r;;;·=i:~ri;:A;Jj~t .. ;;~, ~ 0 6 hive a .. asonal surface Wal ... conneclion 10 • fish be.nng ,tream._ YES 0 4,.3. Dotl the ";';'~d funCii'~n' i~ .. ~ orgarUc ma"e~;hrouglo" ,:r~ ",.", • .urfac.e Wiler connecuon 81 .lIlimcs of the year 10 • " ' .' . pel.nnl.1 S\re.m ........ '._ .. ~.;.;~ .............. ~:.~ ..................... : ... _ ........ YES 0 4~.... DoC; lhe wetland fu~uon 10 upon orgarUc man .. Ihrouglt a surface waler cooneclioD 10 • stream oa a season.1 basi._ .... __ • YES 0 4". Bul1'rrL" ."~},, ,~'fh. ,~':dtf <'.";'·i·"'"'';!.'S'·:::,,,,/,:-;;\ ' S<tn .... w.a;;., bulJen ...... IOIe 01 I·S based 011 !he foil"';", ,Oar ~ . If the condition 01 the bu/Ycn do "'" UK,,>, ma"b !he dosaiplion. """ ei ..... I paino hi ....... _ dependin, OIl whetha the bull .......... Of ..... .,."oded. ,) " Forcs!, scrub: ~livC'I;:'~i~nd .. cip.~'~~~i:i i;;iff~;~' ;':'."'":'." " an: p'cs<:n! roi moie than 100' around 95,*, of the ) ,'"":' c.,." YES 0 S ,. : ~:~f~c~f~~f;'~'~:.;~·E;3~~!:~~)':;{~;~E~pgf; '~;;'., "",'"',;,;'" , " Fo ..... scru!;; native grasshind or open waler ""ITer. wicler than 100' for more than 112 of-lhe ",etland . circomfcrrnce, Of a fo", ... scrub. ","islands. Of open' ... . w.'er buITen for more Ihan SO' around 95.., of the ." · circumference.' . .:~~.i:~~.:'~ ::~j::~ .~:~.7= .. ;~ r;i':':~ . . ... ~ . C'.~~;.; '~~~i;'it r·.~:··~ ':~~ 7.,,!";;I?"_; .. ,.!-~:,!.i •• " ..... :.~ ... Fo",,!, scrub, nalive grassland or open w.'er buffers .•. ' ." ~'" · wider th",!IOO' fOl' morel!oan 1/4 !,~I!""W,.t1and., 'e; ... , dreumfenince. 01' ii IOf';s';' Scrub, ... live· grassland. or ' opeD walt! buffers ~oi!'-c "'~~:!"! ~'t!han .". YES 0 ) YES 0 I 112 of lhe wetland clfCUmfe",DCC.. ~, :'''''. ,,:...... ' i .~~." _ ~'.'~ '~~:\~~0i·~1jt~~~i:~t~~~q·~~~';:·i'i~;~~i~f~\j· .. ~. -.;~~~~~' ;;~. No loads, ""ilding' or paved "'as wilhin 100~ of tbc:i> . -YES 0 I:' welbnd for more than 95,*, of the wetland drcamfcrcncc. " .. :. ~ .. ' U:"~~:~·~t~·~;i ~·;~~1f·r~·~fP';~~:~~ ~ ,~: \~~~ ;;t:~\~.:! .. , No roads. buildings or ",,'-ed lias wilhiia 2S~ of IhC::,-. .ij. . '.' ,', .'-.• !;~: ~:1:u:1~t~~~~~~~~~~~~8':::·':,YiS'~1 for more than In 01 the ;';'etland circuinference>:"':'" "':"-' !;; .. :.: ., ,~:~:.-~~"':.:"'·':':~~:~':~~:~.f --::. , .. ',---.,..._. ---', Paved are.s. industrial arcU or re.;cJential cooslructici,;' ". .j (with less thao SO' between houICS) aie Ie .. IhaD 25' from _, ~.,O 0 ". ,. ::: :::::: for ~.,~:;~,~:,of~:~;:;~;:t,\t;C';:·;'~;'i;":~ . 4i. Conneclion 10 olhu "ablla. anas Selecl the descriptioD which bell malches lhe sile being e;'a1.aled. ·Is the wetland connccied;o, .;r·~·of,. rip;ri~~'~';;"'idor II kasl 100' wide cODneclini two or """" .. ellands; or. i. lhen: an upland connection present> I 00' wide with goOd forcsi or ., ... shrub cover (>25'" cover) connecting il with a SigrUficani H.bilal Area'? :",oC':-"'i-(":"t •. ~"i',..;!'~.t;,: ~l""':;";,~~~~~.~ ,.~".~ ·Is the wed .. d connecled 10 any other Habil'" An:. with dlher ',., I). fO"'Slcdlshrub corridor <JOO·. wide, or 2) a corridor lhal.· i, >100' wide. bUI has. low'veielative cover less than 6 feci iit he;,hl7'.ci .· ,,, ., ."', ,;.',' " ·.c·' .I~ ';:<~::Ld connecled it ~X~ ~~:~ ~~~~oi[J~':'>~:" between SO' • 100' wide with scrub-shrub or forcsl cover.. . COMecuon 10 OIher .. ellands?": .. ." '," .. ';.:" ... ·Is the weiland {onnccled 10 any other H.bil3i.A~ei willi' DurOW conidor «100') of low v.,.,ation «6' in heighl)? '. '-l' . ,.... "'-'1 . .;;' ""1. i.~ ;c~ .:' "~' "-, 'l:' , Score YES !J -I:. YES 0 ) YES 0 I YES 0 0 • ,'{' r ,;;.;:.-rP~r:,o~j::.OC:.;I,-_____________ --,:-_.,..._-, W.lland Name 1&hO-.~ck-~cJ.~v",-;".\ bXJe...SI:"" II Wg.., ~Icn by 5<011 T. CI."POO~ I I' I I I I I I I I I I ., ;1 I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I II II I I I I I I SEP A Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton September 2004 -19 - UTILITIES PLAN ........................................................................................................................................ The attached Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report provides the information requested for this requirement . •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• J' ~ Perteet Inc. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 11 2004 RECEIVED 19-1 I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I DRAFT PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES TECHNICAL DISCIPLINE REPORT Prepared For: Prepared By: Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton Department of Public Works Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Everett, W A 98201 (425) 252-7700 May 2004 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE ............................................................•........... 1 1.2 STUDY AREA ............•................................................................................................ 1 1.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND ......................•..................................................................... 5 1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE ..................................................................................................... 7 1.5 PROJECT NEED .......................................................................................................... 7 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ..................................•....•.......•.......••.......•.• 9 2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .................................................................................... 9 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND COORDINATION ....................................................... 15 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................. 16 f 4.1 EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................................... 16 4.2 EXISTING UTILITIES ................................................................................................ 18 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 22 5.1 No ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................... 22 5.2 ALTERNATIVE 1: CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWAY OVERPASS CROSS-VALLEY LINK, RELOCA TION OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACK, AND MODIFICATION OF SW 27TH STREET TO FIVE LANES ......................................................................................... 22 5.3 ALTERNATIVE 2: CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWAY UNDERPASS CROSS-VALLEY LINK, RELOCATION OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS, AND MODIFICATION OF SW 27TH STREET TO FIVE LANES .................................................................................. 26 5.4 AL TERNA TIVE 3: CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWA Y UNDERPASS CROSS-VALLEY LINK, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACK NOT RELOCATED, AND MODIFICATION OF SW 27TH STREET TO FIVE LANES ......................................................................................... 28 6.0 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES ....................................................... 29 7.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 30 LISTOF APPENDICES Appendix A: Individuals and Agencies Contacted Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report i Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT LIST OF TABLES Table 6.1: Summary of Potential Impacts to Public Services and Utilities ..................... 29 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Location Map ............................................... : .......................................... : ....... 3 . Figure 1.2: Typical Roadway Section ................................................................................ 4 Figure 1.3: Project Segments ............................................................................................. 6 Figure 2.1: Proposed Roadway Limits ............................................................................. 10 Figure 4.2: Existing Public Services ........ : ....................................................................... 17 Figure 4.3: Project Areas ................................ ; ................................................................ 19 Figure 4.4: Existing Utilities -Cedar River Pipline ......................................................... 21 Figure 5.1: Existing Utilities ............................................................................................ 23 Figure 5.2: Land Use Map ........................ ; ...................................................................... 25 Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report ii Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton DRAFT 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Organization and Scope This report has been prepared by Perteet Engineering, Inc. (Perteet) on behalf of the City of Renton to assess the potential impacts of the Strander Boulevard Extension Project (the proposed action) on the public services and utilities in the City of Tukwila and the City of Renton in the proposed project area. The report provides supporting information for the Environmental Assessment being prepared by Perteet for the proposed action. This report identifies and describes any existing public services and utilities in Tukwila and Renton along the proposed alignment and the railroad tracks. The report also assesses the impacts of constructing each of the alternatives in terms ofthe continued use of existing public services and utilities. The impact of the proposed action on planned public services and utilities is also addressed, and the appropriate mitigation measures are recommended where necessary. 1.2 Study Area This project study area is located within the jurisdictions of both the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila in Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 5 East; Sections 24 and 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East; Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East (See Location Map, Figure 1.1). Renton is . located at the south end of Lake Washington on the edge of metropolitan and rural King County. Its location between Seattle, Tacoma, and Bellevue places Renton in the center of a region that is the economic hub of the state. Renton encompasses approximately 16.7 square miles. Renton and Tukwila are at the crossroads of a regional transportation network where seven state and interstate highways converge and which is central to national and international air traffic. The study area is sideways T -shape. It includes the area between the west side of the Interurban Trail and the east side ofthe Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad track. The study area is wider in the vicinity of Strander Boulevard because it is possible that the trail would be moved. The southern boundary is south of a railroad spur heading northwest from the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline (the spur that crosses the Green River, not the short spur that serves adjacent businesses), which is about 1,700 feet south ofStrander Boulevard. The spur would be the approximate takeoff point for a new UPRR mainline track that would replace the existing track. The new track would parallel the existing BNSF tracks. On the north end, the study area extends just past 1-405 where the UPRR track begins to parallel the BNSF tracks. East of the BNSF tracks, the bulk of the proposed project construction in the primary study area would be confined to the Strahder/27th Avenue corridor, branching off at the Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report 1 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton 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 DRAFT points where the Boeing access roads and Sounder station access are to be located. From Oakesdale to East Valley Road, the expectation is to widen the existing roadway within the right-of-way limits. The new roadway would be five lanes with sidewalks and planter strips on both sides (See Figure 1.2). The intent is to keep the project within City right- of-way. Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report 2 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton AFr.AD OF 1llE CURVE ~ Perteet Engineering, ~nc. ~ Civil. Transportation and Survcymg City of Renton . Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 1.1 Location Map I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------- m Q '"0 ~ ~ i a ~ ~ ~ tTl 5 ~ ::l ~ Z g. ~ ~ .. ;)0 &. ~ en iii Z ~ . ~ ....... :J ::l .. r ~ "'0 o· Q) ::::c 0 Q) Co :E Q) '< en (1) g 0 ::J 00(') -_. -, -11)'< ::J 0 a. -.. ~ ::u m(1) o ;a. c 0 m::J < 11) a. m ~ (1) ::J en c)" ::J ." CO c m ~ I\.) STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION . ; TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION 90'ROW G' PLANTER..., ;1 GO' .... r G' PLANTER I G' 51DEWALK WIDEN WITHIN THE ROW WITH SHARED USE PATH ON 50UTH 51DE DRAFT 1.3 Project Background This project began with the formation ofthe Project Stakeholder Committee composed of public agencies and private businesses. Members of the committee have some insight concerning the needs of this project, opportunities that this project could promote, and potential transit and commuter rail improvements it could provide for the Tukwila commuter rail station. The Project Team facilitated Project Stakeholder Committee meetings with affected agencies, such as WSDOT; City of Renton; City of Tukwila; King County; and private businesses, including Boeing, BNSF, and UPRR. Concurrently, the Project Team reviewed existing information regarding the corridor and the existing environment and infrastructure within the project corridor. The Project Team assembled information about to potential corridor concepts, existing and projected traffic that would be generated by the proposed corridor improvements, affected environment, and costs. The Project Stakeholder Committee, formed by the City of Renton, became a source of guidance and input with regard to the information assembled for the potential corridor concepts by the Project Team. The role of this committee was to review and comment on the major study tasks and to recommend preferred concepts. The committee met seven times during this phase ofthe project and provided the Project Team their endorsement to the Project Team's preliminary recommendation for each of the three proposed segments (See Figure 1.3): • Segment 1 -West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW • Segment 2 -Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Highway • Segment 3 -added access to SR 167 via East Valley Road At the conclusion of the study, the City of Renton determined that construction of . Segments 1 and 2 by themselves would provide a vital cross-valley route and have substantial utility independent of Segment 3. The Project Team prepared a statement of the problem based on a review of existing traffic volumes, projected 20-year traffic volumes, economic growth projections from the cities of Renton and Tukwila, and committee member discussions. There were initially 13 potential concepts for Segment 1, 5 potential concepts for Segment 2, and 4 potential concepts for Segment 3. Each ofthese concepts was described in a conceptual level of detail. At this level of definition, the corridor improvements included sketches, key physical and operational features, functions, benefits, and potential impacts to the environment. Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report 5 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 . City of Renton 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 AW~ OF 11fE CURVE ~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. IiJ Civil, Transportation and Surveying SW 7TH ST SEGMENT 1 I SE (S City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension w 43RD ST. 180TH ST) Figure 1.3 Project Segments DRAFT The Project Team evaluated the concepts through a first-level screening, which was essentially a "fatal flaw" analysis. Concepts were recommended for elimination if they contained serious flaws, were likely to perform poorly, demonstrated an undesirable combination of performance and adverse impacts, or did not appear to meet the committee's committed goal for the project. Following the initial screening, a second screening was conducted on the concepts not eliminated. During the second-level screening, a more detailed evaluation was applied using additional criteria related to transportation perfonnance, land use/social impacts, environmental impacts, and cost/feasibility. A final screening was conducted on the last remaining concepts using the same criteria as the second screening but with additional infonnation collected, as well as the results of a traffic analysis on the effects of adding this east-west corridor between SW Grady Way and South 180th Street/SW 43rd Street. In addition, more detailed costs ofthe concepts were discussed and the potential for funding the concept and the overall financial viability of a concept were evaluated. During each of the evaluation screenings, the Project Stakeholder Committee was briefed on the evaluation. Upon endorsement by the Project Stakeholder Committee, the Project Team continued to the next level of evaluation. The final screening resulted in a preliminary recommendation for each segment by the Project Team. The Project Stakeholder Committee has concurred with this preliminary recommendation. . 1.4 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to improve travel speed, reliability, and access in the north Renton/south Tukwila area. This would be accomplished by adding a new roadway segment from Strander Boulevard to SW 27th Street and roadway improvements along SW 27th Street. This would result in a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and East Valley Road via Strander Boulevard in Tukwila and SW 27th Street in Renton. 1.5 Project Need The proposed project would meet several needs important to both Renton and Tukwila. The project would: • Decrease travel time and increase reliability • Relieve congestion • Provide access to the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station • Improve freeway operation • Encourage transit-oriented development • Promote freight mobility and economic development Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report 7 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton 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 I DRAFT 1.5.1 The Need to Decrease Travel Time and Increase Reliability The absence of a direct route to and from the project area between West Valley Highway and SR 167 results in extra travel time for freight shippers, transit vehicles, and general- purpose vehicles. A grade-separated route crossing the UPRR and BNSF tracks would .both decrease travel times and increase the certainty that vehicles would not be delayed by trains traveling through the area. 1.5.2 The Need to Relieve Congestion In order for traffic from Strander Boulevard to cross the UPRR and BNSFtracks and connect with East Valley Road, vehicles must either travel approximately.6 miles north on West Valley Highway to SW Grady Way and then east or go more than a mile south to SE 180th StreetlSW 43rd Street before going east. In either. case, the circuitous route causes unnecessary congestion that would be alleviated by a direct cross-valley connection. 1.5.3 The Need to Provide Access to the Future Sound Transit Tukwila Station The Boeing Longacres site currently facilitates one of south King County's highest proportions of van pool users at a temporary Sound Transit station. The temporary station will eventually develop into the Sound Transit Tukwila Station and will become an important intermodal center for the South King County area. Current routes from the temporary facility to the freeway system are convoluted and congested. Improved access to this commuter rail station will encourage transit use, and help to relieve traffic congestion in the region. hnproved access would result in shorter commute times for high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) users, and keep the use of alternative modes of transportation high. 1.5.4 The Need to hnprove Freeway Operation Due to high traffic volumes, it is difficult for HOV and freight traffic on 1-405, SW Grady Way, and SW 43rd Street to access important employment and industrial centers in the GreenlDuwamish River valley. Bus movements across congested SR 167 traffic lanes between the inside HOV lanes and on-and off-ramps at the outside lanes increase travel times for HOVs and contribute to general purpose traffic congestion. By providing an additional cross-valley link, the proposed project would take some traffic off ofl-405 and SR 167. 1.5.5 The Need to Encourage Transit-Oriented Development Ifthe UPRR tracks are relocated to more closely parallel the BNSF tracks through the project area, additional land could be made available for economic development in Tukwila adjacent to the planned Sound Transit Tukwila commuter rail station. The location would be ideal for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and would reinforce Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report 8 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton DRAFT opportunities for development and growth within the Boeing Longacres site and surrounding areas. 1.5.6 The Need to Promote Freight Mobility and Economic Development Fast, reliable freight access to industrial areas in the GreenlDuwamish River Valley is crucial to economic development in the area; without such access, businesses could suffer and may choose to relocate. The extension of Strander Boulevard from West Valley Highway (SR 181) to SW 27th Street would improve access to SR 167, thus providing an alternative to the existing freight routes in the area. In addition to reducing travel time, the new facility may also reduce congestion in the area by drawing vehicles from other truck routes, thus reducing the overall congestion level in the area. Additional access to the future development ofthe Boeing Longacres site is equally important to the economic development currently projected and being planned. Without improved local and through access, the rate at which new and existing businesses choose to locate or expand here is likely to be significantly reduced. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Alternatives Considered Three action alternatives and a No Action alternative are evaluated in this report. The alternatives focus on a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and East Valley Road (see Figure 2.1) that would begin at the signalized intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway on the west and would tenninate at the unsignalized intersection of SW 27th Street and East Valley Road on the east, a distance of 6,500 feet. At present, West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW is an unimproved area with no roadway that directly connects Strander Boulevard with the area to the east. From Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road, there is an existing roadway approximately 3600 feet long. The project alternatives focus on strategies to cross the unimproved area, especially railroad tracks owned and operated by Union Pacific Railroad and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway. 2.1.1 No Action Alternative The No Action alternative would keep the project corridor as it currently exists. No new roadways would be constructed or improved in the corridor. The purpose and need for the project would not be met by the No Action alternative. Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report 9 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton 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 -~~ -' ! --I ,I AHEAD OF THE CURVE ~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~ C'V' •• Transportallon and Surveymg SEC. 19, T 23N, '" w 0: .. "-'" Q: Q: .. ~ "- 0 0 z "" City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension 43RD ST 180TH ST) «-Q o t:t: w I '- i.--c.. ___ Figure 2.1 Proposed Roadway Limits DRAFT 2.1.2 Alternative 1: Construction ofa Roadway Overpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes Alternative 1 would create a link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single overcrossing of both Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) tracks. From Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road, SW 27th Street would be widened and include pedestrian facilities and landscaping. Alternative 1 would include five elements: • Relocation ofthe Union Pacific Railroad track • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW • • • Improvements to SW 27th Street Modifications to the Interurban Trail Modifications to South Longacres Way Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track The UPRR track would be shifted to the east to parallel the existing two sets of BNSF . track. To develop this alternative, a new railroad track would be constructed within a new 100-foot right-of-way adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way and then joined with the existing UPRR track at both ends ofthe project area. Approximately 5,500 feet of new track would be constructed at an elevation similar to that ofthe existing BNSF tracks. Construction would require placement of 125,000 cubic yards of earth and gravel for the new railroad bed. The new UPRR track would be located at the center of the new 100- foot right-of-way. Approximately the same amount of track and railroad bed would be removed from the existing UPRR location as will be constructed at the new UPRR track location. The railroad bed material would be disposed of at an approved location or reused as a construction fill material. Construction would be sequenced so that disruption of railroad service would be avoided or minimized. With this alternative, the new UPRR track can be constructed while service is continuing on the old track. When the new track is completed, UPRR train traffic would be moved to the new track, the existing UPRR track and railroad bed would be removed, and construction ofthe roadway overpass would begin. New Roadway Construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW A new roadway would be constructed from the intersection of West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Strander Boulevard to the intersection of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 27th Street. The roadway alignment would be an extension of Strander Boulevard and curve to match up with the existing alignment of SW 27th Street. Alternative 1 would feature an overpass that would be constructed over the two existing BNSF tracks and the new UPRR track. The overpass would provide vertical clearance of Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report 11 Strander Boulevard Extension - May 2004 City of Renton 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 DRAFT 17 feet and include four travel lanes, a sidewalk on the north side, and a shared use path (combined bicycle/pedestrian path) on the southside for pedestrians and bicycles. From West VaHey Highway to the overpass, the roadway would consist of five lanes (four thru lanes and a two-way left tum lane), landscaped strips, a sidewalk on the north side, and ~ shared use path on the south side. Bicycle facilities would be provided in either combined travel laneslbicycle lanes or as a shared use path. The landscaped strips , would be provided between the traveled way and the pedestrian facilities, and in some locations where a two-way left turn lane is not needed, a landscaped median would be provided. The overpass would not have the two-way left tum lane and planter strips. From the overpass east to Oakesdale Avenue SW, the same five-lane roadway, landscape strips, and pedestrianlbicycle facilities would be constructed. This section (including the roadway, pedestrian facilities and landscaped strips) would be 90 feet wide from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, staying, for the most part, within the appropriate existing City-owned right-of-way. . The new roadway construction would result in three new intersections between West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW. There would be one intersection at the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station access road, and two intersections that would result from access roads to the Boeing Longacres site. New traffic signals would be installed at each ofthe~~ intersections. Improvements to SW 27th Street The existing section of roadway between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road would be widened to match that of the new roadway segment to the west (five lanes, landscaping strips, and pedestrianlbicycle facilities on each side). The section would be 90 feet wide from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, staying, for the most part, within existing City-owned right-of-way. At some locations where there are, space constraints or the need to avoid wetland impacts, the planter strip may be eliminated. Portions of the north side and south side ofthe proposed improvements may require a 3-to 8-foot block or rock wall at the back of the sidewalk to minimize impacts to the adjacent wetlands. A handrail would be required along the top of these wall sections. Modifications to the Interurban Trail The new roadway segment linking West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW would cut across the Interurban Trail. . As a result, it would be necessary to construct a new means of making the trail continuous. The least obtrusive and preferred route is to have an at-grade crossing at either West Valley Highway or at the future Tukwila Station access road intersection. On the north side and the south side of the roadway, trail users would be routed onto the new bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the roadway, directed toward the intersection, cross the intersection, and then be directed back to the existing trail. Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report 12 . Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton DRAFT Modifications to South Longacres Way South Longacres Way, which is approximately 1,700 feet north of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway, is bridged by the UPRR track and the BNSF tracks. It currently provides access to the temporary Sound Transit commuter rail parking area. The existing railroad bridges over South Longacres Way are narrow and have clearances that are below the minimum requirements. As a result of this project, if South Longacres Way were to continue to remain open, improvements would have to be made to provide minimum vertical clearances. A new UPRR bridge structure would have to be built, improvements would need to be made to the BNSF bridge structure, and the vertical profile of South Longacres Way would have to be lowered. 2.1.3 Alternative 2: Construction ofa Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes Alternative 2 would create a link between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a.single underpass of both the UPRR and BNSF tracks. As described previously for Alternative 1, the UPRR track would be relocated to the east to parallel the existing BNSF tracks. The roadway would be the same as Alternative 1 and have the same five dements as Alternative 1, listed below: • Relocation ofthe UPRR track • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW • • • Improvements to SW 27th Street Modifications to the Interurban Trail Modifications to South Longacres Way Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1; however, construction sequencing would be different. Construction would be sequenced so that disruption of railroad service would be avoided or minimized. The construction ofthe new railroad track and the roadway underpass (see new roadway construction subsection below) would also be constructed simultaneously. When the new track is completed, train traffic from the western BNSF tracks would be temporarily shifted to the new track and construction of the underpass beneath the unused tracks would take place. After completion of the second section of the underpass, train traffic from the eastern BNSF track would be temporarily shifted to the western track, and the third section of the underpass would be constructed under the eastern BNSF track. When the underpass is completed, BNSF train traffic would be shifted back to their two original tracks, and UPRR train traffic would be relocated to the new track, and the existing UPRR track and railroad bed would then be removed. Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report 13 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton 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 DRAFT This project element would be the same as Alternative 1, except that an underpass of all three railroad tracks (the relocated track used by UPRR and the two BNSF tracks) would be constructed rather than an overpass. The underpass would provide 17 feet of clear distance between the roadway and the bottom of the bridge structure and would contain all of the same roadway elements as in Alternative 1. Other elements of Alternatives would be walls along the underpass and in other various locations and the construction of water quality treatment and detention facilities. The underpass section would include a pump system to remove the accumulated rainwater. Improvements to SW 27th Street This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to the Interurban Trail This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to South Longacres Way This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. 2.1.4 Alternative 3: Construction ofa Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Union Pacific Railroad Track Not Relocated, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes As with Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would create a link between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single underpass of both the UPRR and BNSF tracks. Alternative 3 differs from Alternatives 1 and 2because the UPRR track would not be relocated to the east to parallel the existing BNSF tracks. For this alternative, the UPRR track would remain in their existing location. The roadway would be the same as that for Alternative 2 and would have most of the same elements as Alternative 2: • • • • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW Improvements to SW 27th Street Modifications to the Interurban Trail Modifications to South Longacres Way NeW Roadway Construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW Under Alternative 3, this project element would be the same as Alternative 2 except that the length of the underpass would be longer because of the different location of the railroad structures. The longer underpass would result in the purchase and modification to the existing parcels and businesses on the northeast and southeast comers ofthe intersection ofStrander and West Valley Highway. Changes would have to be made to these lots so that the driveways could match into the new roadway, which would be at a Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report 14 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton DRAFT lower elevation than the existing roadway. All other elements of the project that would result from the Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2. Improvements to SW 27th Street This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to the Interurban Trail This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to South Longacres Way With Alternative 3, there would be no required modifications to South Longacres Way because no changes would be made to the existing UPRR or BNSF tracks. 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND COORDINATION The methodology employed in the analysis of the proposed action's effects on public services and utilities involved the following steps: • Describing the existing public services and utilities in Tukwila and Renton along the proposed project based on the information from the sources mentioned below. • Analyzing the effects of each alternative on existing and future public services and utilities. • Providing a summary ofthe overall impact of each of the alternatives on existing and future public services and utilities. The following methods were used to gather information on existing public services and utilities in Tukwila arid Renton in the proposed project area: • Review ofthe City of Renton Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton, February 1995, Amended November 2003). • Review ofthe City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan (City of Tukwila, December 1995, Revised February 2001). • Telephone conversations with representatives from the City of Renton Fire Department, City of Renton Police Department, City of Tukwila Fire Department, and the City of Tukwila Police Department. • Review of the existing base map, showing utilities, for the proposed project area. • Review of correspondence with Seattle Public Utilities. • Review of the Environmental Procedures Manual (WSDOT 2003) • Inspection of the proposed project area in light ofthe different alternatives. Appendix A provides a complete list of agencies and individuals contacted. Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report 15 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton 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 DRAFT 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.1 Existing Public Services The existing public services within the proposed project area include fire protection and law enforcement services, provided by the City of Tukwila and the City of Renton (see Figure 4.2). The City of Tukwila has one police station located at 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. The City of Tukwila Police Department is a full service police department currently supporting 68 commissioned officers. This police station services the entire city, including the proposed project area up to the city limits. The City of Tukwila Fire Department has four fire stations. Station #51, which is located at 444 Andover Park East, is the first response station for the proposed project area. This fire station is the headquarters station for Tukwila and includes 11 day staff and 15 fire staff. There are no volunteers at this fire station. Basic life support is the emergency medical service is provided by the fire staff. Advanced life support and transport services for the proposed project area are provided by AMR, Tri-Med, and King County Medical. The fire station is located in a business district, and the primary response area for this station includes Southcenter mall and a large industrial and retail area. The primary route used by this fire station to service the proposed project area is to travel north on Andover Park East, tum east onto Strander Boulevard, and cross through the intersection of West Valley Highway. The City of Renton has one police station, which is located at 1055 South Grady Way. The City of Renton Police Department is a full service police department currently supporting 88 officers. This police station services the entire city, including the proposed project area up to the city limits. TheCity of Renton Fire Station #14, which is located at 1900 Lind Avenue SW, is the first response station for the proposed project area and provides fire and emergency medical services. This fire station includes 15 fire staff. There are no volunteers at this fire station. The firefighters at this fire station provide basic life support emergency medical service. Advanced life support and transport services for the proposed project area are provided by King County Medical, which leases a space for the emergency unit and operates out of this station. The primary route used by this fire station to service the proposed project area is to travel south on Lind Avenue SW and tum west on SW 27th Street. Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report 16 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton . J I --- City of Renton AHEAD OF THE CURVE Strander Boulevard Extension ~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. !iJ Civil, Transportation and Surveying S l11li Figure 4.2 Existing Public Services 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 DRAFT 4.2 Existing Utilities There are many existing overhead and underground utilities to be considered within the proposed project area, including power, telephone, sanitary sewer, storm drain, water, and gas. The agencies that own/operate the various utilities include both the municipal and private agencies listed below: • City of Renton • City of Tukwila • Puget Sound Energy • Seattle Public Utilities • Union Pacific Railroad • BNSF Railroad • BP for Olympic Pipeline Company • Comeast Cable Communications • Sprint • Metro King County • Level 3 Communications • MCI • Qwest To easily identify the utilities and determine potential impacts, the proposed action has been divided into three areas within this discipline report: (1) the proposed roadway limits area, (2) the existing SW 27th Street area; and (3) the railroad area (excluding the crossing at the roadway) (see Figure 4.3). 4.2.1 Proposed Roadway Limits Area Utilities within the area of the proposed roadway segment include overhead power lines, buried telephone, storm drainpipe, gas lines, and sanitary sewer pipe. Most of these utilities run north-south, perpendicular to the proposed roadway alignment. There is one overhead power line that runs east-west along to the proposed alignment for approximately 550 feet. 4.2.2 Existing SW 27th Street Area Along SW 27th Street there are several existing utilities within the limits of the roadway. These include buried telephone lines, gas lines, sanitary sewer pipe and structures, storm drain pipe and structures, buried power lines, and water lines. Several ofthese utilities run through the existing intersections, and some main storm drain and water lines should be specifically noted because they could be in conflict with new utilities or other roadway improvements. Along the center of SW 27th Street, between Springbrook Creek and Lind Avenue SW, there is a 24-inch storm drain pipe that runs for approximately 600 feet. Between Lind Avenue SW and East Valley Road, there is an 18-inch storm drain pipe that runs for approximately 500 feet. There is a 12-inch water line on the north side of Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report 18 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton STRAND~R '" '" "" Il. '" ~ o o z " 5 180H 5T '" '" " n. City of Renton --------1 ) / ~~~ __ ~~~ __ ~16_TH_I __ r5~T~I_~~~~~t-\I- '~~1I""i'i1\ \! \ I RAILROAD AREA \ . I ~ L_ \_\1' PROP9SED~ ROADWAY ldMITS I L / o I - '~ I ~ EXISTING SW 27TH iV,.......,....W-<::34=TH,"-"SCf T __ S1:I!EET ALIGNME!: ~ SW 41TH ST w /i 5E 43RO 1\1 L-.-\\ (5 ! ,I \\ 180TH 5T) AHEAD OF THE CURVE Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 4.3 Project Areas ~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~ Civil. Transportation and Surveying 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 DRAFT SW 27th Street, which runs for approximately 3,600 feet along the existing curb line between Oakesdale and East Valley Road. 4.2.3 Railroad Area The railroad area has both underground and overhead utilities. One major utility in this area, which is important to note because of potential conflicts, is the Cedar River pipeline, which is owned by Seattle Public Utilities (see Figure 4.4). This pipeline runs east-west and is located approximately 500 feet north of the Strander Boulevard alignment. The pipeline currently runs perpendicular to the UPRR and BNSF tracks, and the tracks have been built over the pipeline. A power substation is approximately 200 feet north ofthe proposed roadway alignment and 60 feet east ofthe UPRR track. An existing buried power line runs from the substation to the west and crosses under the UPRR track. There is a 36-inch sanitary sewer line approximately 100 feetnorth of the proposed roadway alignment that crosses under the existing BNSF tracks. Along the UPRR track, there are overhead power lines that run parallel to the track--one approximately 27 feet west ofthe track and one approximately 34 feet to the east. Along the BNSF tracks, a buried telephone line runs parallel to the western track, along the track alignment, and another buried telephone line runs parallel to the eastern track approximately 28 feet to the east. Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report20 Strander Boulevard Extension May2004 . City of Renton SW 7TH ST SE (S City of Renton AHEAD OF THE CURVE Strander Boulevard Extension ~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~ Civil. Transportation and Surveying -w- 43RO ST 180TH ST) Figure 4.4 Existing Utilities Cedar River Pipeline I I I I I I I I I I I I I il I I I I I' I I I I' I I I I ,I I I I I I I I DRAFT 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS 5.1 No Action Alternative 5.1.1 Direct Impacts The No Action alternative would have no direct impacts on either public services or utilities in the proposed project area. 5.1.2· Indirect Impacts The No Action alternative would have no indirect impacts on either public services or utilities in the proposed project area. 5.1.3 Cumulative Impacts The No Action alternative would have no cumulative impacts on either public services or utilities in the proposed project area. 5.1.4 Mitigation Measures Because there would be no impacts as a result ofthe No Action alternative, no mitigation measures would be necessary. 5.2 Alternative 1: Construction of a Roadway Overpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification ofSW 27th Street to Five Lanes 5.2.1 Direct Impacts Public Services During construction of Alternative 1, it is anticipated that fire, medic units, and police could experience some minimal delays in response times. This could occur on the existing segment of SW 27th Street due to temporary lane closures and daily construction activities. Utilities Alternative 1 would have direct adverse impacts on the existing utilities. In the area of the proposed roadway alignment, there are overhead power lines on both the east and west sides of the UPRR track, which would be in conflict with the overpass bridge structure. There is an existing overhead power line west of Oakesdale Avenue SW within the proposed roadway improvements. The remaining utilities in this area are underground utilities and most likely could remain in their current locations for this alternative (see Figure 5.1). Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report 22 . Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton \ -- I I I I I I -I I I I I I I / ... '., ............ '/ .. . , , " ~ ----dO---1 : \ I·" : . ; t--OP ----OP _--+--+-t.--L pp~---I---Iop : opl+---OP OP I: \ +---+---t-do~--1I-+----l ~O dO .. liEAD OF TIIE CURVE ~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. IiJ Civil, Transportation and Surveying l City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 5.1 EXisting Utilities :1 I I I I 'I, I I I I I I, I I' I' I I I I' I I I' I I' I I I, I I I I II I I I I I I DRAFT In the area of SW 27th Street, the construction of Alternative 1 would have major direct adverse impacts on the existing storm drain lines and structures. Most of the remaining utilities would be affected as a result of the location of new storm drain lines and detention/water quality facilities. The increased volume of stormwater runoff caused directly by the proposed action would result in the need for new conveyance and detention/water treatment facilities. During construction, there could be possible interruptions in the service of utilities. In the railroad area, there would be no direct impacts on the overhead or underground utilities as a result of Alternative 1. The relocation of the UPRR track would result in the track crossing over the Cedar River pipeline, thus causing property ownership and easement issues and special construction requirements for the track over the pipeline. Construction or operation of Alternative 1 would not directly impact the power substation. 5.2.2 Indirect Impacts The proposed project area is divided into three different land use categories (see Figure 5.2). Within the City of Tukwila, the areas to the north and west of Strander Boulevard are designated as Tukwila Urban Center and the area to the south of Strander Boulevard is designated Commercial Light Industrial. Within the City of Renton, the project area is designated as an Employment Area. With Alternative 1, the future development of these areas would result in increased demand for both public services and utilities. 5.2.3 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impacts to the public services and utilities in the proposed project area under Alternative 1 are concurrent with the indirect impacts under Alternative 1. 5.2.4 Mitigation Measures Public Services During construction of Alternative 1, the following mitigation measures would be put into place: • Emergency services would be provided, with regular updates on the progress of the construction activities and adequate notice of any proposed road closures or lengthy traffic delays. • Emergency vehicles would be encouraged to use alternative routes to avoid potential delays when possible. • Personnel controlling the movement of vehicles along roads where construction works are being carried out would give priority to emergency vehicles over other vehicles. Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report24 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton S 182nd S 111111 51 City of Renton AHEAD OF TIlE CURVE Strander Boulevard Extension ~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. IiJ Civil. Transponation and Surveying Employment Area-Valley Commercial Light Industrial Tukwila Urban Center Employment Area Industrial City Limits Residential Low Density Residential Single Family Figure 5.2 Land Use Map I I I I I I, I I / I I I I' I. I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Utilities As a result of Alternative 1, mitigation measures would consist of some new utilities being constructed and several of the existing utilities being relocated. The increase in stormwater runoff resulting from Alternative 1 would require new storm drain lines and detention/treatment facilities to be constructed. Depending on the type and location of . these facilities, other utilities may have to be relocated. The relocation of the UPRR track would require the UPRR and Seattle Public Utilities to settle on property ownership and easement issues. The UPRR would also be required to construct the crossing of the pipeline based on Seattle Public Utilities' requirements. 5.3 Alternative 2: Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross~Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes 5.3.1 Direct Impacts Public Services The direct impacts to public services in the proposed project area under Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Utilities Alternative 2 would have direct adverse impacts to the existing utilities in the proposed project area. In the area of the proposed roadway alignment, there are several underground utilities near the Interurban Trail and near the UPRR and BNSF tracks that would be in conflict with the roadway underpass (see Figure 5.1). There is currently an overhead power line west of Oakesdale Avenue SW within the proposed roadway improvement limits. The remaining utilities in the proposed roadway area are underground utilities and most likely could remain where they are under Alternative 2. In the area ofSW 27th Street, Alternative 2 would have major direct adverse impacts on the existing storm drain lines and structures, and most of the remaining utilities would be affected as a result of construction of new storm drain lines and detention/water quality facilities required for the underpass. The increased volume of storm water runoff caused directly by the Alternative 2 would result in the need for new conveyance and detention/water treatment facilities. During construction, there could be possible interruptions in the service of utilities. In the railroad area, there would be no direct impacts to the overhead or underground utilities as a result of Alternative 2. The relocation of the UPRR track would result in the track crossing over the Cedar River pipeline, thus causing property ownership and easement issues and special construction requirements for the track over the pipeline. Alternative 2 would not directly affect the power substation. Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report26 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton DRAFT 5.3.2 Indirect Impacts Public Services The indirect impacts to public services in the proposed project area under Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Utilities The indirect impacts to utilities in the proposed project area under Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. 5.3.3 Cumulative Impacts Public Services The cumulative impacts to public services in the proposed project area under Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Utilities The cumulative impacts to utilities in the proposed project area under Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. 5.3.4 Mitigation Measures Public Services The mitigation measures to public services in the proposed project area under Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Utilities As a result of Alternative 2, some new utilities would have to be constructed and several ofthe.existing utilities would have to be relocated (similar to the mitigation measures for Alternative 1). Existing utilities that currently run parallel with the railroad tracks and cross the proposed roadway alignment area would have to be relocated. It is likely that these utilities would be relocated within the overpass structure. The increase in stormwater runoff resulting from Alternative 2 would require the construction of new storm drain lines and detention/treatment facilities. Depending on the type and location of these facilities, other utilities may need to be relocated. The relocation of the UPRR track would require the UPRR and Seattle Public Utilities to settle on property ownership and easement issues. The UPRR would also be required to construct the crossing of the pipeline based on Seattle Public Utilities' requirements. Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report27 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton I I I I 'I' I I I I I I I I ,I I' I 'I II II il I I I 'I I I I I " I I I' 'I 'I I I ,I I DRAFT 5.4 Alternative 3: Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link:, Union Pacific Railroad Track Not Relocated, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes 5.4.1 Direct Impacts Public Services The cumulative impacts to public services in the proposed project area under Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Utilities In the areas of the proposed roadway and the existing SW 27th Street, the direct impacts on utilities under Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. In the railroad area (excluding the area where the tracks cross the proposed roadway), there would be no direct impacts on any ofthe utilities because the UPRR track would not be relocated under Alternative 3. The shooflies that would be constructed for this alternative would be temporary and would not affect the utilities. 5.4.2 Indirect Impacts Public Services The indirect impacts to public services in the proposed project area under Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Utilities The indirect impacts to utilities in the proposed project area under Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 1. 5.4.3 Cumulative Impacts Public Services The cumulative impacts to the public services under Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Utilities The cumulative impacts to utilities in the proposed project area under Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report28 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton DRAFT 5.4.4 Mitigation Measures Public Services The mitigation measures to public services in the proposed project area under Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Utilities The mitigation measures for utilities in the proposed project area under Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. 6.0 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES A summary of the impacts discussed in Section 5 is provided in Table 6.1. As shown in Table 6.1, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would potentially have the same impacts on public services during both construction and operation. With respect to the impacts on the utilities, Alternative 1 would potentially have the most impacts during operation and Alternative 3 would have the least amount of impacts. The No Action alternative would not have any impacts on public services or utilities. Table 6.1: Summary of Potential Impacts to Public Services and Utilities Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts Alternative No Action No direct impacts. No indirect impacts. Alternative 1: Emergency vehicles could There would be an Construction of a experience minimal delays increase in demand for Roadway Overpass during construction. Existing public services and utilities Cross-Valley Link, utilities would be in conflict with future development of Relocation of the with the overpass bridge the Tukwila Urban Center, Union Pacific RR structure. Power poles and the commercial light Track, and luminaries would be in industrial area, and the Modification of SW conflict with the location of employment area. 27th Street to Five the new roadway segment Lanes The capacity of storm drain facilities would increase and other underground utility locations could be affected by storm drain facilities. In the railroad area, there would be property and easement issues. Possible interruption of utility service during construction could occur. -. Alternative 2: Impacts to public services Same as Alternative 1. Construction of a would be the same as Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report29 . Strander Boulevard Extension Cumulative Impacts No cumulative impacts. Concurrent with the indirect impacts. Same as Alternative 1. May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Roadway Alternative 1. Underground Underpass Cross-utilities would be in conflict Valley Link, with the roadway underpass. Relocation of the Power poles and luminaries Union Pacific RR would be in conflict with the Track, and location of the new roadway Modification of SW segment. The capacity of 27th Street to Five storm drain facilities would Lanes increase and other underground utility locations could be affected by storm drain facilities. In the railroad area, there would be property and easement issues. Possible interruption of utility service during construction could occur. Alternative 3: Impacts to public services Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Construction of a would be the same as Roadway Alternative 1. Underground Underpass Cross-utilities would be in conflict Valley Link, Union with the roadway underpass. Pacific RR Track Power poles and luminaries Not Relocated, and would be in conflict with the Modification of SW location of the new roadway 27th Street to Five segment. The capacity of Lanes storm drain facilities would, increase and other underground utility locations could be affected by storm drain facilities. Possible interruption of utility service during construction could occur. 7.0 REFERENCES City of Renton, 1995. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Februaryl995, Amended November 2003. City of Tukwila. 1995. City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan (, December 1995, Revised February 2001. Rand McNally 2004. The Thomas Guide, King, Pierce, & Snohomish Counties. , WSDOT. 2003. Environmental Procedures Manual. June. Draft Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report30 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton DRAFT Appendix A Individuals and Agencies Contacted • Aumiller, Megan, Records Specialist, City of Tukwila Police Department, telephone, April 19, 2004. • Gambill, Bob, Seattle Public Utilities, e-mail, February 19,2004. • Larson, Art, Deputy Chief, City of Renton Fire Department, telephone, April 21, 2004. • Milosevich, Kevin, Deputy Chief, City of Renton Police Department, telephone, April 20, 2004. • Tomaso, Don, Captain, City of Tukwila Fire Department, telephone, April 21, 2004. 31 I I I I I I I I I ,I I I .1 I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEP A Environmental Review Application .Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton September 2004 -23'· TRAFFIC STUDY The attached Transportation Technical Discipline Report provides the information required for this section of the application. ....................................................................................................................................................... ~ Perteet Inc. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 1 2004 RECEIVED 23-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I DRAFT TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL DISCIPLINE REPORT Prepared For: Prepared By: Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton Department of Public Works Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Everett, WA 98201 (425) 252-7700 May 2004 I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............••....................•......................................................•......... 1 1.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE ........ , .. , ........................................................... 1 1.2 STUDY AREA .................•.......................................................... , ............................... 1 1.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2 1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE .........................................................................•.......................... ·3 1.5 PROJECT NEED .......•......••..................•..............................•........•....•.............••........... 3 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF AL TERNATIVES ..........................•...••..•.•................••..•......... 5 2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...............................................•.....•...•.......................... '5 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND COORDINATION ....................................................... 10 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................... 11 . 4.1 EXISTING RECREATION AREAS / FACILITIES ....................•...................................... 11 4.2 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROPOSED ACTION ...............•................. 16 5.0 IMPACT ANALySIS .............................................................................................. 18 5.1 No ACTION ALTERNATIVE ......................................••...............•.....•......•..•...•.......... 18 5.2 AL TERNA TIVE 1: CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWAY OVERPASS CROSS-VALLEY LINK, RELOCATION OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACK, AND MODIFICATION OF SW 27TH STREET TO FIVE LANES ....•.............................................•...•....•............................. 22 5 .3 ALTERNATIVE 2: CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWA Y UNDERPASS CROSS-VALLEY LINK, RELOCATION OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS, AND MODIFICATION OF SW 27TH STREET TO FIVE LANES ..•................................................••.....•....................... 31 5.4 ALTERNATIVE 3: CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWAY UNDERPASS CROSS-VALLEY LINK, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS NOT RELOCATED, AND MODIFICATION OF SW 27TH-STREET TO FIVE LANES .........................••......................•..............•........................ 34 6.0 COMPARISION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ..............••.......•...........•.................. 34 7.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 38 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 4.1: 2004 EXISTING CONDITIONS LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARy ...................... ,. 15 TABLE 5.1: 2015 No ACTION ALTERNATIVE (BASELINE CONDITIONS) LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARy ......................................................................................................•........... 19 TABLE 5.2: 2030 No ACTION ALTERNATIVE (BASELINE CONDITIONS) LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARy ...........................................................................•...................................... 20 TABLE 5.3: 2015 ALTERNATIVE 1 CONDITIONS LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARy .............. 23 TABLE 5.4: 2030 ALTERNATIVE 1 CONDITIONS LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARy .............. 24 TABLE 5.5: EXISTING SOUTHCENTER TO RENTON RIDERSHIP ...•...................................•... 28 TABLE 5.6 : ESTIMATED STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION RIDERSHIP ......................... 30 TABLE 6.1: LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON ......•...............•............................................ 35 TABLE 6.2: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ........... 36 Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I' ,I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Organization and Scope This report has been prepared by Perteet Engineering, Inc. (perteet) on behalf of the City of Renton (the City) to assess the potential impacts of the Strander Boulevard Extension Project (the Project) on the transportation system in the City of Tukwila and the City of Renton in the proposed proj ect area. The report provides supporting information for the Environmental Assessment being prepared by Perteet for the Project. This report identifies and describes the transportation impacts to the existing arterial network in Tukwila and Renton created by the alignments of the new roadway segment, the transportation facility improvements, and the railroad tracks. The report also assesses the traffic and rail impacts during construction for each of the alternatives. The benefits and impacts of the alternatives on the future arterial system are ad~essed, and the appropriate mitigation measures are recommended where necessary. 1.2 Study Area The project vicinity is located within the jurisdictions of both the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila in Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 5 East; Sections 24 and 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East; Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East (See Location Map, Figure 1.1). Renton is located at the south end of Lake Washington on the edge of metropolitan and rural King County. Its location between Seattle, Tacoma, and Bellevue places Renton in the center of a region that is the economic hub of the state. Renton encompasses approximately 16.7 square miles. . Renton and Tukwila are at the crossroads of a regional transportation network where seven state and interstate highways converge and which is central to national and international air traffic. The project vicinity area is a sideways T-shape. It includes the area between the west side of the Interurban Trail and the east side of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad track. The study area for the traffic impact evaluation includes Grady Way to the north, SR-167 to the east, SW 43rd Street to the south, and West Valley Highway to the west. The southern boundary is south of a railroad spur heading northwest from the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline (the spur that crosses the Green River, not the short spur that serves adjacent businesses), which is about 1,700 feet south ofStrander Boulevard. The spur would be the approximate takeoff point for a new UPRR mainline track that would replace the existing track. The new track would parallel the existing BNSF tracks. On the north end, the project area extends just past 1-405 where the UPRR track begins to parallel the BNSF tracks. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT East of the BNSF tracks, the bulk of the proposed project construction in the primary study area would be confmed to the Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street corridor, bnmching off at the points where the Boeing access roads and Sounder station access are to be located. From Oakesdale Avenue to East Valley Road, the'expectation is to widen the existing roadway within the right-of-way limits. The new roadway would be a five- lane section with sidewalks and planter strips onboth sides (See Figure 1.2). The intent is to keep the project within City right-of-way. 1.3 Project Background This project began with the formation of the Project Stakeholder Committee composed of public agencies and private businesses. Members of the committee have some insight concerning the needs of this project, opportunities that this project could promote, and potential transit and commuter rail improvements it could provide for the Tukwila commuter rail station. The Project Team facilitated Project Stakeholder Committee meetings with affected agencies, such as WSDOT; City of Renton; City of Tukwila; King County; and private businesses, including Boeing, BNSF, and UPRR. Concurrently, the Project Team reviewed existing information regarding the corridor and the existing environment and infrastructure within the project corridor. The Project Team assembled information about to potential corridor concepts, existing and projected traffic that would be generated by the proposed corridor improvements, affected environment, and costs. The Project Stakeholder Committee, formed by the City of Renton, became a source of guidance and input with regard to the information assembled for the potential corridor concept~ by the Project Team. The role of this committee was to review and comment on the major study tasks and to recommend preferred concepts. The committee met seven times during this phase of the project and provided the Project Team their endorsement to the Project Team's preliminary recommendation for each of the three proposed segments , (See Figure 1.3): • Segment 1 -West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW • Segment 2 -Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Highway • Segment 3 -added access to SR 167 via East Valley Road At the conclusion of the study, the City of Renton determined that construction of Segments 1 and 2 by themselves would provide a vital cross-valley route and have substantial utility independent of Segment 3. The Project Team prepared a statement of the problem based on a review of existing traffic volumes, projected 20-year traffic volumes, economic growth projections from the cities of Renton and Tukwila, and committee member discussions. There were initially 13 potential concepts for Segment 1, 5 potential concepts for Segment 2, and 4 potential concepts for Segment 3. Each of these concepts was described in a conceptual level of detail. At this level of definition, the corridor improvements included sketches, key Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 2 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT physical and operational features, functions, benefits, and potential impacts to the environment. The Project Team evaluated the concepts through a first-level screening, which was essentially a "fatal flaw" analysis. Concepts were recommended for elimination if they contained serious flaws, were likely to perform poorly, demonstrated an undesirable combination of performance and adverse impacts, or did not appear to meet the committee's committed goal for the project. Following the initial screening, a second screening was conducted on the concepts not eliminated. During the second-level screening, a more detailed evaluation was applied using additional criteria related to transportation performance, land use/social impacts, environmental impacts, and cost/feasibility. A final screening was conducted on the last remaining concepts using the same criteria as the second screening but with additional information collected, as well as the results of a traffic analysis on the effects of adding this east-west corridor between SW Grady Way and South 180th StreetlSW 43rd Street. In addition, more detailed costs of the concepts were discussed and the potential for funding the concept and the overall financial viability of a concept were evaluated. During each of the evaluation screenings, the Project Stakeholder Committee was briefed on the evaluation. Upon endorsement by the Project Stakeholder Committee, the Project Team continued to the next level of evaluation. The final screening resulted in a preliminary recommendation for each segment by the Project Team. The Project Stakeholder Committee has concurred with this preliminary recommendation. 1.4 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to improve travel speed, reliability, and access in the north Renton/south Tukwila area. This would be accomplished by adding a new roadway . segment from Strander Boulevard to SW 27th Street and roadway improvements along SW 27th Street. This would result in a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and East Valley Road via Strander Boulevard in Tukwila and SW 27th Street in Renton. 1.5 Project Need The proposed project would meet several needs important to both Renton and Tukwila. The project would: • Decrease travel time and increase reliability • Relieve congestion • Provide access to the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station • Improve freeway operation • Encourage transit-oriented development • Promote freight mobility and economic development Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 3 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 1.S.1 The Need to Decrease Travel Time and Increase Reliability The absence of a direct route to and from the proj ect area between West Valley Highway and SR 167 results in extra travel time for freight shippers, transit vehicles, and general purpose vehicles. A grade-separated route crossing the UPRR and BNSF tracks would both decrease travel times and increase the certainty that vehicles would not be delayed . by trains traveling through the area 1.S.2 The Need to Relieve Congestion In order for traffic from Strander Boulevard to cross the UPRR and BNSF tracks and connect with East Valley Road, vehicles must either travel approximately 0.6 miles ·north on West Valley Highway to SW Grady Way and then go east or travel more than a mile south to SE 180th StreetiSW 43rd Street before going east. In either case,the circuitous route causes unnecessary congestion that would be alleviated by a direct cross-valley connection. I~S.3 The Need to Provide Access to the Future Sound Transit Tukwila Station The Boeing Longacres site currently facilitates one of south King County's highest proportions of van pool users at a temporary Sound Transit station. The temporary station will eventually develop into the Sound Transit Tukwila Station and will become an important intermodal center for the South King County area .. Current routes from the temporary facility to the freeway system are convoluted and congested. Improved access to this commuter rail station will encourage transit use, and help to relieve traffic . congestion in the region. Improved access would result in shorter commute times for high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) users, and keep the use of alternative modes of transportation high. I.S.4 The Need to Improve Freeway Operation Due to high traffic volumes, it is difficult for HOV and freight traffic on 1-40S, SW Grady Way, and SW 43rd Street to access important employment and industrial centers in the GreenlDuwamish River valley. Bus movements across congested SR 167 traffic lanes between the inside HOV lanes and on-and off-ramps at the outside lanes increase travel times for HOV s and contribute to general purpose traffic congestion. By providing an additional cross-valley link, the proposed project would take some traffic off ofI-40S and SR 167. I.S.S The Need to Encourage Transit-Oriented Development If the UPRR track is relocated to more closely parallel the BNSF tracks through the project area, additional land could be made available for economic development in Tukwila adjacent to the planned Sound Transit Tukwila commuter rail station. The location would be ideal for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and would reinforce Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 4 May 2004 City of Renton :>"" I I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT opportunities for development and growth within the Boeing Longacres site and surrounding areas. 1.5.6 The Need to Promote Freight Mobility and Economic Development Fast, reliable freight access to industrial areas in.the GreenlDuwamish River V,~l1ey is crucial to economic development in the area; without such access, businesses could suffer and may choose to relocate. The extension of Strander Boulevard from West Valley Highway (SR 181) to SW 27th Street would improve access to SR 167, thus providing an alternative to the existing freight routes in the area. In addition to reducing travel time, . the new facility may also reduce congestion in the area by drawing vehicles from other truck routes, thus reducing the overall congestion level in the area. Additional access to the future development of the Boeing Longacres site is equally important to the economic development currently projected and being planned. Without improved local and through access, the rate at which new and existing businesses choose to locate or expand here is likely to be significantly reduced. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Alternatives Considered Three action alternatives and a No Action alternative are evaluated in this report. The alternatives focus on a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and East Valley Road (see Figure 2.1) that would begin at the signalized intersection of . Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway on the west and would terminate at the unsignalized intersection of SW 27th Street and East Valley Road on the east, a distance of 6,500 feet. At present, West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW is an unimproved area with no roadway that directly connects Strander Boulevard with the area to the east. From Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road, there is an existing roadway approximately 3,600 feet long. The project alternatives focus on strategies to cross the unimproved area, especially railroad tracks owned and operated by Union Pacific Railroad and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway. 2.1.1 No Action Alternative The No Action alternative would keep the project corridor as it currently exists. No new roadways would be constructed or improved in the corridor. The purpose and need for the 'project would not be met by the No Action alternative. Draft Transportation Discipline Report. Strander Boulevard Extension 5 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 2.1.2 Alternative 1: Construction of a Roadway Overpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification ofSW 27th Street to Five Lanes Alternative 1 would create a link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single overcrossing of both Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) tracks. From Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road, SW 27th Street would be widened and include pedestrian facilities and landscaping. Alternative 1 would include five elements: • Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad track • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW • • • Improvements to SW 27th Street Modifications to the Interurban Trail Modifications to South Longacres Way Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track The UPRR track would be shifted to the east to parallel the existing two sets ofBNSF track. To develop this alternative, a new railroad track would be constructed within a new 100-foot right-of-way adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way and thenjoined with the existing UPRR track at both ends of the project area. Approximately 5,500 feet of new track would be constructed at an elevation similar to that of the existing BNSF tracks. Construction would require placement of 125,000 cubic yards of earth and gravel for the new railroad bed. The new UPRR track would be located at the center of the new 100- foot right-of-way. Approximately the same amount of track and railroad bed would be removed from the existing UPRR location as will be constructed at the new UPRR track location. The railroad bed material would be disposed of at an approved location or reused as a construction fill material. Construction would be sequenced so that disruption of railroad service would be avoided or minimized. With this alternative, the new UPRR track can be constructed while service is continuing on the old track. When the new track is completed, UPRR train traffic would be moved to the new track, the existing UPRR track and railroad bed would be removed, and construction of the roadway overpass would begin. New Roadway Construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW A new roadway would be constructed from the intersection of West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Strander Boulevard to the intersection of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 27th Street. The roadway alignment would be an extension of Strander Boulevard and curve to match up with the existing alignment of SW 27th Street. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 6 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Alternative 1 would feature an overpass that would be constructed over the two existing BNSF tracks and the new UPRR track. The overpass would provide vertical clearance of 17 feet and include four travel lanes, a sidewalk on the north side, and a shared use path (combined bicycle/pedestrian path) on the south side for pedestrians and bicycles. From West Valley Highway to the overpass, the roadway would consist of five lanes (four thru lanes and a two-way left turn lane), landscaped strips, a sidewalk on the north side, and a shared use path on the south side. Bicycle facilities would be provided in either combined travellanes/bicycle lanes or as a shared use path. The landscaped strips would be provided between the traveled way and the pedestrian facilities, and in some locations where a two-way left turn lane is not needed, a landscaped median would be provided. The overpass would not have the two-way left turn lane and planter strips. From the overpass east to Oakesdale Avenue SW, the same five-lane roadway, landscape strips, and pedestrianlbicycle facilities would be constructed. This section (including the roadway, pedestrian facilities and landscaped strips) would be 90 feet wide from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, staying, for the most part, within the appropriate existing City-owned right-of-way. The new roadway construction would result in three new intersections between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW. There would be one intersection at the· future Sound Transit Tukwila Station access road, and two intersections that would result from access roads to the Boeing Longacres site. New traffic signals would be installed at each of these intersections. Improvements to SW 27th Street The existing section of roadway between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road would be widened to match that of the new roadway segment to the west (five lanes, landscaping strips, and pedestrianlbicycle facilities on each side). The section would be 90 feet wide from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, staying, for the most part, within existing City-owned right-of-way. At some locations where there are space constraints or the need to avoid wetland impacts, the planter strip may be eliminated. Portions of the north side and south side of the proposed improvements may require a 3-to 8-foot block or rock wall at the back of the sidewalk to minimize impacts to the adjacent wetlands. A handrail would be required along the top of these wall sections. Modifications to the Interurban Trail The new roadway segment linking West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW would cut across the Interurban Trail. As a result, it would be necessary to construct a new means of making the trail continuous. The least obtrusive and preferred route is to have an at-grade crossing at either West Valley Highway or at the future Tukwila Station access road intersection. On the north side and the south side of the roadway, trail users would be routed onto the new bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the roadway, directed toward the intersection, cross the intersection, and then be directed back to the existing· trail. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 7 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Modifications to South Longacres Way South Longacres Way, which is approximately 1,700 feet north of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway, is bridged by the UPRR track and the BNSF tracks. It currently provides access to the temporary Sound Transit commuter rail parking area. The existing railroad bridges over South Longacres Way are narrow and have clearances that are below the minimum requirements. As a result of this project, if South Longacres Way were to continue to remain open, improvements would have to be made to provide minimum vertical clearances. A new UPRR bridge structure would have to be built, improvements would need to be made to the BNSF bridge structure, and the vertical profile of South Longacres Way would have to be lowered. 2.1.3 Alternative 2: Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes Alternative 2 would create a link between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single underpass of both the UPRR and BNSF tracks. As described previously for Alternative 1, the UPRR track would be relocated to the east to parallel the existing BNSF tracks. The roadway would be the same as Alternative 1 and have the same five elements as Alternative 1, listed below: • Relocation of the UPRR track • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW • • • Improvements to SW 27th Street Modifications to the Interurban Trail Modifications to South Longacres Way Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1; however, construction sequencing would be different. Construction would be sequenced so that disruption of railroad service would be avoided or minimized. The construction of the new railroad track and the roadway underpass (see new roadway construction subsection below) would also be constructed simultaneously. When the new track is completed, train traffic from the western BNSF tracks would be temporarily shifted to the new track and construction of the underpass beneath the unused tracks would take place. After completion of the second section of the underpass, train traffic from the eastern BNSF track would be temporarily shifted to the western track, and the third section of the underpass would be constructed under the eastern BNSF track. When the underpass is completed, BNSF train traffic would be shifted back to their two original tracks, and UPRR train traffic would be relocated to the new track, and the existing UPRR track and railroad bed would then be removed. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 8 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT New Roadway Construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW This project element would be the same as Alternative 1, except that an underpass of all three railroad tracks (the relocated track used by UPRR and the two BNSF tracks) would be constructed rather than an overpass. The underpass would provide 17 feet of clear distance between the roadway and the bottom ofthe bridge structure and would contain all of the same roadway elements as in Alternative 1. Other elements of Alternatives would be walls along the underpass and in other various locations and the construction of water quality treatment and detention facilities. The underpass section would include a pump system to remove the accumulated rainwater. Improvements to SW 27th Street This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to the Interurban Trail This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to South Longacres Way This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. 2.1.4 Alternative 3: Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Union Pacific Railroad Track Not Relocated, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes As with Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would create a link between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single underpass of both the UPRR and BNSF tracks. Alternative 3 differs from Alternatives 1 and 2because the UPRR track would riot be relocated to the east to parallel the existing BNSF tracks. For this alternative, the UPRR track would remain in their existing location. The roadway would be the sanie as that for Alternative 2 and would have most of the same elements as Alternative 2: • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue • • • SW . hnprovements to SW 27th Street Modifications to the Interurban Trail Modifications to South Longacres Way New Roadway Construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW Under Alternative 3, this project element would be the same as Alternative 2 except that the length of the underpass would be longer because of the different location of the railroad structures. The longer underpass would result in the purchase and modification to the existing parcels and businesses on the northeast and southeast comers of the intersection of Strander and West Valley Highway. Changes would have to be made to Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 9 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT these lots so that the driveways could match into the new roadway, which would beat a lower elevation than the existing roadway. All other elements of the project that would result from the Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2. Improvements to SW 27th Street This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to the Interurban Trail This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to South Longacres Way With Alternative 3, there would be no required modifications to South Longacres Way because no changes would be made to the existing UPRR or BNSF tracks. Capital Improvements Necessary to Facilitate Transit on the Strander Extension In order to achieve the travel time savings and additional passenger growth, several capital improvements are necessary. The capital improvements are listed as follows: • Sidewalks -The Strander Extension should have sidewalks on both sides of the road. • Bus Shelters -Any bus stop on Strander Boulevard should have a bus shelter. • Connectivity to Sounder Station -If possible, a bus stop on the Strander Extension that connects directly to the Sounder Station platforms should be created. It is assumed that this would require pullouts and stairs to the platforms on both the north and south side of the Strander Extension. In addition, due to the roadway geometry, bus pullouts would be required at this stop. • Transit Signal Priority -In order to maintain speed and reliability on the Strander Extension, TSP is necessary at each of the signalized intersections along this segment. TSP is particularly salient at the Longacres Campus driveway locations, as spare greentime should be available throughout the day to minimize delays for buses. . 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND COORDINATION The methodology employed in the analysis of the proposed action's effects on the transportation system involved the following steps: • Developed the baseline year 2004 existing traffic volume and level of service (LOS) conditions using existing traffic counts provided by the City of Renton and new 24- hour directional classification and intersection p.m. peak hour turning movement counts collected in January 2004. • Defined future transportation improvement projects and arterial/freeway system network for the opening year 2015 and design year 2030. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 10 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT • Detennined future traffic volumes based on an EMME2 traffic model and projections . provided by the City of Renton for the design year 2030. Post-processed the traffic model output to establish future baseline and opening project year traffic volumes. • Conducted LOS analyses for existing year 2004,2015 opening year baseline and with project conditions, and 2030 baseline and with project conditions. All level of service calculations followed the methodology outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual utilizing Synchro 5.0 analysis software by Trafficware. • Projected freight volumes and mobility benefits with the proposed project using freight projections developed from the resulting traffic model estimates for the 2015 and 2030 analysis years. Also, reviewed transit operations and benefits with the proposed proj ect. • . Defined mitigation recommendatiOlis for the future network conditions with and without the proposed Strander Boulevard extension and documented findings. The following methods were used to gather infonnation on existing and future transportation facilities in Tukwila and Renton in the proposed project area: • Review of the City o/Renton Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton, February 1995, Amended November 2003) • Review of the City o/Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan (City of Tukwila, December 1995, Revised February 2001) • Review of the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS- Transportation Impact Study (Transportation Engineering NorthWest, June 30, 2003) • ReView of the Project Definition Report For: Strander Boulevard SW 27th Street Corridor Improvements (BERGER! ABAM, February 2002) • Coordination with City of Renton Engineering staff 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.1 Existing Conditions 4.1.1 Road Network The transportation system serving the project vicinity and study area include 1-405, SR 167, West Valley Highway, Strander Boulevard, SW Grady Way, SW 43rd Street, East Valley Road, SW 27th Street, Oakesdale Avenue SW, and Lind Avenue. Interstate 405 currently carries approximately 134,000 vehicles per day through the project study area, with access provided at its interchanges with SR 167 and West Valley Highway. With a total of three lanes in each direction, 1-405 currently experiences significant p.m. peak hour delay. The congestion occurring on 1-405 directly affects the travel patterns through the study area because many drivers avoid 1-405 and use the Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 11 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT parallel east-west arterial corridors, thus adding traffic volumes that would nonnally not divert onto a local arterial for daily commuting. State Route 167 is a north-south state highway that serves as a link to the South King County communities. WSDOT traffic volume records indicate that SR 167 currently carries approximately 117,000 vehicles per day. As one of the few significant parallel routes to 1-5, it is used significantly as a freight route, particUlarly with the commercial industrial land uses located along its corridor. Its interchanges at SW 43rd Street and 1- 405 are the primary access routes into the local arterial system in the project vicinity. West Valley Highway is a four-to five lane major arterial within the City of Tukwila that serves as a primary connection for north-south travel and parallels 1-5 to the west and SR 167 to the east. Its interchange at 1-405 serves as a significant connector to the freeway system. It is the west terminus of the proposed action at its intersection with Strander Boulevard and carries approximately 35,000 vehicles per day in the vicinity of Strander Boulevard. It has a posted speed of 40 miles per hour (mph). Strander Boulevard is a four-to five-lane, east-west minor arterial that serves the Southcenter Mall area and links Southcenter Parkway to West Valley Highway. It is one of two east-west routes that connect to West Valley Highway and therefore also serves as a significant freight route for the City of Tukwila. Strander Boulevard has a posted speed limit of35 mph and carries approximately 20,000 vehicles per day west of West Valley Highway. SW Grady Way is a four-to five-lane east-west, major arterial that provides a local access parallel route to 1-405 from Renton to Tukwila. It serves as a primary access route to the Boeing Longacres site and to many other commercial uses in the study area between West Valley Highway and East Valley Road. It haS a posted speed limit of 35 mph and carries approximately 41,000 vehicles per day just east of West Valley Highway where it interchanges with 1-405. SW Grady Way currently intersects SR 167 with an at- grade intersection. Southwest 43rd Street is a four-to five-lane, east-west major arterial and similar to SW Grady Way, and provides local access as a parallel route to 1-405 from Renton to Tukwila. It is a primary freight route for the Southcenter area and becQmes South ISOth Street within the Tukwila ci~ limits. The City of Tukwila completed a roadway undercrossing along SW 43r Street (S IS0th Street) last year to minimize delay of train traffic to the east-west traffic flow. The portion of this roadway within Tukwila city limits has a posted speed of 25 mph, whereas, the portion within Renton city limits has a posted speed of35 mph. It carries approximately 45,000 vehiCles per day east of West Valley Highway. East Valley Road is a three-to four-lane, north-south collector arterial and provides local access between SW 43rd Street and 1-405 in the study area. It is the eastern terminus of the proposed action. Although its intersection with SW 27th Street already exists, the current intersection would be revised to include an east leg of the intersection for the Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 12 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Direct Access ramp to SR 167. It has a posted speed limit of35 mph and carries approximately 7,900 vehicles per day in the project vicinity. Southwest 27th Street is a three-to four-lane, east-west collector arterial that connects Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road. It would be widened as a part of the proposed action. It has a posted speed of 35 mph and currently carries approximately 1,500 vehicles per day. Oakesdale Avenue SW and Lind Avenue are four-lane, north-south collector arterials that primarily serve the commercial land uses in the project study area through their connections to SW 43rd Street to the south and SW 16th Street to the north. Theyboth have a posted speed of 35 mph, with Oakesdale Avenue SW carrying approximately 8,000 vehicles per day and Lind Avenue carrying approximately 10,000 vehicles per day. 4.1.2 Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volume data were provided by the City of Renton for the p.m. peak hour tum movements at the critical study intersections identified for this report. The nine study intersections identified for analyses included the following: City of Tukwila: 1. West Valley Highway and SW Grady Way 2. West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard 3. West Valley Highway and SW 43rd Street City of Renton: 4. SW 27th Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW 5. Lind Avenue and SW Grady Way 6. Lind Avenue and SW 27th Street 7. SW Grady Way and Rainier Avenue 8. SW 27th Street and East Valley Road 9. SW 43rd Street and East Valley Road The 2002 and 2003 turn movement count data provided by the City of Renton for their intersections were supplemented by additional p.m. peak hour turn movement counts at the West Valley Highway intersections in Tukwila, and 24-hour directional and classification counts conducted at 12 locations in the project study area. All additional counts were conducted in late January 2004. To update the City of Renton traffic counts to 2004 existing conditions, a background growth factor based on intersection approach volume projections obtained through the City's traffic model was used to establish existing year 2004 conditions for all of the study locations. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 depict the existing average daily and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes in the study area, respectively. The traffic volume data obtained and/or developed to supplement the City's data have been forwarded to the City of Renton to update their database. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 13 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 4.1.3 Level of Service Analysis An LOS analysis was conducted for the study intersections identified for analyses in this report (see Section 4.1.3 above). The LOS analyses conducted for the identified study intersections were needed to determine the net benefits and impacts of the future Strander Boulevard extension traffic to the arterial system. All p.m. peak hour LOS calculations follow the methodology outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board and Synchro 5.0 support software developed by Trafficware. The detailed LOS calculations for existing conditions and project alternatives are attached in Appendix A. Congestion is generally measured in terms of LOS., In accordance with the Updated 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, facilities are rated with any value between LOS A and F, with LOS A being free flow and LOS F being forced flow or over capacity conditions. The LOS at all intersections is calculated in terms of seconds of delay per vehicle. Geometric characteristics and conflicting traffic movements are taken into consideration when determining LOS values. Level of service analyses were conducted for the p.m. peak hour under 2004 existing conditions at the study intersections. The existing intersection channelization used in the LOS calculations is shown in Figure 4.3. Of the nine study intersections analyzed, only the intersection of SW 27th Street and East Valley Road is unsignalized with stop sign control. The remaining eight intersections are signalized with traffic control signals. The results of the LOS analyses for the study intersections under existing conditions are summarized in Table 4.1. The results indicate that all of the study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during the p.m. peak hour, with the exception of the SW Grady Way intersections with West Valley Highway and Rainier Avenue, which operate at LOS E and LOS F, respectively. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 14 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Table 4.1 2004 Existing Conditions Levels of Service Summary (Weekday p.m. peak hour) Location Stop Control LOS Delay (sec/veb) City of Tukwila Intersections West Valley Hwy @ SW Grady Way Signal E 64.8 West Valley Hwy @ Strander Blvd Signal C 21.9 West Valley Hwy @ S 180th St (SW 43rd St) Signal C 31.2 City of Renton Intersections SW 27th St@Oakesdale Ave SW Signal A 2.6 SW Grady Way@ Lind Ave Signal C 28.0 SW 27th St @ Lind Ave Signal A 8.1 SW Grady Way@Rainier Ave Signal F 89.0 SW 27th St @ East Valley Rd Stop Sign B 12.9 SW 43rd St @ East Valley Rd Signal D 54.9 4.1.4 Freight Mobility A significant amount of freight is currently generated in the industrial areas of Renton and Tukwila bounded by 1-405 to the north, SW 43rd Street to the south, SR 167 to the east, and 1-5 to the west. Vehicles traveling east-west between 1-5 and SR 167 through the project study area currently have two routes available: (1) SW Grady Way, which is a half mile north of Strander Boulevard, and (2) SW 43rd Street, which is 1 mile to the south of Strander Boulevard. Both of these routes are heavily congested during peak periods. Because these are the only available routes in the vicinity, freight destined to or from the study area must use these two routes, thereby contributing to the overall congestion along those corridors. Industrial and retail land uses in the study area contribute to the freight volumes in the area. Industrial land uses generate freight traffic both by receiving raw materials and shipping finished products. Retailers primarily generate freight traffic through delivery of finished goods, although some large retailers in the area offer delivery service, which also contributes to the freight volumes in the area. To measure the existing freight movements in the project study area, classification counts were reviewed at 12 locations to determine the distribution of trucks within the study area. These counts identified each vehicle according to ll:tdustry standard vehicle classifications. Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show the number of trucks observed daily and during the p.m. peak hour, respectively. The figures also show the truck percentage of the total traffic observed. Based on the number of daily truck trips observed and the average weight for each of the 10 truck classifications, the daily freight tonnage at each of the count locations was Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 15 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT estimated. To project these estimates into annual freight tonnage, itwas assumed that there are 270 days per year of freight shipping activity. This factor accounts for weekends and holidays, when freight shipment is generally minimal. The estimated 2004 annual freight tonnages in the project area are shown on Figure 4.6. The existing east-west routes through the area (SW Grady Way and SW 43rd Street, respectively) carry 9.0 million and 10.4 million tons offreight annually. Trucks generally make up about 10 percent of the p.m. peak traffic volume in the area and approximately 15 percent of the daily volume, but along SW 43rd Street parallel to the alignment of the proposed action, truck volumes are 5 to 10 percent higher as freight destined to and from SR 167 travel along this corridor. 4.1.5 Transit Operations King County Metro and Sound Transit (Sounder train) currently provides transit service in the study area. Figure 4.7 depicts the existing transit routes in thep"roject study area. Two routes that are shown, Routes 110 and 140, make peak hour deviations to serve the Tukwila Station. . 4.1.6 Rail Operations The Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad currently operate on two tracks that intersect the study area. BNSF operates approximately 60 freight trains per day through the proposed project area. Approximately 15 to 20 UPRR freight trains use their track daily. Sounder and Amtrak operate an additional 18 to 20 trains per day through the proposed project area. 4.2 Future Traffic Conditions without Proposed Action 4.2.1 Future Traffic Forecasts . To develop the design year 2030 baseline traffic projections, the City of Renton provided a databankwith1998 and 2030 networks that include the Boeing Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Network C and D. The difference between the two networks is that Network D assumed a direct access connection to 1-405 from the Boeing Longacres site and Network C did not. Both networks assume the Strander Boulevard extension is completed with direct high occupancy vehicle (HOV) access to SR 167. The 2030 Network C (no Boeing to 1-405 access) was chosen to develop the 2030 baseline network. To develop the 2030 baseline network and volume projections, the links between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue (through the Boeing Longacres site) were removed, along with the South Longacres Way connection,(which is currently closed to through traffic) and the Strander Boulevard extension. The future transportation network improvements that were assumed in the City Traffic Model under Network C (to be constructed by the design year 2030) and were assumed for the opening year 2015 in the project study area included the following: Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 16 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT • Direct Access Ramp to SR 167 • Rainier A venuelEast Valley Road Realignment • 1-405/Grady Way CollectorlDistributor Project: Talbot Road to Lind Avenue These projects would have a significant effect on the travel patterns and conditions in the study area that would need to be considered when evaluating the future traffic assignments with the proposed action. The City Traffic Model volumes were then post processed to further calibrate the projected traffic volumes. The post processing adjustments of traffic volumes from the City Traffic Model are shown in Appendix A. The opening year 2015 traffic forecasts for study intersections and analyses were interpolated from the 1998 base traffic model provided by the City of Renton and the design year 2030 traffic projections, assuming a straight line growth between the two years. The interpolation was assumed for both with and without Strander Boulevard extension scenarios to determine the No Action and Build alternative forecasts. 4.2.2 Freight Projections The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) traffic model for 2030 was analyzed to estimate the future demand for freight capacity in the project study area. The PSRC traffic model, which uses EMME/2 software, projects future traffic volumes based on anticipated shifts in land use patterns. These estimates take into account all of the projected land uses in a given area to project the total traffic volumes in the area, . including both freight and passenger vehicles. To project the growth in freight volumes, the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that would influence freight generation in the study area were identified. Two TAZs (321 and 325) are expected to irifluence freight generation. It was assumed that development outside of these two zones, which encompass the study area, would not result in increased through movement of freight because state or interstate highways bound the study area on three sides. Three types of development that are tracked in the PSRC EMMEI2 traffic model influence freight: (1) retail development, (2) manufacturing employment, and (3) a broader category that includes wholesale, communications, transportation, and utilities employment. A review of the total growth in all three categories indicates that freight volumes are projected to grow in the range of 8 to 11 percent between the existing year 2004 and the design year 2030. The daily and p.m. peak hour freight volumes for the year 2030 were estimated using these growth-factors. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 17 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS 5.1 No Action Alternative 5.1.1 Direct Impacts Opening Year 2015 Conditions Traffic Volume Forecasts The projected traffic volumes estimated for the opening year 2015 conditions without the proposed action were based on an interpolation between the 1998-based traffic model and 2030 future network without Strander Boulevard extension traffic model values. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 depict the estimated opening year 2015 average daily and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes, respectively. The LOS analyses were conducted for the No Action alternative (baseline) conditions assuming that the planned regional transportation improvements have been implemented with the existing intersection channelization and traffic control. The results of the LOS analyses for the study intersections under the No Action alternative conditions for opening year 2015 are summarized in Table 5.1. The results indicate that five of the study intersections are nearing or at capacity. In addition to the SW Grady Way intersections with West Valley Highway and Rainier Avenue, which already operate near . capacity under 2004 existing conditions, the intersections of West Valley Highway with SW 43rd Street, SW Grady Way and Lind Avenue, and East Valley Road and SW 43rd Street will operate at LOS E conditions. Only the SW Grady Way and Lind Avenue intersection is projected to operate at LOS F. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 18 May 2004 City of Renton ~." . I I I 'I I I I I I j I I I I I I DRAFT Table 5.1 2015 No Action Alternative (Baseline Conditions) Levels of Service Summary (Weekday p.m. peak hour) Location Stop Control LOS Delay (sec/veh) City of Tukwila Intersections West Valley Hwy @ SW Grady Way Signal E 66.4 West Valley Hwy @ Strander Blvd Signal C 24.9 West Valley Hwy @ S 180th St (SW 43rd St) Signal E 59.0 City of Renton Intersections SW 27th St@ Oakesdale Ave SW Signal A 6.6 SW Grady Way @ Lind Ave Signal F 83.0 SW 27th St @LindAve Signal B 15.0 SW Grady Way @ Rainier Ave Signal E 79.6 SW 27th St @ East Valley Rd Stop Sign D 33.1 SW43rd St @ East Valley Rd Signal E 79.8 Freight Mobility Although the traffic model-based growth rates and traffic volumes were used to project the 2030 freight volumes, the 2015 freight volumes were estimated. The 2015 total daily and p.m. peak hour freight volumes were interpolated based on the linear growth expected from the existing 2004 volumes to the projected 2030 volumes. Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show the projected daily and p.m. peak hour freight volumes, respectively, expected on the arterial system within the project study area. Figure 5.5 shows the estimated annual tonnage on the designated truck arterials in the study area. Design Year 2030 Conditions Traffic Volume Forecasts The projected traffic volumes estimated for the design year 2030 conditions without the proposed action were based on the 2030 traffic model values and future network improvements without the Strander Boulevard extension. Figures 5.6 and 5.7 depict the estimated design year 2030 average daily and p.m: peak hour traffic volumes, respectively. The LOS analyses were conducted for the No Action alternative (baseline) conditions assuming that the planned regional transportation improvements have been implemented with the existing intersection channelization and traffic control. The results of the LOS analyses for the study intersections under the No Action alternative conditions for design year 2030 are summarized in Table 5.2. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 19 May 2004 City of Renton ,I I I I I' I I I, I I' I I I I I DRAFT The results indicate that the five study intersections that were near or at capacity under 2015 conditions would all deteriorate to LOS F (at capacity conditions). The intersections including theSW Grady Way intersections with West Valley Highway and Rainier Avenue, West Valley Highway/SW 43rd Street, SW Grady WaylLind Avenue, and East Valley Road/SW 43rd Street would operate at LOS F conditions. The SW 27th StreetlEast Valley Road intersection is also projected to operate at LOS F by 2030 under existing traffic control and channelization. Signalization of the intersection would improve the service grade to LOS A in 2030. Table 5.2 2030 No Action Alternative (Baseline Conditions) Levels of Service Summary (Weekday p.m. peak hour) Location Stop Control City of Tukwila Intersections West Valley Hwy @ SW Grady Way Signal West Valley Hwy @ Strander Blvd Signal West Valley Hwy@ S 180th St (SW 43rd St) Signal City of Renton Intersections SW 27th St@OakesdaleAveSW Signal SW Grady Way @ Lind Ave Signal SW 27th St @ Lind Ave Signal' SW Grady Way@Rainier Ave Signal SW 27th St @ East Valley Rd Stop Sign SW 43rd St @ East Valley Rd With Signal Signal Freight Mobility LOS Delay (sec/veh) F 10~.1 D 40.1 F 99.4 B 10.9 F 106.5 D 40.1 F 126.4 F 637.9 A 9.7 F 119.2 By 2030, it is estimated that the freight traffic in the study area will have distributed itself between SW Grady Way and SW 43rd Street (South 180th Street). While SW 43rd Street is projected to carry approximately 50 percent more trucks than SW Grady Way, the total truck volumes along these two links reflect approximately 13 percent of the daily traffic. This is because the general traffic volumes along SW 43rd Street are expected to grow more rapidly than the freight demand for that corridor. It was assumed that there is no change in the relative distribution of various truck types over the interval. Figures 5.8 and 5.9 show the estimated daily and p.m. peak hour freight volumes on the primary access routes through the study area. The methodology outlined previously in Section 3.0 to estimate the existing annual freight tonnage was applied to the future freight volumes projected above for the design year 2030. Figure 5.10 shows the estimated annual tonnage for 2030 in the project study area. By 2030, it is estimated that more than 10.2 million tons of freight annually will use SW Grady Way, and almost 11.5 million tons of freight annually will travel along Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 20 May 2004 City of Renton I I' I I' I I I DRAFT SW 43rd Street. Freight traffic with its origins along Strander Boulevard will be forced to continue traveling up to a mile or more out of their way to cross east-west through the study area. Strander Boulevard west of West Valley Highway is anticipated to carry 3.7 million tons of freight by 2030 without the proposed extension between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The existing traffic congestion, and its associated negative impacts on freight mobility in the study area, will continue. The freight volumes of more than 10.2 million tons annually on SW Grady Way and almost 11.5 million tons of freight annually along S 180th Street! SE 43rd Street will result in considerable delay along both of these corridors. Transit Operations There would be no direct impacts to transit service under the No Action alternative because no service exists currently through the proposed action. Impacts During ,Construction There would be no construction impacts on transportation under the No Action alternative. 5.1.2 Indirect Impacts The indirect impacts of the No Action alternative include the added congestion and delay that would be experienced not only along'Grady Way and SW 43rd Street in the project study area but in the surrounding street network. Not having additional east-west access within the Southcenter commercial core would have an impact on freight mobility and the accessibility of passenger vehicles and trucks to support the continuing growth in the community as well as the area between West Valley Highway and SR 167. 5.1.3 Cumulative hnpacts As alternative routes are sought out by drivers to avoid congestion, the frustration of drivers' inability to move in a timely manner would increase the potential for accident occurrence due to higher concentrations of traffic volumes and lower levels of driver patience. Alternative travel modes (HOV, transit, bike, etc.) may red\lce some congestion; although ultimately all travel modes would deteriorate in service levels. 5.1.4 Mitigation Measures Without the development of the proposed action, alternate routes would need to be identified and evaluated to increase east-west traffic capacity. The study intersections near or at capacity would require additional capacity improvements in the form of additional lanes through the intersection or, in the,case of the SW 27th Street and East Valley Road intersection, the addition of a traffic signal. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 21 May 2004 City of Renton ,I I I I I I I I .1 ,I' I, I DRAFT 5.2 Alternative 1: Construction of a Roadway Overpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification of SW 27th street to Five Lanes 5.2.1 Direct Impacts Opening Year 2015 Conditions Traffic Volume Forecasts The projected traffic volumes estimated for the opening year 2015 conditions under Alternative 1 were based on a linear interpolation between the 1998-based traffic model and 2030 future network with Strander Boulevard extension traffic model values. Both of the traffic model output values were post-processed to represent the likely traffic diversions resulting from the implementation of the extension project. Figures 5.11 and 5.12 depict the estimated opening year 2015 average daily and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes, respectively. The LOS analyses were conducted for the Alternative 1 conditions assuming that the planned regional transportation improvements have been implemented with the existing intersection channelization and traffic control. The intersection channelization configurations used in the LOS analyses are shown in Figure 5.13. The results of the LOS analyses for the study intersections under the Alternative 1 conditions for opening year 2015 are summarized in Table 5.3. The results of the LOS analysis indicate that seven of the study intersections are nearing or at capacity under future channelization and signal operations related to Alternative 1. The three study intersections on West Valley Highway at SW Grady Way, Strander Boulevard, and SW 43rd Street intersections would operate at LOS E. The intersections ofSW Grady WaylRainier Avenue, and East Valley RoadiSW 43rd Street, would operate at LOS E conditions. Only the SW Grady WaylLind Avenue and SW 27th StreetlEast Valley Road intersections are projected to operate at LOS F. Although the SWGrady W aylLind Avenue intersection would still operate at LOS F, the proposed action would allow for the diversion of existing traffic from the SW Grady Way or SW 43rd Street corridor that would free up capacity at intersections along those routes and significantly reduce overall average delay at key intersections. The two new Boeing Longacres site access intersections planned to intersect the proposed alignment would both operate at LOSD. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 22 May 2004 City of Renton 0;" I I I \11 " I 'I' I ,II I' I 'I II I,' I I; I II I DRAFT Table 5.3 2015 Alternative 1 Conditions Levels of Service Summary (Weekday p.m. peak hour) Location Stop Control City of Tukwila Intersections West Valley Hwy @ SW Grady Way Signal West ValleyHwy'@ StranderBlvd Signal West Valley Hwy @ S 180th St (SW 43rd St) Signal City of Renton Intersections SW 27th St @ Oakesdale Ave SW Signal SW Grady Way@ Lind Ave Signal SW 27th St @ Lind Ave Signal SW Grady Way @ Rainier Ave Signal SW 27th St @ East Valley Rd Stop Sign Signal SW 43rd St @ East Valley Rd Signal Strander Blvd @ North Boeing Site Access Signal Strander Blvd@ South Boeing Site Access Signal Freight Mobility LOS Delay (sec/veb) E 56.5 E 60.6 E 58.7 B 19.7 F ·99.2 B 19.4 'E 70.0 F 132.5 A 6.1 E 75.9 D 27.1 D 25.9 Similar to the No Action alternative and year 2015 baseline traffic volume projections for Alternative 1, the estimated 2015 freight volumes were developed by the traffic model estimates and post-processing to account for trip diversion. The 2015 total daily and p.m. peak hour freight volumes were interpolated based on the linear growth expected from the existing 2004 volumes to the projected 2030 volumes. Figures 5.14 and 5.15 show the projected daily and p.m. peak hour freight volumes, respectively, expected on the arterial system within the project study area. Figure 5.16 shows the estimated annual tonnage on the designated truck arterials in the study area. The impacts of the proposed action in 2015 are the same as the impacts and effects of the proposed action in the design year 2030. The detailed freight discussions regarding the effect of the proposed action are discussed under the design year 2030 conditions because 2030 projections , were the basis for determining the freight and general traffic volumes. Design Year 2030 Conditions Traffic Volume Forecasts The projected traffic volumes estimated for the design year 2030 conditions without the proposed action were based on the 2030 traffic model values and future network improvements with the Strander Boulevard extension. Figures 5.17 and 5.18 show the estirhated design year 2030 average daily and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes, respectively. Draft Transportation Discipline Report. Strander Boulevard Extension 23 May 2004 City of Renton I I ,~ I ,I 1- 'I I " 1\ I ;1 ,I I I )1 t II I DRAFT The LOS analyses were conducted for the Alternative 1 conditions assuming that the planned regional transportation improvements have been implemented with the existing intersection channelization and traffic control. The results of the LOS analyses for the study intersections under the Alternative 1 conditions for design year 2030 are summarized in Table 5.4. The results of the LOS analysis indicate that all of the study intersections would deteriorate to LOS F under 2030 conditions, with the exception of four intersections. The intersection of SW 27th Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW would deteriorate to LOS E, while the SW 27th Street and East Valley Road intersection and the two Boeing Longacres site access intersections would operate at LOS D or better. The SW 27th Street and East Valley Road intersection is assumed to be signalized under Alternative 1. Table 5.4 2030 Alternative 1 Conditions Levels of Service Summary (Weekday p.m. peak hour) Location Stop Control City of Tukwila Intersections West Valley Hwy@ SW Grady Way Signal West Valley Hwy @ Strander Blvd Signal - West Valley Hwy@ S 180th St (SW 43rd St) Signal Ci~ of Renton Intersections SW 27th St @ Oakesdale Ave SW Signal SW Grady Way @ Lind Ave Signal SW 27th St @ Lind Ave Signal SW Grady Way@ Rainier Ave Signal SW 27th St @ East Valley Rd Signal SW 43rd St @ East Valley Rd Signal Strander Blvd @ North Boeing Site Access Signal Strander Blvd @ South Boeing Site Access Signal Freight Mobility LOS Delay (sec/veh) F 90.1 F 178.6 F 99.1 E 75.5 F 99.6 F 163.2 F 113.1 B 14.7 F 105.7 D 36.9 B 17.3 With the completion of the proposed action, traffic would redistribute to take advantage of the new east-west connection (see Figure 5.19). It is anticipated that freight traffic would divert from both SW 43rd Street and from SW Grady Way to the new connection. A portion of this traffic would use West Valley Highway and other north-south routes within the project study area to reach Strander Boulevard. Other freight traffic would use north-south routes west of the Green River to reach Strander Boulevard in Tukwila, and then travel east along Strander Boulevard to cross the Green River and onto the proposed alignment east of West Valley Highway. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 24 May 2004 City of Renton I' III I I t ,I 11 ,I i II ,I II I DRAFT Under Alternative 1, freight traffic would be diverted from SW 43rd Street and SW Grady Way (two congested links that currently carry significant freight volumes) onto the Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street corridor roadway section between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW. Figure 5.20 and Figure 5.21 show the daily and p.m. peak hour freight volumes in the study area with the redistributed freight volumes. The proposed action would result in a 25 percent decrease in freight volumes alongSW Grady Way and an 18 percent decrease in freight volumes along SW 43rd Street east of West Valley Highway. This would reduce the proportion of heavy vehicles relative to the total flow of vehicles along SW Grady Way from 12.6 percent to 8.1 percent. Despite the projected 18 percent decrease in trucking levels with the completion of the proposed action, the proportion of trucks along SW 43rd Street would increase slightly from 12.9 percent to 14.4 percent. The total number of daily passenger vehicles along this link is projected to decrease by 27 percent, which is significantly more than the decrease in truck volumes, and thus the increase in truck percentage relative to total traffic. West Valley Highway would experience moderate growth in freight volumes as trucks would utilize the proposed action to traverse east-west movements from the adjacent commercial uses in the study area between West Valley Highway and East Valley Road. North ofStrander Boulevard, West Valley Highway is projected to carry 9 percent more trucks, while south ofStrander the projected growth would be 6 percent. It is projected that the proposed action would carry 4,350 truck trips by 2030, with 3,500 trips crossing the Green River on Strander Boulevard west of West Valley Highway (a 170 percent increase in freight). The anticipated redistribution of traffic with the proposed extension of Strander Boulevard would significantly reduce the presence of freight traffic along both SW Grady Way and SW 43rd Street. This would improve traffic flow along both of these corridors by removing slower-moving trucks from the roadway. Strander Boulevard and SW 43rd Street, the two major freight connections across the Green River in the project study area, would carry approximately equal volumes of freight. SW Grady Way is less accessible to the freight development in the study area because of its location north ofI-405, and it carries higher overall traffic volumes than SW 43rd Street. Because of this, SW Grady Way is projected to only carry approximately 60 percent of the freight volumes observed along Strander Boulevard or SW 43rd Street. The relatively small increase in freight volumes along the north-south connections to Strander Boulevard would have a relatively minor impact on the traffic flow in the study area. The annual freight tonnage for the future year 2030 in the project study area was estimated using the daily freight volume forecasts outlined previously. It was assumed that the relative distribution of different classifications of heavy vehicles on each link remained constant from the baseline 2004 counts to the future year 2030 with the project completed. The annual freight tonnage in the study area with the completion of the proposed alignment is shown on Figure 5.22 for the design year 2030. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 25 May 2004 City of Renton I I 'I ,I :1 "". It I I ., 1\ I I' II I ,I 'I; .. ...:;.; I t m DRAFT By 2030, it is projected that up to 1201 million tons of freight would use the proposed action annually. Of this diverted traffic, 1.6 million tons of freight or 14 percent of the total volume would be diverted from SW 43rd Street, leaving a total of9.9 million tons of freight annually on SW 43rd Street. A larger proportion of the freight, 2.6 million tons annually or 25 percent of the total freight volume, would be diverted from SW Grady Way. This leaves 7.6 million tons offreight annually on SW Grady Way. Alternative 1 is also anticipated to increase the freight volumes along West Valley Highway. It is projected that the freight volumes along West Valley Highway between Strander Boulevard and 1-405 will grow by approximately 9 percent to 15.4 million tons annually, and the freight volumes south of Strander Boulevard are anticipated to grow by 5 percent to 9.1 million tons offreight annually. Transit Operations Under Alternative 1, the Strander Boulevard extension is proj ected to carry over 1,400 transit passengers daily and save each of those passengers up to 2 minutes in reduced travel time. In addition, the proposed action is also projected to directly lead to an increase of between 400 and 600 new transit trips daily when land is fully redeveloped in the Renton area adjacent to the Strander Boulevard extension. Routes Projected to use Strander Boulevard Each of the routes described in this subsection is projected to use the proposed Strander .Boulevard extension. The routing and potential routes have been reviewed by King County Metro and deemed reasonable in their estimation. Figure 5.23 shows the potential alignment of each route. It should be noted that King County Metro is not committed to making any of the changes described in this report. At a minimum, an extensive public involvement process and examination of the cost impacts would be required. • Route 140 (Funded Route)-Existing Route Realigned Route 140 is one of the primary transit east-west bus routes in south King County. Route 140 currently uses either SW Grady Way or Longacres Drive to travel between Southcenter and Renton. Route 140 operates every 15 minutes during the peak and every 30 minutes during non-peak times. According to 2002 ridership data, more than 900 (sum of both eastbound and westbound trips) persons travel each day on Route 140 through the intersection ofStrander Boulevard and West Valley Highway. There are currently 87 daily bus trips on Route 140. With Alternative 1, Route 140 could be realigned to serve both the relocated future Sound Transit Tukwila Station and the Strander Boulevard extension. The route would continue to Oakesdale Avenue SW, where it would turn north to get back to SW Grady Way. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 26 May 2004 City of Renton 'I II I' I 'I, I, " II' I '1\ ,I, I , il\ I I I) DRAFT • Route 1601163 (Funded Route)-,-Existing Route Realigned Routes 160 and 163 provide peak directional service between Kent and downtown Seattle. Both currently travel in the vicinity of the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station on either West Valley Highway or Grady Way. Route 160 has three northbound morning trips and four southbound afternoon trips. Route 163 has four northbound morning trips and four southbound afternoon trips. According to the 2002 ridership data, approximately 100 people travel each day on Route 160, and an additional 160 passengers travel each day on Route 163. With Alternative 1, it is possible that one or both routes would be realigned to serve the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station and the Strander Boulevard extension. Figure 5.23 shows Route 163 using Lind Avenue, SW 27th Street, and Strander Boulevard to access the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station. With expanded Sounder service, it is likely that both Routes 160 and 163 will be terminated at the Tukwila Station and tied directly into the Sounder schedules. • Route 110 (Funded Route)-Existing Route Realigned Route 110 provides peak hour service between Renton employment areas and the -Renton Transit Center. During Sounder operating times, Route 110 serves the existing Tukwila Station via South Longacres Way. Five trips currently serve the Sounder Station. The schedule is mostly designed to minimize waiting times between train and bus. An estimated 20 passengers daily use Route 110 to connect between Renton employment sites and the station. Under Alternative 1, this route may use the Strander Boulevard extension instead of South Longacres Way to access the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station, particularly if the usage of South Longacres Way under the railroad tracks is restricted. • Sounder Shadow Route (Unfunded Route) Sound Transit currently funds 18 trains for operation between Seattle and Pierce County. Six trains are now operating-three in the northbound morning peak and three in the southbound afternoon peak. Three additional northbound morning . trains and three morning southbound trains are projected, as well as three additional north and southbound afternoon trains. The increases in service levels are expected to further the market position of Sounder in the GreenlDuwamish River Valley. Midday and evening services are currently unavailable for some of the SoUnd Transit stations, so people accessing Sounder have few options other than Sounder to get back to their origination point. In order to address this lack of current service and build a market for Sounder midday service, a Sounder "shadow route" has been proposed. It should be noted that this route is not funded, nor is it currently in any Sound Transit or King County Metro plans. The proposed Sounder shadow route would travel from Seattle to the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station via 1-5,1-405, and West Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 27 May 2004 City of Renton ',I; ,I 'I' II ,I' I I I I; 'I~ ,IJ 1\ ,1 /1 " (I) ,I I' Ii DRAFT Valley Highway. The route would continue to Kent via the proposed action and SR 167. • Sqund Transit Station Employment Shuttles. (Unfunded Routes) It is anticipated that additional bus transit routes would tie into the Sounder schedule upon full Sounder implementation. One or two routes could potentially use the proposed action to travel from th~ future Sound Transit Tukwila Station to employment sites on Oakesdale Avenue SW, Lind Avenue, and East Valley Highway. It should be noted that these routes are conceptual at this stage and are not funded, nor are they currently in the King County Metro plan. Passengers Projected to Use Proposed Action Corridor . One of the first steps in determining the benefits to transit operations from Alternative 1 is to determine approximately how many passengers would actually travel on the proposed action corridor. Based on the ridership on the existing Routes 110, 140, and 163, an average of 1,080 daily passengers currently traveling between Southcenter and Renton (see Table 5.5). It is likely that if these routes utilize the Strander boulevard extension, at least this nUmber of passengers will be carried on the proposed action corridor. Table 5~5 Existing Southcenter to Renton Ridership Routes Daily Weekday Ridership 110 20 140 900 163 160 Total 1,080 Daily Riders Projected to Use Proposed Action. Corridor Approximately 1,080 daily riders on existing routes would use the proposed action corridor under Alternative 1 if Routes 110, 140, and 163 were realigned to operate on the Strander Boulevard extension. This total does not include any additional ridership that would be gained by more reliable travel times, by serving the Boeing Longacres site, or by additional Sounder trips. The number of people carried on other routes, such as the Sounder employer shuttles and the proposed Sounder shadow route, are more diffIcult to quantify because these routes are currently unfunded and ridership would be dependent upon how many buses are operating. The following ridership estimates are based on potential loads and assume that funding is available. If the Sounder shadow route were to operate 6 hours every day going back and forth and carried 20 passengers through Tukwila, then approximately 240 additional passengers would be carried on the Strander Boulevard extension. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 28 May 2004 City of Renton 'I ,I I' ,II ,I' I il i ,I I: • 11\ ,I I ,I fl" ,I I' I DRAFT Traffic Impacts During construction of Alternative 1, vehicular traffic impacts would include an increase in delays (due to construction traffic), including trucks and employees that need to access the construction zones via West Valley Highway from the west and SW 27th Street from the east. Some commercial accesses along West Valley Highway may be temporarily rerouted, particularly in the vicinity of Strander Boulevard. Rail Impacts There are no impacts to rail operations during construction under Alternative 1 since the rerouted tracks would be constructed without interruption to the existing tracks. Service would be rerouted to the new track upon completion. During operation, the new UPRR track alignment would be slightly longer than the existing alignment, and travel time through the proposed proj ect area is anticipated to take a few seconds longer per train. 5.2.2 Indirect Impacts Vehicular and Freight Traffic The additional roadway capacity created by the construction of Alternative 1 would attract new vehicular trips to the project study area, either as an easier commute route or as a new trip generated by development drawn to the area because of easier access . Because of the additional traffic generated, some intersection operations may need to be revised to accommodate revised traffic patterns as drivers divert their trips to seek the path of least resistance. Transit Operations King County Metro Route 140 has difficulties traveling between Tukwila and Renton along West Valley Highway and SW Grady Way during peak hour congestion. If the proposed action was completed, Route 140 could travel between Renton and Tukwila more quickly and reliably. The ability to bypass the congestion at the intersections of West Valley Highway/l-405 ramps and West Valley Highway/Grady Way are main reasons travel time and speed and reliability would be enhanced. Overall, it is estimated that the proposed action under Alternative 1 could save Route 140 over 2 minutes each direction during peak times. Route 163 would enjoy similar travel time savings. 5.2.3 Cumulative Impacts Vehicular and Freight Traffic The additional passenger vehicle and freight traffic attracted to the study area would cause wear on the existing roadways that may require resurfacing or additional overlays Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 29 May 2004 City of Renton I I II I' ,I 'I' ,I) Ii " DRAFT to maintain roadway safety. Additional traffic may create access issues for existing businesses along the primary access arterials in the project study area. Restricted access conditions may need to be considered if vehicular stacking at high volume intersections create peak period blockage to avoid safety concerns with left tum exiting traffic. Transit Operations The draw area for the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station is severely limited by the existing roadway system to the east. At present, it is virtually impossible to efficiently operate employer shuttles or bus routes from the transit station to the employee areas to the east of the station. The proposed action would open up the entire Renton southwest employment area to better transit connectivity to the station for both commuters from the Kent Valley and from Seattle. An employee shuttle using the Strander Boulevard extension could add up to 100 new daily transit trips. Table 5.6 summarizes the potential daily riders on the proposed action corridor. Table 5.6 Estimated Strander Boulevard Extension Ridership Routes Estimated Daily Weekday Ridership 110, 140, and 160 1,080 Sounder Shadow Route 240 Employer Shuttles 100 Total 1,420 New Transit Ridership Created by Strander Boulevard Extension Improved travel times for over a 1,000 riders would not be the only benefit to transit resulting from the proposed action. Routes could serve new development in the area around Oakesdale Avenue SW both north and south of the proposed alignment. This land is currently zoned commercial office and heavy industrial. The primary piece of land that could be served by Route 140 is the proposed Boeing Longacres site. The campus on the site may include up to 3 million square feet of office space. This equates to between 10,000 and 15,000 employees if full buildout is achieved. The site would be exceedingly difficult to serve by transit without the proposed action and is currently not served by transit. Assuming a 2 percent mode split for the Boeing Longacres site, the addition of the Strander Boulevard extension would directly result in an additional 200 to 300 new transit riders or an additional 400 to 600 new transit trips. 5.2.4 Mitigation Measures The additional traffic and diversion of traffic to use the new Strander Boulevard extension may require minimal spot intersection revisions at intersections to accommodate changes in travel patterns. The westbound approach at the SW 43rd Street and East Valley Road intersection should be converted from a shared through right lane to an exclusive right tum lane to accommodate the anticipated increase of right tum Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 30 May 2004 City of Renton II ,I 'II I, 'I ,I I, I ,I I' ,I 'I I I, I II I I I DRAFT traffic to the SW 27th Street corridor. Additional capacity would be required not because of the proposed alignment but for future traffic demand in general created by the prospect of new development in the project study area. 5.3 Alternative 2: Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes 5.3.1 Direct Impacts Vehicular and Freight Traffic The direct impacts to vehicular traffic within the transportation system for the proposed project area under Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Rail Impacts Impacts on rail operations resulting from Alternative 2 with the construction of shoofly tracks will require trains to detour from the existing tracks to the temporary tracks until construction is completed. The impacts are described in the following subsections: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway The major impacts to the BNSF tracks would occur during project construction. Permanent impacts would be minor. • Construction Impacts Impacts during construction would be due almost entirely to the need to construct shoofly (temporary) tracks that would detour trains around the location of the construction of the overpass structure. Both of the BNSF mainline tracks would be relocated onto shoofly tracks during construction. The shooflies would be designed to accommodate existing train traffic volumes with decreased speeds. Specific impacts related to construction include: o Shutdown of existing tracks to make temporary connections to shoofly tracks. o Temporary relocation of railroad signal and communication lines. o Protection/relocation of fiber optic and telephone lines in the ROW. o Railroad flagging during construction. • Operation Impacts Permanent impacts to the BNSF would be minor. The addition of an overpass supporting the mainline tracks over the Strander Boulevard extension would add the potential for more frequent track tamping and lining at the bridge approaches Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 31 May 2004 City of Renton I, ,I el' II· ·1' I I I ,I I I 'I I I 'I I ,I ,DRAFT than is normal for tracks on fill. No other permanent impacts are anticipated to BNSF. Union Pacific Railroad UPRR would experience both construction and operation impacts. The proposed action under Alternative 2 would realign the UPRR track froni its existing alignment into a new ROW approximately 350 feet to the east. The new mainline would be supported on a new overpass bridge over Strander Boulevard. • Construction Impacts UPRR would experience minor,impacts from construction activities. The impacts would include: o Shutdown of existing track to make connections to new mainline track. o Slowed operation of trains to make connections to relocated railroad signal and communication lines. o Protection/relocation of fiber optic and telephone lines in the ROW. o Railroad flagging during construction. • Operation Impacts UPRR would experience minor operational impacts. The new railroad track alignment would be slightly longer than the existing alignment, and travel time through the proposed project area is anticipated to take a few seconds longer per train. The addition of a new overpass supporting the mainline track over the proposed action would add the potential for more frequent track tamping and lining at the bridge approaches than is the norm for track on fill. No other permanent impacts are anticipated to UPRR. Sound Transit and Amtrak Sound Transit has a temporary commuter rail platform immediately north of the proposed overpass structure. Amtrak passenger trains also use the platform. The current platforms are "temporary" timber construction that will eventually be replaced by permanent platforms when Sound Transitdevelops the future Tukwila Station. The current schedule for construction of the permanent platforms is uncertain but is anticipated within the next several years. • Construction Impacts Depending on the final geometry and length of the BNSF shoofly tracks, the platforms may need to be temporarily relocated and/or shortened during construction. The current concept being discussed with BNSF would require that the platform be shortened to approximately 280 feet. The existing Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 32 May 2004 City of Renton I, I -, " I' I I I ,I I' I I I I' I I ,I I I DRAFT platform is approximately 650 feet long. Impacts and considerations to the platform improvements include the following: o A shortened platform would not accommodate the use of all of the doors on typical Sounder commuter trains or many Amtrak trains. Therefore, different boarding procedures would be required during construction that may increase dwell time for trains at the platform. o Relocation to the south is probably not possible due the curved alignment of the shoofly tracks in that direction. The trestle over SouthLongacres Way immediately north of the existing temporary platform makes it very difficult and expensive to extend the temporary platform in that direction. Extension of the platform to the north would require construction of bridges over South Longacres Way to support the platforms along each side of the tracks. An additional problem to the north is the curve in the BNSF mainline tracks that would limit the length of a relocated temporary platform in that direction. o Costs to relocate the platform to the north and construct bridges to support the platforms across South Longacres Way are estimated to be approximately $250,000 for the platform plus $150,000 for the structures. Sound Transit may require that the original platform configuration be reestablished following construction of the Strander Boulevard extension and removal of the shoofly tracks. • Operation Impacts The permanent commuter rail/passenger platforms for Tukwila Station will be served by BNSF. The realigned UPRR mainline would be between the parking area of the platform and the boarding platforms. In order for passengers to access the platforms, pedestrian underpasses or overpasses would be needed at several locations along the platform. These structures would be in addition to similar structures already planned across the BNSF mainlines for access to the platform along the easterly BNSF track. Intertrack fences would also be required between the UPRR and BNSF tracks to discourage pedestrians from crossing the tracks at grade. 5.3.2 Indirect Impacts The indirect impacts to the transportation system within the proposed project area under Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. 5.3.3 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impacts to the transportation system within the proposed project area under Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 33 May 2004 City of Renton I, ,I, 'I \1 I; I I, I, I I' I 1 J " I I I' ,I 'I I DRAFT 5.3.4 Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures for the vehicular and freight traffic within the transportation system under Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. The impacts to rail operations during construction of Alternative 2 would need to be addressed to minimize impacts on rail operations. The operation and accessibility ofthe future Sound Transit Tukwila Station, although related to rail operations in general, may have specific access issues such as pedestrian access and parking that need to be addIessed. 5.4 Alternative 3: Constru~tion of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Union Pacific Railroad Track Not Relocated, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes 5.4.1 Direct Impacts The direct impacts to the transportation system within the proposed project area under Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2 due to the need and construction of shoofly tracks. 5.4.2 Indirect Impacts The indirect impacts to the transportation system within the proposed project area under Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 1. 5.4.3 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impacts to the transportation system within the proposed project area under Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 1. 5.4.4 Mitigation Measures The mitigation m:easures for the transportation system within the proposed project area for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 1. 6.0 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES Direct adverse impacts under the No Action alternative's would be increased congestion and delay along the West Valley Highway corridor and accessibility to the Boeing Longacres site, which could interfere with its ability to develop to its potential. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would have a direct beneficial impact by relieving congestion along the Grady Way and SW 43rd Street corridors. With the Build alternatives, access would be improved and freight mobility would significantly,benefit the Southcenter commercial area, thus promoting growth, Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 34 May 2004 City of Renton I, I I I I ,II I' I I I I I I I' I, I' I, 'I II DRAFT development, and economic viability. The No Action alternative would have significant indirect adverse impacts due to the increased congestion anticipated for the parallel routes to the proposed alignment corridor. Indirect impacts under Alternatives 1,2, or 3 would be the same and less than the No Action alternative impacts. The No Action alternative would result in no construction impacts to the roadway system or rail' system, whereas Alternatives 1 and 2 would require development of a temporary track to accommodate rail operations during and after construction, thus resulting in impacts during construction. A sunim~ of the LOS conditions under the proposed alternatives and analysis years is summarized in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 Level of Service Comparison Location 2004 2015 2030 2015 2030 Extg. Base Base wlExt. wlExt. City of Tukwila Intersections r-----,-E/64.8 El66.4 F/I02.1 West Valley Hwy @ Grady Way E/56.5 F190.1 West Valley Hwy@ Strander Blvd C/21.9 Cl24.9 D/40.1 El60.6 F/178.6 West Valley Hwy @ S 180th St (SW 43rd Cl31.2 El59~0 F/99.4 E/58.7 F199.1 St) City of Renton Intersections SW 27th St @ Oakesdale Ave SW Al2.6 Al6.6 B/IO.9 B/19.7 El75.5 Grady Way @ Lind Ave C128.0 F/83:0 F/I06.5 F199.2 F199.6 SW 27th St @ Lind Ave Al8.1 B/15.0 D/40.1 B/19.4 F/163.2 Grady Way @Rainier Ave F/89.0 E179.6 F/126.4 El70.0 F/1l3.1 SW 27th St @ East Valley Rd B/12.9 0/33.1 F/637.9 F/132.5 nla With Signal N/a nla Al9.7 A/6.1 B/14.7 SW 43rd St @EastValleyRd ,0/54.9 El79.8 F/119.2 E/75.9 F/I05.7 Strander Blvd @ North Boeing Site Access N/a nla nla 0/27.1 0/36.9 Strander Blvd @ South Boeing Site Access N/a nla nla 0/25.9 B/17.3 A comparison of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts is summarized in Table 6.2 below. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 35 May 2004 City of Renton I, I, I I I' I, I' I, I I, 'I I I I' I 'I' ,I 'I' I DRAFT Table 6.2 Summary of Potential Impacts to Transportation Facilities Alternative 1: Construction of a Roadway Overpass Cross-Valley Unk, Relocation of the Union Pacific RR Tracks, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes Intersection operations indicate that at least five intersections will approach or reach capacity by 2015 with six intersections reaching capacity by 2030. Freight mobility will continue to experience higher delay and increased congestion along the SW Grady Way and SW 43rd Street corridors being the only east-west routes to the Southcenter commercial area. The proposed action under Alternative 1 will provide an alternative route for all traffic modes and improve freight mobility through the area. Intersection capacity along SW Grady Way and SW 43rd Street will increase due to the diversion of traffic to the alternative Strander Boulevard route. Overall traffic delay will reduce along routes parallel to the proposed action. Opportunity for transit service expansion to serve the Tukwila Station will also provide opportunities for alternative travel that would reduce traffic volumes and free up Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension east-wet travel routes and the decreased capacity of existing routes will result in reduced opportunity for supporting land use development and growth. Surrounding arterials will ultimately be used to accommodate traffic growth requiring spot improvements to meet traffic demands. The provision of an alternative route for east- west travel will attract new trips to the area as well as revise travel patterns through the project study area and vicinity. Intersection improvements may be needed to accommodate' the revised travel patterns and mitigate any movements that have become the primary travel route. Transit route revisions and the ability to bypass congested areas will produce significant travel time savings for transit operations and improve efficiency. 36 As congestion driver frustration increases due to higher delays and the lack of altemative routes to utilize, accident occurrence may result, as driver patience will decrease. Congestion will also ultimately impact accessibility to businesses and use of other travel modes such as transit. The additional traffic drawn to the area by passenger vehicle or freight traffic would cause additional wear to the existing roadways, that may require resurfacing and overlays to maintain safety sooner than originally scheduled. Additional vehicle access and transit service opportunities will spur development and growth opportunities that will contribute additional traffic volumes to the adjacent arterial system where improvements may not be planned. May 2004 City of Renton I, I ,- ,I I I I I I, I I 'I J ii' I- I DRAFT Table 6.2 Summary of Potential Impacts to Transportation Facilities (continued) Alternative 2: Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific RR Tracks, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes Alternative 3: Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Unk, Union Pacific RR Tracks Not Relocated, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes The vehicular and freight traffic impacts would be the same as under Alternative 1. Rail impacts include the detour of eXisting train routes to temporary shoofly tracks. The rerouting will add delay to the existing train runs through the area and some minor delays during the construction period. There will be minor permanent impacts to train operations however. Same as Alternative 2 due to the need and construction of shoofly tracks. Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Same as Alternative 1. 37 Same as Alternative 1. May 2004 City of Renton \\ I, I, I ,I I' I, 'I I I I, I I I I U I I I' I DRAFT 7.0 REFERENCES City of Renton. 1995. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan (, February 1995, amended· November 2003) City of Tukwila. 1995. City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan (December 1995, Revised February 2001) The Thomas Guide, King, Pierce, & Snohomish Counties, Rand McNally, 2004. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2003. Environmental Procedures Manual. June. Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS-Transportation Impact Study (Transportation Engineering NorthWest, June 30, 2003) Project Definition Report For: Strander Boulevard SW 27th Street Corridor Improvements (BERGER! ABAM, February 2002) Coordination with City of Renton Engineering staff Draft Transportation Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 38 May 2004 City of Renton I, DRAFT I, I' ,I I I, I' I I, APPENDIX A I Level of Service Calculations I I I I' i I I I I I, I I' ,I, I I, I ,I, I I' I I I II a I I I I t 36: SW 43rd ST. & East Valley Rd. S vIc Ratio 1.16 0.90 0.31 0.76 1.05 2004 Existing Condition-4-2-04 PM Peak Hour t 0.83 0.91 1.09 1.10 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\SI I, I I' I, I I, I' I I I I I I I I I I I I 36: SW 43rd ST. & East Valley Rd. S Queuing Penalty (veh) 51 39 9 48 2004 Existing Condition-4-2-04 PM Peak Hour 38 176 Perteet Engineering, Inc, 6/10/04 J:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I' I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. 2004 Existing. Condition-4-2-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I, I I' I I- I I' I I I' I I I I I I I I I 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. its and Phases: 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. 1i11 2004 Existing Condition-4-2-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I 2004 Existing Condition-4-2-04 I 50: Grad~ W~ & Lind Ave. PM Peak Hour ". ..... of .-'-"\ t I" \.. ! ." ---I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I Actuated glC Ratio 0.12 0.45 0.16 0.48 0.16 0.16 1.00 0.14 0.14 I Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 J:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50: Grady Wy & Lind Ave. and Phases: 2004 Existing Condition-4-2-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Synero\Final Cales\SI (\ I 2004 Existing Condition-4-2-04 I 51: Grad~ W~ & Rainier Av PM Peak Hour ". ~ t'" .-. '-"\ t I" \. ~ .,.I -to I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I vIc Ratio 0.86 1.11 1.05 1.01 0.81 1.07 1.18 0.65 1.00 I Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 51: Grady Wy & Rainier Av 2004 Existing Condition-4-2-04 PM.Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 J:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW 2004 Existing Condition-4-2-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I I I I I I I I I I I 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW 2004 Existing Condition-4-2-04 PM Peak Hour t I Splits and Phases: 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW \. 01 t 02 1('" 03 I U I I I I ......... 04 , , ~ ~ I~ I~ 07 ~ 05 06 08 " Perteet Engineering, Inc, 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 170: SW 27th Street & East Valley Rd. S 2004 ExistingCondition-4-2-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 193: Grady Way & Interurban 2004 Existing Condition-4-2-04 PM Peak Hour 90th %ile Green (s) 10.0 21.0 14.0 18.0 29.0 14.0 14.0 31.0 31.0 14.0 ·31.0 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 193: Grady Way & Interurban Queuing Penalty (veh) 2004 Existing Condition-4-2-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I 194: Strander Blvd & West Valley Highway 2004 Existing Condition-4-2-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 J:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 194: Strander Blvd & West Valley Highway Splits and Phases: 194: Strander Blvd & West 2004 ExistingCondition-4-2-04 PM Peak Hour· t Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 209: S 180th Street & West Valley Highway 2004 ExistingCondition-4-2-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I 209: S 180th Street & West Valley Highway Queuing Penalty (veh) and Phases: 1il6 2004 Existing Condition-4-2-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 cl:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Synero\Final Cales\St I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I 170: SW 27th Street & East Valley Rd. S 2004 Existing Condition-4-2-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I 170: SW 27th Street & East Valley Rd. S Approach LOS o t 2015 Baseline Conditions-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U I) I I I 36: SW 43rd ST. & East Valley Rd. S 2015 Baseline Conditions-4-7 -04 PM Peak Hour Time Before Reduce (s) 8.0 10.0 6.0 18.0 10.0 10.0 6.0 6.0 12.0 12.0 ~lf~~!r"fi,~lIIi~~lQiB_!l"§{€) __ §;{ ___ Recall Mode None None None None Coord Coord None None None None vic Ratio 1.25 0.98 0.20 1.03 1.41 0.75 0.64 1.10 1.06 1.07 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d :\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 36: SW 43rd ST. & East Valley Rd. S Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. S !its and Phases: m2 2015 Baseline Conditions-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 J:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\Sl I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. 2015 Baseline Conditions-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I I' I I: I I I I I I I 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. . Queuing Penalty (veh) 10th %i1e Actuated Cycle: 33.4 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. 1i'J2 2015 Baseline Conditions-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t 5 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 cl:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Synero\Final Cales\SI I I 'I' ,I I I I: 'I I I' I I I I I II I I I 50: Grady Wy & Lind Ave. 2015 Baseline Conditions-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I' I: I I I I: I I I 50: Grady Wy & Lind Ave. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2015 Baseline Conditions-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I 51: Grady Wy & Rainier Av 2015 Baseline Conditions-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour f Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I· I I I I I I I I I I I 51: Grady Wy & Rainier Av 2015 Baseline Conditions-4-7 -04 PM Peak Hour "\. t 1i:l3 Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\Sl «'\ I ,I, I I I I I' ,I I I I II I I I I I I I 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW 2015 Baseline Conditions-4:-7 -04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\Sl I I, I I· I .1 I I· I I' , I; I I: I I I I I 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW 2015 Baseline Conditions-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\SI I I I ,I 'I I I I I I' I I: I I: I 1\ I I I 170: SW 27th Street & East Valley Rd. S 2015 Baseline Conditions-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I I I ,I I I, I I I I Ii I· I I, I ,193: Grady Way & Interurban 2015 Baseline Conditions-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Adj. Flow (vph) 139 960 346 422 996 540 350 978 204 269 687 628 l?S~tn:~I<&m!(il'i~~a@-1fl~~.~9m~Ii~4.1IiBO,}m~mI:,~~ •• "'I! Turn Prot' Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot 90th %ile Green (s) 7.0 23.0 15.0 17.0 33.0 33.0 14.0 29.0 29.0 15.0 30.0 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I, I -I I ,I, I'. 'I I I ,I I I I I 193: Grady Way & Interurban shown is maximum after two cycles. 2015 Baseline Conditions-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I ,I 'I I I I. I, I I I' I I I I 170: SW 27th Street & East Valley Rd. S Approach LOS F t o 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I, I i I I I I 36: SW 43rd ST. & East Valley Rd. S t vIc Ratio 1.64 0.99 0.20 0.95 1.24 0.70 0.74 1.16 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour 1.031.04 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 J:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' 36: SW 43rd ST. & East Valley Rd. S t 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour I Splits and Phases: 36: SW 43rd ST. & East Valley Rd. S ~ "i-t. 04 t~ 03 I I I I I ",2 ",1 , , " '" ; .f' ",5 1~"'6 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I U I I I I 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. t 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. t 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour I Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. I I I Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50: Grady Wy & Lind Ave. t 2015 With Project4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. . 6/10104 cI:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50: Grady Wy & Lind Ave. 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour I m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. I I I I Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I 2015 With Project-4-7-04 I 51: Grad~ W~ & Rainier Av PM Peak Hour . .". "t .f +-"-"" t I" '.. ~ .J ...... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I vic Ratio 1.27 1.21 0.72 1.05 0.98 1.38 1.02 1.62 0.95 I Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\St I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 51: Grady,Wy & Rainier Av +-' 51 : t 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 J:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\SI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ir 2015 With Project -4-7 -04 . 170: SW 27th Street & East Valley Rd. S PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 c1:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 193: Grady Way & Interurban 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 193: Grady Way & Interurban 2015 With Project-4-7 -04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Synero\Final Cales\St I 2015 With Project-4-7-04 I 36: 8W 43rd 8T. & East Valle~ Rd. 8 PM Peak Hour ; • .f +-" "\ t I'" '. ~ ../ -+ I I I I I I I I I I I I !I I I vIc Ratio 1.64 0.99 0.20 0.95 1.24 0.70 0.74 1.16 1.03 .1.04 I Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 J:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 36: SW 43rd ST. & East Valley Rd. S t 201 5 With Project -4-7 -04 PM Peak Hour I Splits and Phases: 36: SW 43rd ST. & East Valley Rd. S I I I I Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 cI:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. t 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 J:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. t 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50: Grady Wy & Lind Ave. t 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 J:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiseipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Synero\Final Cales\SI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50: Grady Wy & Lind Ave. t 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour I m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. t a8 Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10/04 J:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\S! I 2015 With Project-4-7-04 I 51: Grad:! W:! & Rainier Av PMPeak Hour /' • of +-"-"\ t ".. '. ~ -cI -+ I I I I I, 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I vIc Ratio 1.27 1.21 0.72 1.05 0.98 1.38 1.02 1.62 .0.95 I Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 J:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 51: Grady Wy & Rainier Av t 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW t 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 J:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\St I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW Splits and Phases: 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW t 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I 170: SW 27th Street & East Valley Rd. S t 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\SI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 170: SW 27th Street & East Valley Rd. S Queuing Penalty (veh) and Phases: 170: SW 27th Street & East Vall t 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiseipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\SI I I I I, I I I I, I I I I I I I I' I I I 193: Grady Way & Interurban 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Right urn on Yes Yes Yes Yes ~~:B~E~"i_~~iI_7'i __ ¥18111 Hp~lt1w:~v Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00· 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 193: Grady Way & Interurban Queuing Penalty (veh) 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 cI:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I 194: Strander Blvd & West Valley Highway t 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 J:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I 194: Strander Blvd & West Valley Highway Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 194: Strander Blvd & West Val ",2 .".. t 2015 With Project-4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\St I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I' I I I I I 36: SW 43rd ST. & East Valley Rd. S vIc Ratio 1.50 0.93 0.07 1.43 1.26 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t 0.23 1.23dr 1.361.37 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 >;-:, d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 36: SW 43rd ST."& East Valley Rd. S and Phases: 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 J:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t .~ Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. Queuing Penalty (veh) 88 80 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t 42 25 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50: Grady Wy & Lind Ave. 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 . PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 J:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I 50: Grady Wy & Lind Ave. 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 51: Grady Wy & Rainier Av 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t .~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 51: Grady Wy & Rainier Av 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\SI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 cI:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '-100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW ~. 2030 Baseline Conditions 4~'7 -04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 ,:," .. c1:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 170: SW 27th Street & East Valley Rd. S t 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 170: SW 27th Street & East Valley Rd. S t and Phases: 170: SW 27th Street & East Rd.S 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 193: Grady Way & Interurban 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Minimum itial (s) 4.0 ·4.0 4.0 4.0 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 mffillli~ETl§i1iIf~1r_~;ar$"~.E!a~JI)!I~_~~t:e __ 't(a.JI[~ Total (s) 9.0 28.0 16.0 20.0 39.0 18.0 18.0 36.0· 9.0 16.0 34.0 0.0 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 193: Grady Way & Interurban Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S1 I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I . 194: Strander Blvd & West Valley Highway 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I 'I I I I 194: Strander Blvd & West Valley Highway Queuing Penalty (veh) 194: Strander Blvd & West 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t 139 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I I I, I I I I I I 209: S-180th Street & West Valley Highway 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I I I ,I I I, I I I I I I I I 209: S 180th Street & West Valley Highway eue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2030 Baseline Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t rlJ7 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 J:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! 36: SW 43rd ST. & East Valley Rd. S 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t vIc Ratio 1.71 1.07 O.OS 1.12 1.19 0.30 1.26dr 1.161.17 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(1S) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\St I' I I I I I I I I I I I I 36: SW 43rd ST. & East Valley Rd. S and Phases: 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 cI:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Synero\Final Cales\SI I 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 I 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. PM Peak Hour ..J' "t .f +-.,- "" t .~ '. ~ -cI -+ I I I I, I I I I II I' I 'I I I I vIc Ratio 2.23 0.76 0.57 0.58 2.19 0.61 0.42 1.59 I' Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\Sl I I I I I I I I ,I. I I I I I I 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I' I I I I I 40: SW 27th ST. & Lind Ave. 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\Sl I I I ,I I I I I· I I I I' I I' i I I I I I 50: Grady Wy & Lind Ave. 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 J:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I I, I ,I I I I I I I I' I I' 50: Grady Wy & Lind Ave. 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t I m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. I I I I & Lind Ave. ~ ... Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 J:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 I 51: Grad~ W~ & Rainier Av PM Peak Hour ~ ~ '-"" t ~ .'. + ..I -+ .,. ~ I I I I, I' I I I I I I I' I I I, vic Ratio 1.87 1.08 0.32 0.72 0.95 1.58 1.38 1.94 1.05 .. I Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I 51: Grady Wy & Rainier Av 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t 1113 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 J:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I i I I I I 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 PMPeak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 cI:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I I I I I I I, I I II I I I I I I I I I 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour t 30th %ile erm Code Gap Max Max Hold Max Hold Gap ~~rfo!l:i}.jQ.~(~iJf?~§llJlDIi1~1.~t:8B:1II.U~"_iii~ail!l . 10th %ile Term Code G Max Max Hold Max Hold Gap Max 100: SW 27th St & Oakesdale Ave SW . 1!l2 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 J:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Cales\St I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 170: SW 27th Street & East Valley Rd. S PM Peak Hour t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 170: SW 27th Street & East Valley Rd. S PM Peak Hour t and Phases: . 170: SW 27th Street & East Valley Rd. S m4 m8 Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\Sl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 193: Grady Way & Interurban 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\Sl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 193: Grady Way & Interurban Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 PM Peak Hour .~. Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 194: Strander Blvd & West Valley Highway PM Peak Hour ,J--+ ~ t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 194: Strander Blvd & West Valley Highway PM Peak Hour . .,;. t Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ~ 1113 Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 209: S 180th Street & West Valley Highway PM Peak Hour ". -+ '" t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 209: S 180th Street & West Valley Highway PM Peak Hour ,;. -+ ..... t Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 217: SW 27th St & South Boeing Site Access Road PM Peak Hour 90th %i1e Green (s) 66.0 66.0 66.0 26.0 Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10/04 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\St I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 217: SW 27th St & South Boeing Site,Access Road PM Peak Hour 217: SW 27th St & South Site Access Road Perteet Engineering, Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Oesign\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2030 With Project -BaseJine Chan Conditions 4-7-04 220: Strander Blvd & North Boeing Site Access Road PM Peak Hour Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Discipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\SI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2030 With Project -Baseline Chan Conditions 4-7-04 220: Strander Blvd & North Boeing Site Access Road PM Peak Hour Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 220: Strander Blvd & North Site Access Road Perteet Engineering. Inc. 6/10104 d:\Trans_Design\22044-StranderBlvd\04.0 NEPA EIS\Oiscipline Studies\(18) Traffic & Transportation\Syncro\Final Calcs\S! I DRAFT I I I I I I I I I APPENDIXB Traffic Model Volume Adjustments 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 LIST OF FIGURES A.A. . Model Post Processing -Balancing Baseline PM Peak Hour Adjustments to Model-Model Base Year 1998 B.B Model Post Processing -Growth to Baseline PM Peak Hour Adjustments to Model Base Year to Design Year (2030) c.c. Model Post Processing -Balancing Baseline PM Peak Hour Adjustments to Model Design Year (2030) D.D Model Post-Processing -Redistribution for Project PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Adjustments Design Year (2030) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~I 0-\ ---.. ~ I e--. ~I \ STRANDER BLVD \ \ 1 \~ I \ % I + ~ I i 1 I I I I + . I I t I I s: en ~ SW 34TH ST q;: 5W 41ST 5T ... J • ... "..-\ l 0 ) ~ ..II '1 a ";- > w Model Post Processing-Balancing Baseline PM Peak Hour Adjustments to Model '~~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. ;..-- City of Renton Model Base Year 1998 Figure A.A _¥.~ Civi I. Transportation and Surveying Strander Boulevard Extension 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 •+1 ~~'\ 1 1 I ! I \ 1 \ i t I , , 1+ tl I i It 0"~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~ .~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying > w W~SW~3~4~T~H~S~T+-____ ~ ________ ~ ~, W -' ;§ en W ~ ~ SW 41ST ST SW 43RD ST 180TH ( "---'--,-~ \. \ (5 / \ -. I. '--. i j -) r ( ( /1.-___ _ (~-- Model Post Processing-Growth to Baseline PM Peak Hour Adjustments to Model City of Renton Base Year to Design Year (2030) Strander Boulevard Extension Figure B.B I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; l I i I T \ I I I I 1 \ . , I + I , I ! I I I 1 1- \ I .L I \ ! \ ' , I It I i i I ti i I 1+ '"'~, Perteet Engineering, Inc. ,~ ~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying ~ SW 34TH ST UJ -J ~ en ~ ~ SW 41ST 8T SW 43RD '8T (5 180TH > w / / \ l I / 1 L -J r ( ( r---_. I~ ____ - Model Post Processing-Balancing Baseline PM Peak Hour Adjustments to Model City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Design Year (2030) Figure C.C I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _. oc ~ o -9 Z «L "" \ ,.l.HE:\D OF TrfE CU;i,'iS :t~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying ~ ~ 'ii 3: tI) C/J ~ SW 34TH ST UJ -' ;§ C/J UJ :x: ~ SW 41ST ST > w , I I /---- .----~.-.~ Model Post-Processing -Redistribution for Project PM Peak Hour turning Movement Adjustments City of Renton Design Year (2030) Strander Boulevard Extension Figure D.D I DRAFT I I I I I I I I APPENDIXC I Individuals and Agencies Contacted 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 DRAFT Individuals and Agencies Contacted: Lochmiller, Robert, Project Manager, City of Renton, telephone, March 23,2004, e-mail, April 1,2004. Afzali, Nick, City Traffic Engineer, City of Renton, meetings. Knighton, Cyndi, City Traffic Engineer, City of Tukwila, telephone. I DRAFT I I I I I I I I APPENDIXD I Report Figures 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 DRAFT 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 Location Map Typical Roadway Section Project Segments Proposed Roadway Limits LIST OF FIGURES Average Daily Traffic Volumes -Existing Year 2004 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes -Existing Year 2004 Intersection Channelization -Existing Condition 2004 Daily Freight Volumes & Percent of ADT -Existing Year 2004 PM Peak Freight Volumes & Percent of Total-Existing Year 2004 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Opening Year 2015 -Baseline Condition PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Opening Year 2015 -Baseline Condition Daily Freight Volumes & Percent of ADT Opening Year 2015 -Baseline Condition PM Peak Freight Volumes & Percent of Total Opening Year 2015 -Baseline Condition Annual Freight Tonnage Opening Year 2015 -Baseline Condition Average Daily Traffic Volumes Design Year 2030 -Baseline Condition PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Design Year 2030 -Baseline Condition Daily Freight Volumes & Percent of ADT Design Year 2030 -Baseline Condition PM Peak Hour Freight Volumes & Percent of Total Design Year 2030 -Baseline Condition Annual Freight Tonnage Design Year 2030 -Baseline Condition Average Daily Traffic Volumes Opening Year 2015 with Strander Extension PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Opening Year 2015 with Strander Extension Intersection Channelization Opening Year 2015 with Strander Extension Daily Freight Volumes & Percent of ADT Opening Year 2015 with Strander Extension PM Peak Freight Volumes & Percent of Total Opening Year 2015 with Strander Extension Annual Freight Tonnage Opening Year 2015 with Strander Extension Average Daily Traffic Volumes Design Year 2030 with Strander Extension PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Design Year 2030 with Strander Extension Daily Freight Volumes Design Year 2030 Diversions with Proposed Alignment Daily Freight Volumes & Percent of ADT Design Year 2030 with Strander Extension PM Peak Hour Freight Volumes & Percent of Total Design Year 2030 Annual Freight Tonnage Design Year 2030 with Strander Extension I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I (I D Figure 1.1 Location Map ------------------- . "'lil J V"I~:" D. 'i:l < (1) ::.;""' :::0 " ,... ..; (1) " ~ ~ ~~i tT.1 g ~ ;:: Z ,,(JQ " o 5' '.~ >-1 ~ (t) f.:1 § (t) U 0 ~ """"t ;..oj ~ ;. :ri Z :;l (JQ j ~ ..;, ~ rg ~ ~ "0 () Q) :::0 o Q) 0. (J)(') ..... _ . .., ..... 0)'< ::J 0 0.. ..... ~ ;0 co CD o ~ c 0 CD ::J < 0) .., 0.. m x ..... CD ::J (J) o· ::J ~ "T1 Q) _. '< (Q CJ) ~ CD CD $1 --" 0' i-v :::J G' PLANTER 1 G'SIDEWALK STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION ,I;' TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION 90' ROW GO' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' THRU LANE "I THRU LANE 1 TURN LANE "I THRU LANE 'I THRU LANE WIDEN WITHIN THE ROW WITH SHARED USE PATH ON SOUTH SIDE G' PLANTER I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BLVD ~ ,:".:--7":::.-\1:'_ ,)FTtlF O,:}\"T: :~ Civil, Transportation and SUfyeymg ~- "\.~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. SW 7TH ST ~ > w SEGMENT 3 41TH ST (s City of Renton . Strander Boulevard Extension 43RD ST 180TH ST) Figure 1.3 Project Segments I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a I I I I ST w > « ----I ! ---, I ;= => o (Il, S i47TH ST I~ I -->m- "" S "6 151ST Vl ST STR.A.NO::R SEC. 19, T 23N, R 5E, W.M. ~ C. 25, L2~N, R45E, W.M. , L-r----"--I I ._+------ ~-0~GSTON RD 'I ! S i JJR;-sr ! , ST -------------...., /-~-------::/7~/ I CITY/-: // // ) i,' : .... __ / .I ,,/ " ----I---. r t ,.. -~L.. / " , '---/ 6>0 ~ __ / ,. (,q" vrOy 16TH ,I ST! ;: en g; 5W 34TH 5T ;: -. '" W 0: <! "-'" GO co '" '"' Cl. > 0 '" z <: sr: 4JRD ST (S 180T~ ST) ~ City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension >-j " > ' ...... ---.1 i /t. __ ~ ~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. Figure 2.1 Proposed Roadway Limits ~~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ City of Renton ~-: ;:ElJh''',~[En,:v' Strander Boulevard Extension ;~ Perteet Engmeenng, Inc. ~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying Average Daily Traffic Volumes Existing Year 2004 Figure 4.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I STRANDER BLVD 'I I J I t I I 1 \ ! rl I -I- TI 1+ J I I \ I !.... ,~; Pefteet Engineering, Inc. 'C Civil, Transportation and Surveying ( '" '" <DN .. q sJ 5"l '.:l! -<'>~ ) r > ( ( w ~ en ~ SW 34TH ST SW 41ST ST SW 43RD ST (s 180TH City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Existing Year 2004 Figure 4.2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I > .Jill. -;:: :~~ 1-+--..............., . STRANDER ., BLVD ~, Perteet Engineering, Inc. '~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying .. 0>01 16TH I ~ll. == ~~_ .. __ ~r 3: en ~ SW 34TH ST SW 41ST ST City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension oJ =i= ,11+ w / .L "/..-.- / J--I ~- Intersection Channelization Existing Condition 2004 Figure 4.3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16TH I I ~ L 8W 27TH 8 3: >- C/) w W --J ---J ) ~ « r > C 0 ( ~ z ~ ::J w 3: ~ CI) C/) SW 34TH 8T i I ~= SW 41ST 8T ~ City of Renton Daily Freight Volumes & Percent of ADT ~~\,",:"r")F~",EC\'~'E Strander Boulevard Extension Existing Year 2004 r Perteet Engmeenng, Inc. 1--:..~1 Civil, Transportation and Surveying Figure 4.4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I Jf: Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~ ~ Civil. Transportation and Surveying City of Renton PM Peak Freight Volumes & Percent of Total Existing Year 2004 Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 4.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~' Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Average Daily Traffic Volumes Opening Year 2015 Baseline Condition Figure 5.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -~ I 2.~<t.,~ z _ « II: STRANDER"'· BLVD .L elJ \ /' I !i I ,1 \ I -1-/ I i I I , I It I I 3: en ~ SW 34TH ST SW 41ST ST I I ~~~ > w TI ~ I I :iiI: r-----r--ti --.,. __ ---_-t-___ ~S~W~4~3::.:R::::D:......=ST~_1~ 215J L521 I L--1143--n2 • ___ , (S 180TH ST '136 • ., t ,.. r188 / '\ <P ~~~ 7/1 '. City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension ~~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. >l!I'= \". Civil, Transportation and Surveying PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Opening Year 2015 Baseline Condition Figure 5.2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0~: Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~. ~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying 180TH >-W ....J ....J :; w City of Renton Daily Freight Volumes & Percent of ADT Strander Boulevard Extension Opening Year 2015 Baseline Condition Figure 5.3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~< Perteet Engineering, Inc. ,~ _');... Civil, Transportation and Surveying >-W -1 -.J « > ~ w ~ 'S. 3: II) C/) City of Renton PM Peak Freight Volumes & Percent of Total Strander Boulevard Extension Opening Y~ar 2015 Baseline Condition Figure 5.4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ City of Renton i~:' A:-'?,"'!}c)"'~EC\'"'~E Strander Boulevard Extension ~ Perteet Engmeenng, Inc. _~ Civil. TransportatIOn and Surveying Annual Freight Tonn Opening Year 2015 Baseline Condition Figure 5.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ""'t~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. ,~ . ~~: Civil, Transportation and Surveymg City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Average Daily Traffic Volumes Design Year 2030 Baseline Condition Figure 5.6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~: Perteet Engineering, Inc. ctr=. ~' Civil, Transportation and Surveying > l w i 3: ~ C/) UJ -J « a C/) UJ ~ « 0 SW 41ST ST SW 43RD ST (s 180TH S City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Design Year 2030 Baseline Condition Figure 5.7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ .. Perteet Engineering, Inc. l Civil. Transportation and Surveying >-W -J -J ~ > l w i ~ 3: II') en 180TH City of Renton Daily Freight Volumes & Percent of ADT Strander Boulevard Extension Design Year 2030 Baseline Condition Figure 5.8 I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I >-W --1 --1 « > w PM Peak Hour Freight Volumes & Percent of Total City of Renton Design Year 2030 Strander Boulevard Extension Baseline Condition ~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. Figure 5.9 _~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ! 3: ~ en ~ City of Renton ~ , ,,,::AD;'qHcCl,VE Strander Boulevard Extension , "'" Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~ Civil. Transportation and Surveying >-W -! -! « > w Annual Freight Tonnage Design Year 2030 Baseline Condition Figure 5.10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ 3: 1i \tj C/) 1. I SW 34TH ST ~ City of Renton __ \:c\r-,c-,~;;:-l-::: Strander Boulevard Extension ~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~:?= Civil, Transportation and Surveying 16TH I I L_ ( I " w ;--- '- Average Daily Traffic Volumes Opening Year 2015 with Strander Extension Figure 5.11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~,Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~ Civil. Transportation and Surveying ~ en > w -J r C ( ~ SW 34TH ST )-- "--------~-.. SW 41ST ST SW 43RD ST (S 180TH City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Opening Year 2015 with Strander Extension Figure 5.12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~~-\ ~.:-.-~'I· , ~~..# \ I 1 i I ! I I 1 I I t tl I w WI-=SW~3~4~TH~S~T~----4_--____ ~ ~ W -J C§ CI) w ~ ~ / ! ( ~ \ \..... -) r ( ( ·1-It:il~~ SW 41ST ST ~r=dI~ II :' ikU~~~U "'~1t~ ;_ I + ~ 8W 43RD 8T 1J.,/JP( 11 t 1+ T-H---II(!IiII----~---+ .. -----"-\ ~~(S~~1:...8::..0T~H-t·-Sl_,~ {;f <1!;; /~)'----r- .~-;: Perteet Engineering, Inc. I~ Civil Transportation and Surveying -~ , \ ~; III City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Intersection Channelization Opening Year 2015 with Strander Extension Figure 5.13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o 0::: w ~ City of Renton Daily Freight Volumes & Percent of ADT ~" '\:!;:"Dn"~dFCl'''~'F Strander Boulevard Extension Opening Year 2015 ,~ Perteet Engmeenng, Inc. with Strander Extension '"-, Civil, Transportation and Surveying Figure 5.14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I w j I )---- I '---._-. ~ City of Renton PM Peak Freight Volumes & Percent of Total '"""".~ JY=:A['~Fl~Hi':'S Strander Boulevard Extension Opening Year 2015 ,~ Perteet Engmeenng, Inc. with Strander Extension ~~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying Figure 5.15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l i 3: ~ Vi en SW 41ST ST ~ City of Renton --';':' ·\coc'J,'l'T m"O'RVE Strander Boulevard Extension :~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. '~~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying >-W -! -! <{ > w Annual Freight Tonnage Opening Year 2015 with Strander Extension Figure 5.16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ City of Renton ~.. AE=:A'YlFTHED':<"!E Strander Boulevard Extension ,.)J Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying Average Daily Traffic Volumes Design Year 2030 with Strander Extension Figure 5.17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L / I 1 ! 1 \ '-.. -) r > ( ( w ~ -j_L.~ .·o~~ \ ,/ J~g "'-IDq~ ,-,.....-\ ;J"i r. i 6flJJ'.J I.L10 \ 730..1 L710 ,1 380~ -1250' 000 "'850 ". 1 '! ..0 .-0 \ :70. :! H: .430 l'-~-___ /-'------., 300..1:J i r. L120 H-S-T-R-A....:N ...... DER ""-.. '" ~ ~ I / ! "l 500-1---'+--1 BLVD -L\, 11,280-I -1,020 I ' 200.; r50 , \ .,r* \ I \ ,. 01/ '-j./ ~ (J) W~S~W~34~T~H~ST~ ______ +-______ ~ ~I I 1-- tl II / , I r j ~~g ~-rl-rl -~.-----_-r __ ~S~W~4~3~R~D_S~T~ __ -L~ ( .. _'_" (s 180TH ~ \ SW 41ST ST \ ~, Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~ ~ Civil, Transportation and Surveying City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Design Year 2030 with Strander Extension Figure 5.18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ( ~ City of Renton Daily Freight Volumes ~f':}~}~ES~ Strander Boulevard Extension Design Year 2030 ~\ Perteet Engineering, Inc. Diversions with Proposed Alignment 'S: Civil, Transportation and Surveying Figure 5.19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I ~~; Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~ :'S".. Civil. Transportation and Surveying >-W ..J ..J « > ~ w i ~ 3: II) (J) Daily Freight Volumes & Percent of ADT City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Design Year 2030 with Strander Extension Figure 5.20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I >-W .....J W .....J ;;c « > 0 ~ Z .....J W i ~ CIj PM Peak Hour Freight Volumes & Percent of Total City of Renton Design Year 2030 Strander Boulevard Extension with Strander Extension :;r Perteet Enginee:isng, Inc. Figure 5.21 ~ Civil, TransportatIOn an urveymg I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l i 3: 1i IIj en ~ City of Renton -..." r.i-'.".·\Dmm2ClIRVF Strander Boulevard Extension l~ Perteet Engineering, Inc. ~ CIVIl, TransportatiOn and Surveying >-W --l --l « > w Annual Freight Tonnage Design Year 2030 with Strander Extension Figure 5.22 ~) I I 'I ~I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I 1< ,I I SEP A Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton September 2004 -22- GEOTECHNICAL REPORT The attached Geology and Soils Technical Discipline Report addresses the requirements for this section of the application . ........................................................................................................................................................... ~ Perteet Inc. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 1 2004 RECEIVED 22-1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I DRAFT GEOLOGY AND SOILS TECHNICAL DISCIPLINE REPORT Prepared For: Prepared By: Strander Boulevard Extension Project City of Renton Department of Public Works Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 400 North 34th Street, Suite 100 Seattle, W A 98103 (206) 632-8020 May 2004 I I I Ii I I I I, I I I I I I I I I DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3 1.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE ........................................................................ 3 1.2 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................. 3 1.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 6 1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE ..................................................................................................... 8 1.5 PROJECT NEED .......................................................................................................... 8 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF Al.,TERNATIVES ................................................................. 10 2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................................. 10 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND COORDINATION ....................................................... 16 3.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA ........................................................................................... 16 3.2 APPROACH TO ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 17 3 .3 COORDINATION WITH AGENCIES AND JURISDICTIONS ............................................. 28 3.4 POLICIES AND APPROVALS ...................................................................................... 28 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................. 30 4.1 PROJECT STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION AND TOPOGRAPHIC SETTING ......................... 30 4.2 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 31 4.3 PROJECT STUDY AREA GEOLOGy ............................................................................ 31 4.4 HYDROGEOLOGIC REGIME ...................................................................................... 37 4.5 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER DESCRIPTION OVERVIEW .............................................. 37 4.6 TECTONICS AND SEISMICITY ................................................................................... 38 4.7 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND CRITICAL AREAS ........................................................... 39 5.0 IMPACT ANAl., YSIS ............................................................. ; ............................•... 46 5.1 No ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................... 47 5.2 ALTERNATIVE 1: CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWAY OVERPASS CROSS-VALLEY LINK, RELOCA TlON OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACK, AND MODIFICATION OF SW 27TH STREET TO FIVE LANES ......................................................................................... 50 5.3 AL TERNA TIVE 2: CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWA Y UNDERPASS CROSS-VALLEY LINK, RELOCATION OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACK, AND MODIFICATION OF SW 27TH STREET TO FIVE LANES .................................................................................. 57 5.3 AL TERNA TIVE 2: CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWA Y UNDERPASS CROSS-VALLEY LINK, RELOCATION OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACK, AND MODIFICATION OF SW 27TH STREET TO FIVE LANES .................................................................................. 65 6.0 COMPARISON OF AI., TERNATIVES ................................................................. 67 7.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 71 Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton I I I I ,II I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Page LIST OF TABLES TABLE 4.1: AREMA PERFORMANCE CRITERIA LIMIT STATES ............................................ 39 TABLE 4.2: ESTIMATED ELEVATION IN FEET OF POTENTIAL LIQUEFACTION BY AREMA PERFORMANCE CRITERIA LIMIT STATE ..................................................................... 44 TABLE 4.3: ESTIMATED LIQUIFACTION INDUCED GROUND SETTLEMENTm INCHES .... : .... 44 TABLE 4.4: EROSION HAZARD UNITS ................................................................................ 45 TABLE 6.1: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO GEOLOGY AND SOILS ......................... 68 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1 : LOCATION MAp ............................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 1.2: TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION .......................................................................... 5 FIGURE 1.3: PROJECT SEGMENTS ........................................................................................ 7 FIGURE2.1: PROPOSED ROADWAY LIMITS ............... : ........................................................ 11 FIGURE 3.1: SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN ...................................................................... 18 FIGURE 3.2: GEOLOGIC MAP ............................................................................................. 29 FIGURE 4.1: GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE A-A .................................................... 32 FIGURE 4.2: SOILS MAp ..................................................................................................... 42 FIGURE 4.3: HAZARDS MAp .............................................................................................. 43 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS APPENDIX B: IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAIlENVIRONMENTAL REpORT Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension ii May 2004 City of Renton I I I il I I I I I I I I, I I I' DRAFT 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Organization and Scope The purpose of this discipline report is to present an evaluation of the potential impacts of developing an extension ofStrander Boulevard/SW 27th Street from West Valley Highway eastward to East Valley Road on geology and soils. The report evaluates impacts to geology and soils in the area where construction would take place as well as for a wider area where secondary and/or cumulative impacts may occur. 1.2 Study Area This project study area is located within the jurisdictions of both the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila in Se"ction 19, Township 23 North, Range 5 East; Sections 24 and 25, " Township 23 North, Range 4 East; Section 30, Township 23 North"Range 5 East (See Location Map, Figure 1.1). Renton is located at the south end of Lake Washington on the edge of metropolitan and rural King County. Its location between Seattle, Tacoma, and Bellevue places Renton in the center of a region that is the economic hub of the state. Renton encompasses approximately 16.7 square miles. Renton and Tukwila are at the crossroads of a regional transportation network where seven state and interstate highways converge and which is central to national and international air traffic. The study area is sideways T -shape. It includes the area between the west side ofthe Interurban Trail and the east side of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad " track. The study area is wider in the vicinity of Strander Boulevard because it is possible that the trail would be moved. The southern boundary is south of a railroad spur heading northwest from the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline (the spur that crosses the Green River, not the short spur that serves adjacent businesses), which is about 1,700 feet south of Strander Boulevard. The spur would be the approximate takeoff point for a new UPRR mainline track that would replace the existing track. The new track would parallel the existing BNSF tracks. On the north end, the study area extends just past 1-405 where the UPRR track begins to parallel the BNSF tracks. East of the BNSF tracks; the bulk of the proposed project construction in the primary study area would be confined to the Strander/27th A venue corridor, branching off at the points where the Boeing access roads and Sounder station access are to be located. From Oakesdale to East Valley Road, the expectation is to widen the existing roadway within the right-of-way limits. The new roadway would be five lanes with sidewalks and planter strips on both sides (See Figure 1.2). The intent is to keep the project within City right- of-way. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 3 May 2004 City of Renton I I I \1, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Puget Sound City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension (I D Figure 1.1 Location Map --------~---------- I "{1'" ). t·, , _."II~_: D. '"0 < (1) :::;..., ~ ...... -l (1) ;-g ~ i~ m .iJ tTl '-i Z §. ::s g <J.3. ~j ,...., " ~ j § (b ,.< 0 c.. ..., : .. 1 ~~. I~i Z " . ':::. ~ " =' "" () (f)() ~ -g, 0 Q) :::c 0 Q) a. ~ Q) '< C/) CD 0 ~ 0 :J ....... _ . .., ....... Q)'< ::J 0 a. -+0 ~ ;;0 OJ CD o ;1 c 0 (j) ::J < OJ a. m x ....... CD ::J (f) O· ::J "'TI <0 C ~ CD -'" I'V G' PLANTER 1 G'SIDEWALK STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION I':' TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION 90' ROW GO' 12' 12' 12' THRU LANE 'I THRU LANE'I TURN LANE -'~-:-,.::; WIDEN WITHIN THE ROW WITH SHARED USE PATH ON SOUTH SIDE 12' 12' G' PLANTER 12' I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 1.3 Project Ba'ckground This project began with the formatiori of the Project Stakeholder Committee composed of public agencies and private businesses. Members of the committee have some insight concerning the needs of this project, opportunities that this project could promote, and potential transit and commuter rail improvements it could provide for the Tukwila commuter rail station. The Project Team facilitated Project Stakeholder Committee meetings with affected agencies, such as WSDOT; City of Renton; City of Tukwila; King County; and private businesses, including Boeing, BNSF; and UPRR. Concurrently, the Project Team reviewed existing information regarding the corridor and the existing environment and infrastructure within the project corridor. The Project Team assembled information about to potential corridor concepts, existing and projected traffic that would be generated by the proposed corridor improvements, affected environment, and costs. The Project Stakeholder Committee, formed by the City of Renton, became a source of . guidance and input with regard to the information assembled for the potential corridor concepts by the Project Team. The role of this committee was to review and comment on the major study tasks and to recommend preferred concepts. The committee met seven times during this phase of the project and provided the Project Team their endorsement to the Project Team's preliminary recommendation for each of the three proposed segments (See Figure 1.3): • Segment 1 -West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW • Segment 2 -Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Highway • Segment 3 -added access to SR 167 via East Valley Road At the conclusion of the study, the City of Renton determined that construction of Segments 1 and 2 by themselves would provide a vital cross-valley route and have substantial utility independent of Segment 3. The Project Team prepared a statement of the problem based on a review of existing traffic volumes, projected 20-year traffic volumes, economic growth projections from the cities of Renton and Tukwl1a, and committee member discussions. There were initially 13 potential concepts for Segment 1, 5 potential concepts for Segment 2, and 4 potential concepts for Segment 3. Each of these concepts was described in a conceptual level of detail. At this level of definition, the corridor improvements included sketches, key physical and operational features, functions, benefits, and potential impacts to the environment. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 6 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ A:-:::"'l,[)OFTI-fE C-~v;; ;; Perteet Engineering, Inc. r . d Surveying ' __ T C' 'ii Transportation an ._ ~:;,. 1\, SW 7TH ST SEGMENT 1 SE (S City of Renton . Strander Boulevard Extension SEGMENT 2 43RD ST 180TH ST) ~ Figure 1.3 Project Segments I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT The Project Team evaluated the concepts through a first-level screening, which was essentially a "fatal flaw" analysis. Concepts were recommended for elimination if they· contained serious flaws, were likely to perform poorly, demonstrated an undesirable combination of performance and adverse impacts, or did not appear to meet the committee's committed goal for the project. Following the initial screening, a second screening was conducted on the concepts not eliminated. During the second-level screening, a more detailed evaluation was applied using additional criteria related to transportation performance, land use/social impacts, environmental impacts, and costlfeasibility. A final screening was conducted on the last remaining concepts using the same criteria as the second screening but with additional information collected, as well as the results of a traffic analysis on the effects of adding this east-west corridor between SW Grady Way and South 180thStreetiSW 43rd Street. In addition, more detailed costs of the concepts were discussed and the potential for funding the concept and the overall financial viability of a concept were evaluated. During each of the evaluation screenings, the Project Stakeholder Committee was briefed on the evaluation. Upon endorsement by the Project Stakeholder Committee, the Project Team continued to the next level of evaluation. The final screening resulted in a preliminary recommendation for each segment by the Project Team. The Project Stakeholder Committee has concurred with this preliminary recommendation. 1.4 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to improve travel speed, reliability, and access in the north Renton/south Tukwila area. This would be accomplished by adding a new roadway segment from Strander Boulevard to SW 27th Street and roadway improvements along SW 27th Street. This would result in a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and East Valley Road via Strander Boulevard in Tukwila and SW 27th Street in Renton. 1.5 Project Need The proposed project would meet several needs important to both Renton and Tukwila. The project would: • Decrease travel time and increase reliability • Relieve congestion • Provide access to the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station • Improve freeway operation • Encourage transit-oriented development • Promote freight mobility and economic development Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 8 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 1.5.1 The Need to Decrease Travel Time and Increase Reliability The absence ofa direct route to and from the project area between West Valley Highway and SR 167 results in extra travel time for freight shippers, transit vehicles, and general purpose vehicles. A grade-separated route crossing the UPRR and BNSF tracks would both decrease travel times and increase the certainty that vehicles would not be delayed . by trains traveling through the area. 1.5.2 The Need to Relieve Congestion In order for traffic from Strander Boulevard to cross the UPRR and BNSF tracks and connect with East Valley Road, vehicles must either travel approximately .6 miles north on West Valley Highway to SW Grady Way and then east or go more than a mile south to SE 180th StreetiSW 43 rd Street before going east. In either case, the circuitous route causes unnecessary congestion that would be alleviated by a direct cross-valley connection. 1.5.3 The Need to Provide Access to the Future Sound Transit Tukwila Station The Boeing Longacres site currently facilitates one of south King County's highest proportions of vanpool users at a temporary Sound Transit station. The temporary station will eventually develop into the Sound Transit Tukwila Station and will become an important intermodal center for the South King County area. Current routes from the temporary facility to the freeway system are convoluted and congested. Improved access to this commuter rail station will encourage transit use, and help to relieve traffic congestion in the region. Improved access would result in shorter commute times for high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) users, and keep the use of alternative modes of transportation high. . 1.5.4 The Need to Improve Freeway Operation Due to high traffic volumes, it is difficult for HOV and freight traffic on 1-405, SW Grady Way, and SW 43rd Street to access important employment and industrial centers in the GreenlDuwamish River valley. Bus movements across congested SR 167 traffic lanes between the inside HOV lanes and on-and off-ramps at the outside lanes increase travel times for HOVs and contribute to general purpose traffic congestion. By providing an additional cross-valley link, the proposed project would take some traffic off ofI-405 and SR 167. 1.5.5 The Need to Encourage Transit-Oriented Development If the UPRR tracks are relocated to more closely parallel the BNSF tracks through the project area, additional land could be made available for economic development in Tukwila adjacent to the planned Sound Transit Tukwila commuter rail station. The location would be ideal for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and would reinforce Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 9 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT opportunities for development and growth within the Boeing Longacres site and surrounding areas. 1.5.6 The Need to Promote Freight Mobility and Economic Development Fast, reliable freight access to industrial areas in the GreenlDuwamish River Valley is crucial to economic development in the area; without such access, businesses could suffer and may choose to relocate. The extension of Strander Boulevard from West Valley Highway (SR 181) to SW 27th Street would improve access to SR 167, thus providing an alternative to the existing freight routes in the area. In addition to reducing travel time, the new facility may also reduce congestion in the area by drawing vehicles from other truck routes, thus reducing the overall congestion level in the area. Additional access to the future development of the Boeing Longacres site is equally important to the economic development currently projected and being planned. Without improved local and through access, the rate at which new and existing businesses choose to locate or expand here is likely to be significantly reduced. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Alternatives Considered Three action alternatives and a No Action alternative are evaluated in this report. The alternatives focus on a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and East Valley Road (see Figure 2.1) that would begin at the signalized intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway on the west and would terminate at the unsignalized intersection of SW 27th Street and East Valley Road on the east, a distance of 6,500 feet. At present, West Valley Highway to Oakesdale A venue SW is an unimproved area with no roadway that directly connects Strander Boulevard with the area to the east. From Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road, there is an existing roadway approximately 3600 feet long. The project alternatives focus on strategies to cross the unimproved area, especially railroad tracks owned and operated by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). 2.1.1 No Action Alternative The No Action alternative would keep the project corridor as it currently exists. No new roadways would be constructed or improved in the corridor. The purpose and need for the project would not be met by the No Action alternative. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 10 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~- ST I i -I I II) ~--- is STRANO::R R5E, W.M. R45E, .M. i ! ~~~~~~----~ ---------.- i SW 17TH ST i SPRINGBRgOK TRAIL ~ I I \S'~ 16TH J Sl i ~ i! ;vSW 34TH ST \ I ~ ~ ; : ~ C5 SW 41TH ST S 'l80TH ST "f ~ II~ / I /,,/ ~'. Perteet Engineering, Inc. l:r" ,""---_ Civil. Transportation and Surveying City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension SE 4320 S1 Figure 2.1 Proposed Roadway Limits I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 2.1.2 Alternative 1: Construction of a Roadway Overpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification ofSW 27th Street to Five Lanes Alternative 1 would create a link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single overcrossing of both the UPRR and BNSF tr~cks. From Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road, SW 27th Street would be widened and include pedestrian facilities and landscaping. Alternative 1 would include five elements: Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad track • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW • • Improvements to SW 27th Street Modifications to the Interurban Trail • Modifications to South Longacres Way Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track The UPRR track would be shifted to the east to parallel the existing two sets of BNSF track. To develop this alternative, a new railroad track would be constructed within a new 100-foot right-of-way adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way and then joined with the existing UPRR track at both ends of the project area. Approximately 5,500 feet of new track would be constructed at an elevation similar to that of the existing BNSF tracks. Construction would require placement of 125,000 cubic yards of earth and gravel for the new railroad bed. The new UPRR track would be located at the center of the new 100- foot right-of-way. Approximately the same amount of track and railroad bed would be removed from the existing UPRR location as will be constructed at the new UPRR track location. The railroad bed material would be disposed of at an approved location or reused as a construction fill material. Construction would be sequenced so that disruption of railroad service would be avoided or minimized. With this alternative, the new UPRR track can be constructed while service is continuing on the old track. When the new track is completed, UPRR train traffic would be moved to the new track, the existing UPRR track and railroad bed would be removed, and construction of the roadway overpass would begin. New Roadway Construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW A new roadway would be constructed from the intersection of West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Strander Boulevard to the intersection of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 27th Street. The roadway alignment would be an extension of Strander Boulevard and curve to match up with the existing alignment of SW 27th Street. Alternative 1 would feature an overpass that would be constructed over the two existing BNSF tracks and the new UPRR track. The overpass would provide a net vertical clearance of 17 feet and include four travel lanes, a sidewalk on the north side, and a Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 12 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT shared use path (combined bicycle/pedestrian path) on the south side for pedestrians and bicycles. . From West Valley Highway to the overpass, the roadway would consist of five lanes (four thru lanes and a two-way left turn lane), landscaped strips, a sidewalk on the north side, and a shared use path on the south side. Bicycle facilities would be provided in either combined travel lanes/bicycle lanes or as a shared use path. The landscaped strips would be provided between the traveled way and the pedestrian facilities, and in some locations where a two-way left turn lane is not needed, a landscaped median would be provided. The overpass would not have the two-way left tum lane and planter strips. From the overpass east to Oakesdale Avenue SW, the same five-lane roadway, landscape strips, and pedestrianlbicycle facilities would be constructed. This section (including the roadway, pedestrian facilities and landscaped strips) would be 90 feet wide from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, staying, for the most part, within the appropriate existing City-owned right-of-way. The new roadway construction would result in three new intersections between West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW. There would be one intersection at the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station access road, and two intersections that would result from access roads to the Boeing Longacres site. New traffic signals would be installed at each of these intersections. Improvements to SW 27th Street The existing section of roadway between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road would be widened to match that ofthe new roadway segment to the west (five lanes, landscaping strips, and pedestrian/bicycle facilities on each side). The section would be 90 feet wide from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, staying, for the most part, within existing City-owned right-of-way. At some locations where there are space constraints or the need to avoid wetland impacts, the planter strip may be eliminated. Portions of the north side and south side of the proposed improvements may require a 3-to 8-foot block or rock wall at the back of the sidewalk to minimize impacts to the adjacent wetlands. A handrail would be required along the top of these wall sections. Modifications to the Interurban Trail The new roadway segment linking West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW would cut across the Interurban Trail. As a result, it would be necessary to construct a new means of making the trail continuous. The least obtrusive and preferred route is to have an at-grade crossing at either West Valley Highway or at the future Tukwila Station access road intersection. On the north side and the south side of the roadway, trail users would be routed onto the new bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the roadway, directed toward the intersection, cross the intersection, and then be directed back to the existing trail. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 13 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Modifications to South Longacres Way South Longacres Way, which is approximately 1,700 feet north of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway, is bridged by the UPRR track and the BNSF tracks. It currently provides access to the temporary Sound Transit commuter rail parking area. The existing railroad bridges over'South Longacres Way arenarrow and have clearances that are below the minimum requirements. As a result of this project, if South Longacres Way were to continue to remain open, improvements would have to be made to provide minimum vertical clearances. A new UPRR bridge structure would have to be built, improvements would need to be made to the BNSF bridge structure, and the vertical profile of South Longacres Way would have to be lowered. . 2.1.3 Alternative 2: Construction ofa Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification ofSW 27th Street to Five Lanes Alternative 2 would create a link between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single underpass of both the UPRR and BNSF tracks. As described previously for Alternative 1, the UPRR track would be relocated to the east to parallel the existing BNSF tracks. The roadway would be the same as Alternative 1 and have the same five elements as Alternative 1, listed below: Relocation of the UPRR track • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW Improvements to SW 27th Street Modifications to the Interurban Trail • Modifications to South Longacres Way Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1; however, construction sequencing would be different. Construction would be sequenced so that disruption of railroad service would be avoided or minimized. The construction of the new railroad track and the roadway underpass (see new roadway construction subsection below) would also be constructed simultaneously. When the new track is completed, train traffic from the western BNSF tracks would be temporarily shifted to the new track and constmction of the underpass beneath the unused tracks would take place. After completion of the second section of the underpass, train traffic from the eastern BNSF track would be temporarily shifted to the western track, and the third section of the underpass would be constmcted under the eastern BNSF track. When the underpass is completed, BNSF train traffic would be shifted back to their two original tracks, and UPRR train traffic would be relocated to the new track, and the existing UPRR track and railroad bed would then be removed. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 14 May 2004 City of Renton '.-' , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT New Roadway Construction/rom West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW This project element would be the same as Alternative 1, except that an underpass of all three railroad tracks (the relocated track used by UPRR and the two BNSF tracks) would be constructed rather than an overpass. The underpass would provide 17 feet of a net vertical clear distance between the roadway and the bottom of the bridge structure arid would contain all of the same roadway elements as in Alternative 1. Other elements of Alternatives would be walls along the underpass and in other various locations and the construction of water quality treatment and detention facilities. The underpass section would include a pump system to remove the accumulated rainwater. Improvements to SW 27th Street This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to the Interurban Trail This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to South Longacres Way This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. 2.1.4 Alternative 3: Construction ofa Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Union Pacific Railroad Track Not Relocated, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes As with Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would create a link between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single underpass of both the UPRR and BNSF tracks. Alternative 3 differs from Alternatives 1 and 2 because the UPRR track would not be relocated to the east to parallel the existing BNSF tracks. For this alternative, the UPRR track would remain in their existing location. The roadway would be the same as that for Alternative 2 and would have most of the same elements as Alternative 2: • • • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW Improvements to SW 27th Street Modifications to the Interurban Trail Modifications to South Longacres Way New Roadway Construction/rom West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW Under Alternative 3, this project element would be the same as Alternative 2 except that the length of the underpass would be longer because of the different location of the railroad structures. The longer underpass would result in the purchase and modification to the existing parcels and businesses on the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of Strander and West Valley Highway. Changes would have to be made to Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 15 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT these lots so that the driveways could match into the new roadway, which would be at a lower elevation than the existing roadway. All other elements of the project that would result from the Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2. Improvements to SW 27th Street This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to the Interurban Trail This project element would be the same as for Alternative 1. Modifications to South Longacres Way With Alternative 3, there would be no required modifications to South Longacres Way because no changes would be made to the existing UPRR or BNSF tracks. 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND COORDINATION 3.1 Evaluation Criteria Information about the geologic subsurface conditions along the proposed alignments for Alternatives 1,2, and 3 (affected environment) was evaluated by reviewing existing available subsurface information and by performing subsurface explorations. Available subsurface information was collected from files maintained by the City of Renton, the City of Tukwila, Boeing Company, and Shannon & Wilson, Inc. project files. Most of the existing information was compiled during a previous preliminary study, Phase 1, done for Berger/ Abarn (Shannon & Wilson, 200 1). In addition, the City of Renton forwarded subsurface information from the ConocoPhillips Renton Terminal (tank farm) on SW 27th Street. Information from published geologic maps and other documents was also reviewed. During the previous Phase 1 preliminary study, a geologic reconnaissance of the alignment area was also completed. The information collected from the data review, geologic reconnaissance, and subsurface explorations was used to develop a description of the affected environment including geology, location of critical geologic areas, and general topographic setting. A description of the affected environment based on these studies is presented in Section 4 of this report. Based on the No Action alternative and Alternatives 1,2, and 3, geologic and geotechnical impacts were assessed related to cuts and fills, retaining walls, foundations, liquefaction (as defined in Section 4.7.3), fill settlement, erosion and sediment transport, groundwater uplift pressures, construction, and utilities. Mitigation measures for these impacts are proposed and are included in Section 5 of this report. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 16 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 3.2 Approach to Analyses 3.2.1 Studies Geologic data were obtained for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 by collecting and reviewing existing data, performing a geologic reconnaissance, drilling 17 soil borings and installing several monitoring wells and/or vibrating wire piezometers, taking monthly groundwater readings, taking groundwater readings at 30-minute intervals for 2.5 months in the boring nearest to the Green River, and performing slug testing in the monitoring wells to estimate hydraulic conductivity. The geologic evaluation of the proposed Build alternatives was performed based on these data. Preliminary evaluations were made related to foundation axial capacities, liquefaction, lateral earth pressures on the underpass sidewalls, and other geologic issues. The evaluations were made based on experience with similar projects and similar soil conditions, as well as preliminary engineering analyses. Mitigation measures were developed from work with similar project/soil conditions. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 17 May 2004 City of Renton ~'." V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f-Z <.) ~ .<::: ""5 « ... a a N 0 :;;; a ~ 0 \:'~~t Ol ~ "0 ~ Q) .<::: (f) ~ M .g, U. N a ~ co M '" f ~ ... 0 ,}, 1:: 0 a. Q) 0:: Q) .!: Q. '0 til is (f) ~ N a a cD co M '" 9 ~ ~ Ol C if; f! ~ ~ u::: ............ -.. :.::.::: ....... . ...... .... :: ..... . LEGEND 8-100 IfC'.. Current Boring Designation and Location Surveyed by Perteet \J (Shannon & Wilson,lnc.) . 8-200 ~ 8-300 • TP-300 • Current Boring Designation and Approximate Location (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.) Boring Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) C-300 t;\ Cone Penetration Test Designation and Approximate Location \::J (previous, by others) MW VWP Monitoring Well Vibrating Wire Piezometer Generalized Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate Location (See Figure 3) • 8-301 o I 60 I Scale in Feet Sheet Key Plan Ii ;;.-,4h o 120 I )' i; ··--I---t.,-<--. .. ·,.:. ----.> ~'41..~ S<.-d-·"U"~.l't •. f ,} '-1 Si:E.··5:TMH.!.I i' 1/ ,/ 1 ~~~ .. ~ ___ ... :::=:::=:-___ ~.~>J) , i i . NOTES 1. This figure is based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROW.dwg, dated 7-9-03. 2. Survey performed by Perteet. 3. Elevation datum is NAVD88. Sound Transit Property Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Renton and Tukwila, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN May 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 3.1 Geotac:hnical and Environmanlal Consullants Sheet 1 of 8 ,I I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I f-Z () ~ .r:: 'S « .... 0 0 N N :;;; 0 jB ttl Cl ~ ~ .l!! Q) Q) .r:: rn ~ ~ o? ci> u::: N 0 9 m CD M m ~ ~ .... 0 ,;, 1:: 0 C. Q) 0:: Q) .!: a. 'u ., is rn ~ N 0 0 cD CD M m 9 ~ ~ OJ c: :e !!! ~ l!i u::: l; Sound Transit Property LEGEND I B-1 00 IfC'.. Current Boring Designation and Location Surveyed by Perteet " (Shannon & Wilson,lnc.) B-200 ~ B-300 • TP-300 • Current BOring Designation and Approximate Location (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.) BOring Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Cone Penetration Test Designation and Approximate Location C-300 G (previous, by others) MW Monitoring Well VWP Vibrating Wire Piezometer Generalized Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate Location (See Figure 3) I I . I i \ \ I ~, "" /1 o I \ \ ..• ~,.------ \ \ '. \ /. ~"'-~~----..i..-.. _ ... ___ _ l l --.... --.. ___ ._ ... ""_~ () F-' ss i , ~·'"',..,.· .... v_ ___ r.,......,... ... ' ........... ....,.. -.".....-.J', .. ~~ 60 120 I I Scale in Feet Sheet Key Plan Boeing Longacres Site .. _._ ... _----_ .... _+-.. c~.-___ _ ---;:;;,:: .. \-----.--~-- (' ) ':--vj ss ----__ . ________ ~---- S5 B-302. HQletn,a Longacres Site J ! NOTES ! f i 1. This figure is based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROW.dwg, dated 7-9-03. 2. Survey performed by Perteet. 3. Elevation datum is NAVD88. Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Renton and Tukwila, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN May 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 3.1 Geotechnical and Environmental Consullanls Sheet 2 of 8 ,I I I I I I I I I I-Z () ~ ~ :; « I '<t a a ~ J, a I 2 t1l Cl ~ I "0 ~ ., ~ en e I M cD u:: N a a d> I co M m f ~ '<t I ~ t: 0 Co CD a:: CD c: I a '0 III i:5 en iii N a I 0 d> co M m 9 £j I Ol c: ie f! ~ .i!i I u:: ~. .,\J.(':<-' ~- --,.,....-' ._.0- LEGEND 8-1 00....... Current Boring Designation and Location Surveyed by Perteet \J (Shannon & Wilson,lnc.) 8-200 ~ 8-300 • TP-300 • Current Boring Designation and Approximate Location (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.) Boring Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Cone Penetration Test Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Generalized Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate Location (See Figure 3) Boeing Longacrek Site o 60 120 I E-----:3 I I Scale in Feet Sheet Key Plan ....... .... ,. .. ..... I I ..... ...... ............ B~ing Longacres Site \ \ .. -.-...... ...... ..•....... ....•.... -. NOTES 1. This figure is based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROWdwg, dated 7-9-03. 2. Survey performed by Perteet. 3. Elevation datum is NAVD88. Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Renton and Tukwila, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN May 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental.Consultants FIG. 3.1 Sheet 3 of 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,;, a 2 '" o .,.; OJ u: N a a a, ~ m <;> ~ .... ~ 1:: 8. Q) II:: Q) .!: C. .~ is (J) ~ N a a a, CD M m 9 i ._, / / Boeing Longacres Site -:~:.~-:---- •••• t.= •• Renton Wetlands / .. -.- o 60 120 I E"3 I I Scale in Feet .,-.,~ .. ,.~-~- .. ~ NOTES 1. This figure is based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROW.dwg, dated 7-9-03. 2. Survey performed by Perteet. \ \ / :Wetlands / Renton Wetlands ... --'- Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Renton and Tukwila, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; I I I I / f ! 8-304 G I:. / ,I (-~ 1 .. '" ::2' .: . ~' I"",>_:":': -i,~ "', '-:;:_m.'-__ ~- Wetlands 1--" -;':'~ "\~ ".,D;(:--~c'ii:::ii.) ~,---",~, ij;,rt. . .'7'[ .,,> .~(" I .~ .··:;'·'~·C"·Y'" ';";(0:~,~~,-.~, _,~ .•• :: ,5,.:' 1-:'<-':~ ,I .. i."'" : \ J..' ' ~,,;c,:;;t""£>-',c 1--='~~i-c:-:;: ~.> ": ' , ; M .9 LL N o 9 0) <0 M 0) 9 , ~ ~ .;, 1:: 8. CD 0:: .~ a. '0 ., i5 en g;i N o o ch --,(f,/ __ ",.,C. ,,-. 1,; ,.'::::~:::,.::,,,' T i ,""", """" LEGEND 8-1 00 ~ Current Boring Designation and Location Surveyed by Perteet 'CJ (Shannon & Wilson,lnc-) 8-200 I/C:::,. Current Boring Designation and Approximate Location \:J (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.) 8-300. Boring Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Renton Wetlands o 60 I E3 I Scale in Feet 8-305 • 120 I TP-301 • ~ 1_ This figure is based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROWdwg, dated 7-9-03. .. --~-'-"'-.:..-' .... ,-0-_ TP-302 • ,~ ..... , Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Renton and Tukwila, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN <0 M 0) 9 ., ~ " ' .... 2, Survey performed by Perteet TP-300. Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) ~ Cone Penetration Test Designation and Approximate Location It C-300 e (""",w"" by""''') May 2004 2 H -09369-002 § A L Generalized Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate 3. Elevation datum is NAVD88. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 3.1 Location (See Figure 3) Sheet Key Plan Gooteetlllical and El\ViIOnITIenlal Consultants Sheet 5 of 8 mL ____________ !:::~----------~~--~--------------------------------------------------------------------~::~~~~--------------------------------------------------------------J---------------------------~~~~~~--~ iI: I I It I I I I I f-I z, u ~ £: ~ I ..,. a a ~ .;, a I l!! '" 0 OJ ~ I '" .2l Q) Q) .<= en e '": I 0') c, u::: '" a 0 en to ! 0') '" f ~ ..,. 0 I .;, 1:: 8. Q) 0::: Q) ,!;; a. I '0 <II is en g;i '" 0 I· 0 en to 0') '" 9 5 OJ I c: == II! 9 ~ I u::: TP-303 m r:~::·:s::: LEGEND 8-1 00....... Current Boring Designation and Location Surveyed by Perteet \J (Shannon & Wilson,lnc.) 8-200 ~ 8-300 • TP-300 • C-300 0 AL Current Boring Designation and Approximate Location (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.) Boring Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Cone Penetration Test Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Generalized Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate Location (See Figure 3) o I Wetlands ;' , ; ·~""""""'''''''''''''-'\t i Renton Wetlands \ 60 F"3 I Scale in Feet Sheet Key Plan 120 I / NOTES 1. This figure is based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROWdwg, dated 7-9-03. 2. Survey performed by Perteet. 3, Elevation datum is NAVD88. ConocoPhillips Tank Farm I I ! ! l Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Renton and Tukwila, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN May 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 3.1 Geotechnical and Environmental Consullants Sheet 6 of 8 I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I = I I I I f-. z u ~ £; ~ .,. 0 0 ";' .;, 0 ~ 0 en ;: " ~ Q) .c CJ) e oj ci> u:: N 0 <;> <J) CD '" <J) + ~ ~ .... 0 .;, 1:: 0 0-Q) 0: Q) .S a. ·u '" i:5 CJ) ~ N 0 0 ci> CD '" <J) 9 ~ ;:i en c :f; ~ ~ ~ u:: Renton Wetlands ConocoPhillips Tank Farm LEGEND 8 -100....... Current Boring Designation and Location Surveyed by Perteet 'CJ (Shannon & Wilson,lnc.) 8-200 ~ 8-300 • TP-300 • C-300 0 AL Current Boring Designation and Approximate Location (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.) Boring Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Cone Penetration Test Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Generalized Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate Location (See Figure 3) Wetlands o 60 120 I F"3 I I Scale in Feet Sheet Key Plan 8-315. Wetlands 1i£TLA!;;.1 ~';',. [£iiSt: "jPi":ES 8-317. NOTES 1. This figure is based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROW.dwg, dated 7-9-03. 2. Survey performed by Perteet. 3. Elevation datum is NAVD88. j N TP-304. , TP-306 • Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Renton and Tukwila, Washington Q) :§ .t::: .E ~ SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN May 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 3.1 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 7 of 8 I I I I I I I I I f-~ Z U ~ J:: :; <{ I .... a a ":' oh a I 2 to 0 ~ I -0 t Ql J:: (j) ~ I M C> u::: N a J: co I (") en 9 , ~ .... a I oh 1:: &. Ql c::: Ql .!: I Q. '13 CIl Ci (j) ijj N a I a cb co (") en 9 ~ I C) c if! r!! 9 ~ I u::: i J .S! ~i ~I 8-315 ,~ Tp·305 § -_ .. _-_ .•.•..... _ .... ./ / ........ ,... . ..... ~'" ..... --.... ~.-. . ... _._----! .... )-.-_._.. ._.:--....•.. .. -::::::: .. t:.:=...... 8·204 ..... ........ -.... -...... _=-.: . .::.=:::.:,.,"-~c."'.~ ••• ,,~, ...... "".;.'0 ~ ... "<;. ~""-.~--------.-.-.----.::=::::~===--=::=: ijl--;--·:,~:.~=;~ .. -.. "':7· .... -.. ·-::::F::::::.. .. ' ..... i.2~-·-. ==:'-"/ --;;,::,.=,.=-..:::::::-----." ... ~--.' ... : .. ;: ... --.~=>.:.Jfr.;;.. .... T· '.--",.'i /., l '" ··':=:;~~~~r<~ .. <':r" .. '. "":r .... mmmm:::'.!",-'. c.,"' ,~,.:.~ Y'SW2ifH Street"':~l :m:. "~~'~~~~:;"i~":· I "1 ... ,<::y~ .... ~m:.m., .. :... . ...... '._.. ~) ... ... , " :: )L~2 .. m. "': ~w':,.£: ,;;'.)1 '4!':~!ft...r ',,' 0')1 .,.jJ"m .. / 01·'; ~'ij~ ",> .,J, i' "';;;tr\';;'~:"~.~ ~f"J !,T ... "l Ii ~E~0~~~r :~::-~~=~~~2==~:-=-=~~-~=~'L~='f;~~S!::,;S~_~~:;~W~iB 1 , :".,-,---:" ::;;:;:,.: 7:~{..::;';;-:-7?£";..~j-:: .·~'.:·::::~1=-··,., ~ -... --.. -.-... -.,-.--. __ .~-::. .. -:~ .......... >-... -, \'; .: lr--' .~ T~":::-:: ! ~ ,';(" .:>_~~ ... '. . , . ....... L .. ·":z.,l/ / 1< :., ••• :_ •• ~. ~ <r"T : '1(~1~ 1." 'rf ~" ••. "~:~~~"j~,.. -~.' .-~. H: " "7'---~)": -'7~"'-~;-; t5?>~ .. :J~"~':~ .. -.~j{>';~ \ !~:'oi I \,"1 .. ' ,\.:)! ~ "::~; :.....:.::...~·c. ; ~-..::-." Jj-=-< ..... -....... -..... -...... -;; ......... -----... -... __ I --", I _J \\ .. 1 .. _J .. C_301 0 • 8·318 LEGEND (} II :.1 .. II iff :;/ /{ -. ..r . 1: ./~:I I' ! -I i: \'-IJ \ 8 -100 fL"., Current Boring Designation and Location Surveyed by Perteet 'CY (Shannon & Wilson,lnc.) 8·200 ~ 8-300 • TP·300 • Current Boring Designation and Approximate Location (Shannon & Wilson, Inc,) o I 60 F3 I Scale in Feet 120 I NOTES 1, This figure is based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROWdwg, dated 7-9-03. Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Renton and Tukwila, Washington C-300 ° AL Boring Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Cone Penetration Test Designation and Approximate Location (previous, by others) Generalized Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate Location (See Figure 3) 2. Survey performed by Perteet. 3. Elevation datum is NAVD88. Sheet Key Plan SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN May 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Envimnrnental Consultants FIG. 3.1 Sheet 8 of 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; I I I I I DRAFT 3.2.2 Data Sources Existing Subsurface Data Project files and archives from several sources were reviewed to obtain existing geotechnical subsurface information along the proposed Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 alignments. These efforts were concentrated on sources where large amounts of information were already stored and easily accessed. Data, primarily consisting of borings logs but also including cone penetration probes and test pits, was collected from the following sources: • Shannon & Wilson, Inc. • City of Renton • City of Tukwila • Boeing Company The stored files from each source listed above were reviewed, and selected exploration logs were copied. At some of these locations, the data reviewed were of low quality and therefore were not used in the geological studies. Only data that contained sufficient information to locate the explorations and to evaluate the subsurface geology were selected. The approximate locations of the existing explorations are shown on Figure 3.1 (sheets 1 through 8). The locations of the previous explorations were estimated from available plans and should be considered approximate. The approximate elevations of the previous explorations were determined in three ways: (1) by plotting the approximate exploration locations on the current site topography, (2) by assuming the log elevations were in terms of the 1988 North American Vertical Datum (NAVD88) based on their date and their correlation with the current topography, and (3) by converting other elevation data to the NA VD88 datum. The previous exploration logs and additional information regarding each exploration are included in Appendix A. Field Explorations An initial field exploration program was performed for the conceptual design phase of the project to supplement the existing information along the proposed alignment. The field exploration program included drilling 17 borings, designated borings B-I0 1 MW to B- 112 and B-201 to B-205. Monitoring wells (MW) and/or vibrating wire piezometers (VWP) were installed in 6 of the 17 borings. Five MW s and four VWPs were installed in the vicinity of the proposed underpass/overpass alternatives to characterize local groundwater conditions. The locations of these monitoring points are shown on Figure 3.1 (sheets 1 and 2). From west to east, they include B-101 MW, B-104 MWNWP, B-I05 VWP, B-106 MWNWP, B- 108 MWNWP, and B-II0 MW. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 26 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I DRAFT In general, the explorations were located in areas where the underpass/overpass structures are proposed, along the roadway-widening alignment, and where geologic conditions were not documented. The locations of the recent field explorations are shown on Figure 3.1, sheets 1 through 8. Perteet Engineering (Perteet) surveyed the boring locations between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW (the lOa-series borings). The boring locations between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Highway (the 200- series borings) were not surveyed but were measured from existing features and plotted on the site topographic map provided by Perteet. After plotting the approximate locations of the 200-series borings, the boring elevations, in terms ofNAVD88, were estimated. The boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Hydrogeologic Field Testing and Groundwater Monitoring Slug tests were performed in the five groundwater MWs to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the saturated soils near the proposed underpass excavation. The five MWs and four VWPs were read on a monthly basis from August 2003 to February 2004. In addition, groundwater levels were measured continuously in boring B-1 01 MW for approximately three months and were compared to surface water elevations in the neighboring Green River to assess the possible influence of the river on groundwater levels at the site. Geologic and Geotechnical Literature Review In addition to the field geologic reconnaissance during Phase 1, available published geologic and geotechnical literature was reviewed for the proposed alternatives. The reviewed literature included the following: • United States Geological Survey (USGS), Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington (Mullineaux 1965) • National Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey for King County (Synder et al. 1973) • Flood Insurance Rate Map for King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas (FEMA 1995) • Liquefaction Susceptibility for the Renton Quadrangle, Washington, (Palmer et al. 1994) • City of Renton sensitive areas maps (City of Renton 2002) • Draft Technical Memorandum, Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Corridor Improvements, Phase 1 Preliminary Geotechnical Information (Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2001) Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 27 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT • Geotechnical Report for Conceptual Design, Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements, Renton and Tukwila, Washington (Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2004) Geologic Reconnaissance A field geologic reconnaissance of the proposed Build alternatives was performed in April 2001 during Phase 1. The reconnaissance generally extended 200 feet north and south of SW 27th Street and 1,000 feet north and south ofthe alignment in the vicinity of the railroad tracks to the west and SR 167 to the east. Geologic features such as soil exposures, cuts and fills, standing water, and vegetational clues to geologic conditions were noted by the Shannon & Wilson representative walking the alignment. Pertinent field reconnaissance information, and preliminary geology based on subsurface data and the geologic literature review have been compiled and are shown on Figure 3.2. 3.2.3 Major Assumptions This report is based on the assumption that the subsurface and surficial soil conditions encountered in recent and previous soil explorations, observed during the 2001 geologic reconnaissance and presented in the geologic literature listed above, represent the actual conditions at and near the proposed alternatives. No project borings were completed west of the existing railroad tracks; therefore, it is assumed that the subsurface conditions encountered in the project explorations (located east of the UPRR track) would be representative of the affected environment at the western end of Alternative 3. 3.3 Coordination with Agencies and Jurisdictions Available existing subsurface information was compiled from the City of Renton, City of Tukwila, and Boeing. According to WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual Section 420 Earth (Geology and Soils), there are no interagency agreements specifically related to geology and soils. 3.4 Policies and Approvals The references listed in Section 3.2 (Geologic and Geotechnical Literature Review) above were used during this study. According to the WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual Section 420 Earth (Geology and Soils), the Transportation Commission's Policy Catalog includes no policies specifically referring to geology and soils. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 28 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I " I 0 0 ~ "- .;, 0 ]!i I '" Cl '" :;: "C N I .; ,;, u:: N 0 0 d> <D I '" m <;> ~ .... 0 I .;, 't 0 Co .. II: .. .E Q. I '0 '" Ci en W N 0 0 I d> <D '" m 9 s;i OJ I <: i2 f! 9 j! u:: I i! i. ,I,.;1 "il :1 GEOLOGIC EXPLANATION af ARTIFICIAL FILl. Qaw ALLUVIUM: Sand, silt, and clay deposited by White and Green Rivers; contains channel gravels and thin peat lenses. Mostly clayey silt and fine sand, locally peaty. Qlp LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: Peat; contains minor of silt and clay. Mapped where consistently 3 feet or thicker. Locally very soft; under load may readily flow laterally, or, if confined, may compress to as little as 10 percent of its original, in-situ volume. ! l Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Renton and Tukwila, Washington GEOLOGIC MAP May 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmenlal Consultants FIG. 3.2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The information collected from the literature and data review, field reconnaissance, and field explorations was used to develop a description of the affected environment. This description includes the general topographic setting, geology, location of critical geologic areas (such as groundwater levels and glacial soil), location of regional faults and other geologic hazards, and other miscellaneous but pertinent geologic data related to the proposed alternatives. The following sections describe each of these issues in more detail. The project vertical datum is NAVD88. The site and exploration plan for the build alternatives is presented in Figure 3.1. 4.1 Project Study Area Description and Topographic Setting The proposed project area is situated in a north-south trending alluvial valley near the south end of Lake Washington south ofInterstate 1-405 and bounded by West Valley Highway and East Valley Road. The proposed action would cross the UPRR and BNSF railroad tracks and Springbrook Creek, pass through the Boeing Longacres site, and pass by the Renton wetlands, the ConocoPhillips Renton Terminal (tank farm), Sound Transit property, and several office/warehouse buildings within the cities of Tukwila and Renton. The undeveloped areas of the project area are covered with grass, large patches of blackberry vines, and stands of small-to moderate-sized deciduous trees. In developed areas, the proposed alignment is bordered with buildings, sidewalks, lawns, and parking lots. In general, the ground surface along the proposed alignment is relatively flat, ranging from elevation 33 feet at the UPRR railroad tracks to the west to about elevation 17 feet near the intersection of SW 27th Street and East Valley Road to the east. This elevation difference occurs over a distance of about 6,000 feet. The project topography is shown on Figure 3.1. Currently, three railroad tracks cross the proposed alternatives. One track owned by UPRR and two adjacent tracks owned by BNSF are located approximately 400 and 800 feet east of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway, respectively. The Interurban Trail currently crosses the proposed alternative alignment west of the UPRR track. Strander Boulevard currently ends about one block east of West Valley Highway. The Green River is about 500 feet west of the westernmost end of the proposed alignment (the intersection ofStrander Boulevard and West Valley Highway). The Green River meanders but generally flows north-south. Springbrook Creek generally flows from south to north at the proposed project area and currently crosses under SW 27th Street between Oakesdale and Lind Avenues SW in a concrete box culvert. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 30 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 4.2 Geologic Conditions The geology and subsurface conditions in the proposed project area were inferred from the material and information obtained from the recent and previous explorations, monitoring wells and VWPs, and from geologic maps of the area. The interpretation of the subsurface conditions for the underpass/overpass alternatives is summarized in the Generalized Subsurface Profile A-A' presented on Figure 4.1, sheets 1 through 3. In this profile, the strata have been delineated according to geologic units. The geologic unit contains soils that are interpreted to have a common origin or process of deposition. Different soil types may be found within each geologic unit; a general soil description associated with each geologic unit is provided on Figure 4.1. The following sections include a description of the site geology and the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered along the project alternatives. 4.3 Project Study Area Geology The proposed alignment is located in the central and eastern portions of a relatively flat alluvial valley confined on the eastern, western, and northern sides by northerly-oriented ridges. The elevations of the ridges range from about 400 to 500 feet. A narrow gap between the ridges about 3/4 of a mile wide connects the north end ofthe valley to the southern end of Lake Washington. Two existing rivers and two former river channels have or had an influence on the soils that underlie the proposed alternatives and roadway widenings. The Green River currently flows beneath the existing Strander Boulevard just west of the proposed action. The Green River is a meandering channel within a broad valley. It becomes the Duwamish River north of the City of Tukwila. The headwaters of the Green River are in the Mount Rainier area of the central Cascade Range. A former channel of the Green River is documented in a published geologic map; it is shown about 112 mile to the east of the present channel, probably in the vicinity of alignment between borings B-111 and B-112. During the formation of the alluvial floodplain, the channel of the Green River moved regularly back and forth across the valley. The Cedar River originates in the central Cascade Range, just north of Stampede Pass. It empties into the Puget Lowland at Renton and flows northward into the southern end of Lake Washington. It naturally flowed into the GreenlDuwamish River via the Black River prior to 1917. In 1917, as part of the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in Seattle, the waters of Cedar River were diverted in an excavated channel into Lake Washington, leaving the 2-mile-Iong Black River dry. Therefore, water and sediment from the Cedar River drainage system no longer contributes to the GreenlDuwamish River system. In 1962, the construction of the Howard Hanson Dam on the Green River resulted in the control of the Green River water and eliminated the sediment supply from the upper part of the Green River drainage basin. These relationships are important to the history and future of deposition in the vicinity of the proposed action. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 31 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I u « (/) ~ .r::. "5 « <t a a ('oj ~ '" a l!! '" o <t ~ N a a d> ~ Ol 9 ~ . s;i ~ ,;, 1:: j~ 'Nest 60 I' I 8-101 MW (Proj.14· N.) B-1 03 (Proj. 35' N.) Current BNSF CL%%~~!~_~ _____ --:-_____ -,-i-------:-I--,---:-----'...PR~~H~~~~-~~~~·---:-, -----,--,-j------;-iRT9fif:or:way--i------f B-104'MWNWP 8-105 VWP 8-102 (Proj. 29' S.) (Prpj, 28' S.) I (Proj. 31' N.) (Existing GrJUnd s .. u ..... rf .. a_.c ... e ..... __ ..... ti ________ f-__ ._,:._ ..... __ . __ ._1 ....... __ . ___ ,. __ . __ ..... ___ _ •. , ._ .......... _ ..... L.-J .. --... ---.-.--.. -.• -..... J;;;.o,..-.. ----HTI ... --..~?.:=._. __ ......... :~ .. -'" ","" ... ? Hf I I?O ? ? J:lf I? _?~ "'% '" I 8 ·=::==~mI~6~~~=r'e:D~----~~a~D~(~fin:e~g~ra~in:ed) i, I6 ?f I3· , .. ,,, I 4? I' . He 0 .: ~ ''''-. I 5 ? ? _..i-___ ~ \7DJHI+_-----. "I2 ~ I 2 ?--~-------:-----1 -!f-: Ti2..... i ? I U. ?! i 3 ~ : I:U ?---+--I-~~!:;; . ...; £3---:'----I Ha 0 (finJ arained) I °1-.. ··· I I ~Ol -oJ I I ~ I 03 ~ ~ ? I """ --. _ _ Iii' 2 ,....--na ~ (~ne grained) .1 I 1 ,~? _ T-f.j' ::d? :x: ~ ? I ? n Ili 2 ...-~~(fine~ramed) ?<.-' ..... I~+~~.;.,. _ HeD, i2..L,Hp L H I Il • . 1 . T.O~ aD (fine grained) 1 I,j ~Hp --..... ..... ..... i I~? I ,L'Hp: I He 0 i I1 ~ Hp ! . ~a?[?~~~~W"i~El<I) ........................ _:? .. ::-L~ ............ I.f. ........-... ...,..F"' ....... .....:._.-"""" ..... ~I15:-· ..... --/. ... fa Ii'~--...... i\:-_.--...... -+ -................ --; .................. _ .. ... ; iI 19 ........... I22? . I ? , . ? -I IS I I222J I35 I34 . I I56 I20 i : '. I41 I' I33 I I 37 . I44 I I36 . I28 I34 Estimated Alternative 2 Underpass Location I44 I 39 I39 '. I29 I31 (Rough esti~ate of underpas~ location iJ: 32 . I37 Ha 0 (fine to medium graine\d) '. II 31 I33 with final depth of approximately 25 feet.) 7/2212003' ................ : :r: .. 32 ......... ,................. . ................................................................................................ j ..... ....... ....................... :~.u26,L.................................................. : .......................................................... 7,,1""25I,~uDw03 .................................. il······ ........ T.·24 ..................... .................... .......1....... ........................................+ . I 41 I I43 Ha 0 (fine to medium g\-ained) I ! c;)' '. I45 __ ~I_---tffi: rlI.~ O~_· ____ ~___ i-I I u.. o ?-----,------------~~~~----~-?,-- :: ~: • ? ~~1 I~U: ~ ~ .. .. ? ?----tlW~-----~ :n: I I LU i~lr '?~---~~;~:~~~=!===;?==~=:H:e=c=~?=I~-----~ .. ~·~-fu·~1~t~·-··-?:~-·~-----2-r-~=F-1 c -60 -I -···_·_.c .......... _ ........... I ........................................ .. o 0 . ~ ~ > > ()) ()) jjJ jjJ 7/2312003 ?_-Jl.IJtI~O ______ ---; ______ -:-? I8 .?:""'---i ~ -5014" = 5016" ..... --.. --~-~~-... ---J-.. _~ .... -Hag---:f • "M:" :::"50/4S·-.. ·---1 _ I ! ~ I52 i I70? i :<:( ?'---tm=-~-------t-------'I ? H . I He C ~ ~~ __ ~IL1~3 _______ -, ______ t-___ ?----+~~~L----~. _________ ? I57 II ! I25 I Ha C (fine to mediU~grained) i . i ! I~ , __ ~~~~I~~~ ____ i __________ -t-. ? Iwl ? z~ I'. I L------___ ----.-_____ . __ I _________ l _____________ i. ________ ~-.. ------'----~~-·-t·~----I~~··"~n~·---------·~------------~----lt~t~~=:501~---~--------~i --------~I----~Hag-- .'20, '::' ~ """'" I I67 I41 i ? .... ~~~~~Ir~oo~-------,--~~~~-! rvoV/?V • --V'//V ,y -150~ .. --·· .. ····-----·--··-.. -.. --.. ----·--·~-.. ----·-·----·--···---... ---.. -... -,----...... --·-.. ~f--------------.I--.. -.. -.---........ -... ~----.. -....... I.~~~I~'.~"n"'~·",'I .... ···-'~~ .• gtt\'a~l,ga.c~a-I·I .. cw,rn.~~.m .. udud~el,,"')I-·------~· .. -.. ------~-------... -.. -.---~!--·-.. ·-· .. ------i·----· ...... --------t-.. ---------I 7124/2003 I ! , I I, .~ L--------J·-------------+-'--_____________ ~ ______ -1i ______ ~ ________ --~-~~,~~-------~----------~---CG~e~O~IO~g~y~a~n~dissOdi~IS~D~iS~c~iP~lin~e;FR~e~p~ortrt~--1 1 -180 I 0 16~00 Stationing in Feet 17+00 Strander Boulevard Extension Ci 15+0 (/) Renton and Tukwila. Washington [jj § a d> ~ Ol 9 o ~ I s;i 30 60 GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE A-A' I I I g> May 2004 21-1-09369-002 if! ~ SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. 4.1 Scale in Feet Horizontal = Vertical ::::::; Geotachnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 1 of 3 ~L ____________________________________________ --~~ __ ~~~ u:: I I I I I I I I u I « en ~ .c :; « I v a a N ..:. .;, a I ~ til Cl ~ "0 I ~ CD .c <II e I .,: cil u: N a a m <0 I '" m q ~ , ~ v a .;, I 1:: 8. CD 0:: CD -= a. I '0 ., is en iii N a a I m <0 '" m 9 5 C) I c: if! ~ ~ .l!! u: I I I City of Renton 1r-·:-'-~----'----B---1-06-M-W-NW--P--B--1-0-7---B-_-1-08-M-W-1VW--P--,------R~i~::·O-9---,'~----------------------- (Proj. g' S.) (Proj.i22' S.) ! (Proj. 31' S.) (Proj. 3~' N.) B-110 MW A' East --60 r... Existing'Ground Surface ..... / .......................................... : ................. , 30 ........ I, .. ············1························ i ,~ Hf ?- r--------------?--~~~~-----'V i~ ? v H I3 . I5 ' ! I3 ....................... -. I6 ? i.:ilJdli!6 ========?:::==.:.t...=iID'!=:iI ~3 ==[===~~>,? S2 i 5 _ ..... ..... ---.... i I4 I4 ? Ita I·1 ~Hp r-----------~--?--~rri~~--__ _ ---1i;':Itt-IH7r--___ -~ ? I He D ..... 1-... I .. : ~ ..... l' I I~!6 ? !~ ~aD (fine grained) . ~~==t""'1Jl~""0;-""_,",-_ --............. : .......... ----.::' I!~'" Hp I ~.!f='-""--~ , =---==---I**,?--...... 1~1'2' .... =--,.,;...?,;;· i?~ I~ ~ fi!? '?' . . !-0 ? --------l-+-Jl·~I±'!20f--. : I24 I.L 4 ? IT ? i' I.L 14 . '. Ij23 . ~. I33 . i ~7 : i ~ : i ~ Estimated Alternative 2 Unqerpass Location : Ii 35 : I25 : I32 . I37 I Ha D (fine io medium grained) : I30 (Rough estimate of underpass location :::=-'. Ii43 : I30 : I24 : I33 ' '. I33 with final ~epth of approxim~tely 25 feet.) <"') : i 39 : I37 '. I37 ? 4 He D? . ,? I ~C/)I' Ha==m?"",;"", ~7~~ ________ .•.•. ~I:11471-?...-r-W;j.-8/1-H;2lfo:~3~2---+--,----? :._ ~~322' , .1.=-----" ~II"""---30 ...... ~ . )~ I HaC (fine:tomediumgrained) ~I,:, ........................................................... , .................................................. ,: ......................................................... i:~;fl~~ .. ~~~ ................................................. ; .................................................... _.+ ............................................. ,: ............... r· ~: I I . I ~ Ha C (fine to nedium grained) : II 36 i ' : II 45 · ...... ······ .... ··I'· .... · ................ · ............ · .... · .. · .... · .. · .. ··· ............. ; ........................................................................ , ................................................................... ". ................................_... ..... __ ., ... .. ~ ~I~ :I~ ~ I30 . ,. ~~if--_--_------~-----------~·--_?-----4W-I~33----_?_--------~---------------~.t~i·~~:6~· <: I 30 81112003 I-ag I39 ~ __________ ~ __________ ~mrT~~ ____ ? _ ? Hbc I14 1 Ha C (fine to mLi?~~' -=-g~ra;i:-n~e~d::-)!....-_-____ -;.'=-i'=--=--=--=--=--=--=--:.-:.-:.~~~: ..... -'-'1'1 34 '!..-=--=-_? ? : ! Ioo , -5014" 1=~5' i =5015" 1+· ............................... ........................ L .................................................................. ,; .............................................................. + ......................... _ .......................... : .................................................... , ............................................................. : ...... + ................................................................ , .. . 1 19+00 I 1 20+00 o I Stationing in Feet 30 I Scale in Feet Horizontal = Vertical 60 I 1 1 21+00 '. i I t I •....••................•.....................................••........... --................. ~.-....... -.... -..... - ························1 l ....................................................... , ................................................... --l -120 , i , .••••••••.••.••• __ .................................... _ •• _._ •••.••...•••••••••••••••..•• .L.. , ······································_····-t· : 1 T 22+00 i ................................---150 Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Renton and Tukwila, Washington GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE A-A' May 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. 4.1 Geotechnical and Environmanlal ConsuHants Sheet 2 of 3 -----~------------- I (,) « en ;",: 0 :§ « ;; 0 N , "-..... , If) 0 2 1\1 0 Cl ~ 't:! ......... * Q) .r::. I/) e .q: Cl u::: N 0 9 (J) CD C') (J) 0 , ..... , ..... ~ t5 all 1:: 0 a. Q) 0:: (I) .5 a. '0 III i:S en iIi -N 0 0 , (J) CD C') (J) 9 ..... ~ Cl c: i2 ~ 0 -:-: .i!i u::: LEGEND B-104 MW/VWP ----Boring Designation (Proj. 28' S.) .. Projected Distance I Water Level During Drilling ---.sr.: USCS Symbol -: ~~:J:26 .. Standard Penetration Test Blows/Foot Water Level Observed ---y with MW or VWP :J: SOlS" • Standard Penetration Test Blows/Inches Driven Approximate Un?erp~ss -. "1'·'lfiIjr.. Shelby Tube Sample Excavation Line , ? -' Approximate Geologie Contact ? ? Approximate Contact of Glacially Overridden Soil [EIJ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ... Bottom of Boring 7/25/2003 .. Date Completed Horizontal Datum = NAD 83-91 Vertical Datum = NAVD88 GEOLOGIC EXPLANATION FILL ESTUARINE/OVERBANK DEPOSITS (Deltaic): Clayey SILT and silty CLAY, locally trace to fine sandy, trace organics to peaty @ DUWAMISH/GREEN RIVER PROVENANCE, where discernible (Mt. Rainier) © CEDAR RIVER PROVENANCE, where discernible PEATY or PEAT ALLUVIUM CHANNEL DEPOSITS: Clean to silty, fine and fine to medium SAND, trace fine organics @ DUWAMISH/GREEN RIVER PROVENANCE, where discernible (Mt. Rainier) © CEDAR RIVER PROVENANCE, where discernible BEACH DEPOSIT: GRAVEL or clean to slightly sandy GRAVEL or gravelly SAND, trace shell fragments CEDAR RIVER ALLUVIUM: Sandy GRAVEL and gravelly SAND, scattered organics I Qva I VASHON ADVANCE OUTWASH: Very dense, gray, gravelly SAND NOTES 1. This profile is generalized and based on interpretations of field explorations. Variations between conditions depicted on this profile and the actual conditions may exist. 2. Elevations and boring locations are based on drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROW.dwg, dated 7-9-03. Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Renton and Tukwila, Washington GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE A-A' May 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 4.1 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 3 -.~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT The Puget Lowland was glaciated as many as six times, with the most recent glaciation between about 15,000 and 13,000 years ago in the central part of the lowland. Following deglaciation, a deep (200 to 300 feet below present elevation) embayment extended southward to about present day Auburn. After glacial retreat, rebound of the land, and the global rise of sea level stabilized, an arm ofPuget Sound extended southward to the vicinity of Auburn. Sediment filled in this embayment slowly by river channel deposition and overbank flooding but more catastrophically by deposition from the Osceola Mudflow from Mount Rainier that occurred about 5,700 years ago. As the delta of the Green River built northward, it eventually reached the proposed project area. Complicating the depositional history of the proposed project area is sediment that was deposited by the Cedar River. Sediments that are characteristic of the rocks and glacial materials in their areas of origin make it possible to identify the source of some of the sediments that lie beneath the proposed alignment. Descriptions of the geologic units, including their geologic origin and geotechnical characteristics, encountered at this site are presented in the following subsections. They are presented from oldest to youngest and are largely based on the recent borings. 4.3.1 Vashon Advance Outwash (Qva) The advance glacial outwash was deposited during the last glaciation of the Puget Lowland and was overridden by about 3,000 feet of glacial ice. This unit consists of very dense, gray, gravelly sand and was only encountered in the bottom of boring B-I03. The unit is comprised of rounded to subrounded particles of crystalline rock and has a relatively high permeability. 4.3.2 Cedar River Alluvium -Gravel (Hag) This very coarse alluvial unit was deposited from the ancient Cedar River after the last glaciation of the Puget Lowland. The unit consists of dense to very dense, sandy gravel and gravelly sand and contains scattered organics. The unit is comprised of rounded to subrounded particles of crystalline rock, typical of glacial deposits in the Cedar River Valley, and has a relatively high permeability. Drilling action indicated that there might be cobbles and boulders in this geologic unit. Two strata of this unit were encountered in the deeper borings (B-I03, B-I05 VWP and B-I07) separated by other alluvial layers about 15 feet thick. 4.3.3 DuwamishlGreen River Alluvium (HaD) This fine-to medium-grained alluvial unit was deposited in the channels of the GreenlDuwamish River and was not overridden by glacial ice. The unit consists of medium dense to very dense, clean to silty, fine sand and fine to medium sand, with scattered fine organics. It is comprised of subrounded to subangular pieces of dark gray to black basalt and red to red-brown andesite. It has a range of relative permeability from low to high. This alluvial deposit was found in all of the explorations and significantly thickens to the west of B-1 08 MW NWP. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 35 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 4.3.4 Beach Deposit (Hb) This coarse soil was deposited on beaches or created by wave action on beach lines in the GreenlDuwamish River Embayment during a lower level of Puget Sound. The unit consists of very dense gravel; clean to slightly silty, sandy gravel or gravelly sand, with a trace of shell fragments. The unit is comprised of rounded to subrounded pieces of crystalline rock but with traces of basalt and red andesite ahd has a relatively medium to high permeability. The presence of shells fragments was confirmed in two borings, B- 109 and B-205. 4.3.5 Cedar River Alluvium (HaC) This fine to medium alluvial unit was deposited from the ancient Cedar River after the last glaciation of the Puget Lowland. The unit consists of loose to very dense, sandy gravel and gravelly sand, and contains scattered organics and nUmerous lenses and layers of loose silt and fine sand, and is locally clayey. This unit is comprised of rounded to subrounded particles of crystalline rock, typical of glacial deposits in the Cedar River valley. This unit has a range of relative permeability from low to high. Based on borings B-I07 and B-1 09, this unit has a maximum thickness of about 50 feet. The unit appears to pinch out to the west, as indicated by the soils encountered in borings B-1 02, B-1 03, and B-I0S. To the east of boring B-II0 MW, the borings did not penetrate deep enough to encounter Cedar River alluvium. 4.3.6 Estuarine/Overbank Deposits (He) The GreenlDuwamish and Cedar Rivers deposited this fine-grained floodplain and deltaic unit. This unit was not overridden by glacial ice. It consists of very soft to medium stiff, slightly fine sandy, clayey silt and silty clay, with scattered organics and discrete peat lenses and layers. This unit has a relatively low permeability. It is found throughout the site, in every boring drilled along the proposed alignment. 4.3.7 Peat/Peaty Deposits (Hp) A peat layer about 1 to 3 feet thick was encountered between about elevation zero and 10 feet in borings B-I0l through B-I03, B-lOS and B-I06, B-I08 through B-II0, and B- 112, which indicates a somewhat continuous peat deposit west of Oakesdale Avenue SW. Logs were encountered in boring B-ll1 between 22 and 27 feet below ground surface. A more continuous peat layer about 4 to 5 feet thick was encountered near the same elevations in all the borings east of Oakesdale A venue SW (B-20 1 through B-205). Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 36 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 4.3.8 Fill (Hi) The human-placed fill material consists of varying composition was placed in depressions or for railroad embankments. The permeability of the fill material is variable. The largest deposits of fill material are the UPRR and BNSF railroad embankments near the western end of the proposed alignment. 4.4 Hydrogeologic Regime The proposed project alignment is located between the Green River and Springbrook Creek within a broad and relatively flat river valley bottom. In general, groundwater readily occurs within the underlying alluvial sediments and is often found near the ground surface, as evidenced by the numerous wetlands in the area. The groundwater table elevation near the western end of the project alignment is strongly influenced by the surface water level in the neighboring Green River. Surface water levels within the Green River at this location are influenced by tidal changes in Elliott Bay. Specific groundwater conditions are described in the associated Groundwater Discipline Report prepared for this project. 4.5 Soil and Groundwater Description Overview 4.5.1 Soil In general, the subsurface soils encountered along the proposed alignment consist of a varying thickness of variable fill (Hi), estuarine/overbank deposits (HeD), and alluvial deposits (HaD and Hag). A profile of subsurface conditions along the alternatives is presented on Figure 4.1. The fill material is underlain by about 20 to 30 feet of soft and loose, interbedded estuarine/overbank deposits, fine-grained alluvium. A somewhat continuous.peat deposit (Hp) was encountered near the base of the proposed underpass excavation within the estuarine/overbank deposits. This deposit becomes more significant east of Oakesdale Avenue SW. The estuarine/overbank and fine-grained alluvial deposit is underlain west of the BNSF right-of-way by about a 45-foot-thick layer of medium dense to dense, fine-to medium-grained alluvial deposit, which is in tum underlain by a 40-foot-thick layer of soft to medium stiff, estuarine/overbank deposit. Proceeding east of the BNSF right-of-way, the upper estuarine/overbank and fine-grained alluvial deposit is underlain by about an 85-foot-thick layer of medium dense to dense, fine-to medium-grained alluvial deposit. A coarse-grained alluvial deposit was encountered in borings B-103, B-I05, and B-I07 at about 105 feet below ground surface (elevation -85 feet). A glacially overridden deposit (Qva) was encountered below the coarse-grained alluvium in boring B-1 03 at about 170 feet below ground surface (elevation -14 5 feet). Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 37 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 4.5.2 Groundwater The groundwater readings during the late summer monitoring period indicate measured groundwater is generally encountered between 11 and 20 feet below existing ground surface (bgs), and at elevations between 9 and 13 feet (NAVD88). During late fall and early winter, measured groundwater levels generally range from 5 to 11 feet bgs and at elevations between 13 and 19 feet. Groundwater levels are likely to rise during the wet season (typically from about mid-October through May) when precipitation and river stage levels increase. The monitoring data collected in the fine-to medium-grained alluvium (HaD) at boring B-1 0 1 MW indicate diurnal groundwater level fluctuations similar to tidal fluctuations. The data suggest that there is a strong correlation between tidal fluctuations in the Green River and groundwater levels in the HaD unit at boring B-I01 MW, and indicate a hydraulic connection between the surface water and groundwater systems. For one 2- week period of recording, surface water level fluctuations in the Green River of approximately 5 feet produce groundwater level fluctuations within the HaD unit of approximately 0.3 foot near the western end of the proposed alignment. 4.6 Tectonics and Seismicity The study area is located in a moderately active tectonic province that has been subjected to numerous earthquakes of low to moderate strength and occasionally to strong shocks during the brief 170-year record in the Pacific Northwest. The tectonics and seismicity of the area are the result of ongoing, oblique subduction along the Cascadia Subduction Zone of the Juan de Fuca Plate beneath the North American Plate. Within the present understanding of the regional tectonic framework and historical seismicity, three broad seismogenic zones have been identified. These include a shallow crustal source zone, a deep subcrustal (intraslab) source zone in the subducted Juan de Fuca Plate, and an interplate or subduction zone. Earthquake sources that have been correlated with historical seismicity include the broad shallow crustal zone (that is, within the continental crust) and the deep, sub crustal zone within the subducted Juan de Fuca Plate. The majority of historical events occurred at relatively shallow depths of about 12 miles or less, within the shallow crustal zone. However, the largest historic earthquakes to affect the site include the magnitude (Ms) 7.1 Olympia earthquake of April 13, 1949; the magnitude (mb) 6.5 Seattle-Tacoma earthquake of April 29, 1965; and the recent February 28,2001, magnitude (Mw) 6.8 Nisqually earthquake. All three of these events were located in the subducted Juan de Fuca slab beneath the Lowland at depths of 32 miles and greater. An event similar to these historical earthquakes would create ground motions with approximate characteristics of a 493-year ground motion. Other large historic earthquakes felt in western Washington include the 1872 North Cascades earthquake and two other events in western British Columbia, Canada. The Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 38 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT North Cascades earthquake of December 15, 1872, appears to have been one of the largest crustal earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest, with an estimated magnitude of7+. Shallow, crustal seismicity occurs in a diffuse manner within the Puget Lowland. Until recently, seismicity had not been generally correlated with known or inferred structures within the crust, and surface expression of Holocene fault ground surface rupture within the Puget Sound Basin had not been observed. Until the late 1980s, it had generally been accepted that shallow crustal events within Puget Sound Basin would have a maximum magnitude of about 6. However, geologic evidence developed during the 1990s suggests that the geophysicallineamentlcrustal block boundaries (for example, the Seattle Fault Zone) beneath the Puget Lowland area are seismogenic and capable of producing shallow crustal events of magnitudes up to 7.5. A third seismogenic zone has been postulated near the line of subduction between the Juan de Fuca and North American plates off the coast of the Pacific Northwest. The Cascadia Subduction Zone, as it is called, is presently quiet, with only scattered and diffuse seismicity. No large subduction earthquakes have occurred in this zone during historic times (170 years). Recent geologic evidence suggests, however, that the coastal estuaries have experienced rapid subsidence at various times within the last 2,000 years (Atwater 1987). It is postulated that this subsidence was tectonic and resulted from movement along the Cascadia Subduction Zone. While magnitudes, rupture lengths, and recurrence rates have not yet been well defined, work to date suggests that earthquake magnitudes may range from 8 to 9 and may occur at time intervals ranging from 400 to 1,000 years. 4.7 Geologic Hazards and Critical Areas Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 will be analyzed in accordance with the 1999 Manual Jor Railway Engineering as outlined by the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA). AREMA defines three seismic performance criteria limit states. The corresponding earthquake ground motion levels and return periods are summarized on Table 4.1. Table 4.1: Arema Performance Criteria Limit States In accordance with AREMA criteria, the average return periods corresponding to Ground Motion Levels 1,2, and 3 are 100 years, 493 years, and 2,120 years, respectively. Based on regional probabilistic ground motion studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the corresponding peak ground accelerations (PGA) for soft rock conditions at the project site are 0.14g (100 years), 0.32g (493 years), and 0.56g (2,120 years). Based on the conditions encountered in the subsurface explorations, the site would be classified Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 39 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT as AREMA Soil Type 4 with a corresponding site factor of 2.0. AREMA describes a Soil Type 4 as a soil profile with 40 feet or more of soft clay or silt with shear wave velocities less than 500 feet per second. The combined thickness of the estuarine (HeD), fine- grained alluvium (HaD), and the somewhat continuous layer of peat (Hp) typically beneath the site is consistent with this criterion. Earthquake-induced geologic hazards include landsliding, fault rupture, soft-soil ground amplification, tsunamis/seiches, and liquefaction and its associated effects (reduction of shear strength, loss of bearing capacity, decrease in lateral support, ground oscillation, slumping, settlement, and lateral spreading). The principal earthquake-induced geologic hazard along the proposed alignment is liquefaction and its associated effects. Brief descriptions of the other earthquake-induced geologic hazards are also included in the following sections. In addition, the Flood Insurance Rate Map for King County, the National Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey for King County, City of Renton sensitive areas maps, and the Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources liquefaction susceptibility map were reviewed. The following provides a brief discussion of the principal hazards as well as other critical areas. Figure 4.2 presents the soils map for the proposed project area, and Figure 4.3 presents the approximate flood hazards. 4.7.1 Earthquake-Induced Landsliding Because of the flat topography in the proposed project area, the risk of earthquake- induced landsliding is very low. 4.7.2 Fault Rupture The potential for fault rupture is low because the southern edge of the Seattle Fault, which is an east-west trending structure, is located about 5 miles (8 kilometers) north of the site. 4.7.3 Liquefaction Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which pore pressures in loose, saturated, granular soils increase to a level approximately equal to the effective stress during ground shaking; this results in a reduction of shear strength of the soil (a quicksand-like condition). The effects of liquefaction may include a decrease of bearing capacity for shallow foundations, reduction in lateral and vertical deep foundation capacities, ground surface settlement, downdrag forces on deep foundations, lateral spreading, and embankment instability or slumping. The Build alternatives cross recent fill and soft and loose Holocene deposits that are susceptible to liquefaction and its associated effects. A conceptual design-level liquefaction potential analysis was performed using soil ground motions that correspond to Ground Motion Levels 1, 2, and 3, or the Serviceability, Ultimate, and Survivability Performance Criteria Limit States, Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 40 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT respectively. Based on recent research data (Seed et al. 2003), soils with sufficient fines content (fines are either nonplastic or low plasticity with a low plasticity index) are considered potentially susceptible to liquefaction. Because the subsurface profile contained continuous layers of low plasticity silt, the liquefaction potential of these layers was also evaluated using Seed's empirical procedure. Based on the available subsurface data and the preliminary liquefaction potential analysis for the three deepest borings (B-I03, B-I05 VWP, and B-I07), the depth of potentially liquefiable soil was generally the same for the Serviceability, Ultimate, and Survivability cases west of the BNSF right-of-way (approximately). Proceeding east of the BNSF right-of-way (boring B-1 07), potential liquefaction for the ultimate and survivability cases are within about 5 feet of each other. For the serviceability case east of the BNSF right-of-way (boring B-1 07), there is much less potential for liquefaction. The estimated elevations of potential liquefaction for each of the three AREMA performance criteria limit state are summarized in Table 4.2 below. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 41 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I Ll ..: en I ~ = ::l ..: .... 0 I 0 N ,..:. .;, 0 .Si '" I Cl '" ~ " N I .,.; c:il u:: N 0 0 ,;, '" I C') 0> <;> ~ .... 0 .;, I t: 0 a. Q) OC I en !!l N 0 0 I ,;, '" C') 0> 9 ~ l3i '" I c: if; l!' § .l!i u:: I ... -.-.-.. --~-...... / -._----. -" .. ----r-- Wo ://~/ ,/ PROPOSED S~ANDER BOULEVARD r , ----~ .' --~.J r-___ ._ ./ ""'--.} ........ .--L_ .... __ SOILS EXPLANATION Ng NEWBERG SILT LOAM: Well-drained soils formed in alluvium in the stream valleys . Wo WOODINVILLE SILT LOAM: Nearly level and gently undulating, poorly drained soils formed under grass, in alluvium, and on stream bottoms. Ur URBAN LAND: Soil that has been modified by disturbance of natural layers with additions of fill material. Py PUYALLUP FINE SANDY LOAM: Well-drained soils formed in alluvium, under grass, hard woods, and conifers. So SNOHOMISH SILT LOAM: Poorly drained soils formed in alluvium in stream valleys. Pu PUGET SILTY CLAY LOAM: Poorly drained soils formed in alluvium, under grass, in small depressions of the river valleys. Tu TUKWILA MUCK: Very poorly drained organic soils fromed in decomposing vegetation. -l f----I o H \ I / / Wo / 400 HI Scale in Feet LEGEND Approximate Location of Soil Type Boundary NOTES 800 I 1. The soil type boundaries are adapted from The Soil i Survey of King County Area, Washington, 1973 by . : United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (Snyder and others, 1973). 2. Base map adapted from drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROWdwg, dated 7-9-03. Wo --50 I L Ur I J Pu Und Avenue S!,.V \ \ ! l SV/ 27Tl-f Slfeer 50 50 Tu \ East Valley Road Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Renton and Tukwila, Washington SOILS MAP May 2004 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consullanla 21-1-09369-002 FIG. 4.2 I I I I I I I I I () « I en ~ £; :l « ... I a a N ..:. .;, a S I '" 0 ~ "t:I '" I -<i N a a cD CD I '" m <;> , ~ ... a I .;, Ql oS I a. ·0 OJ is en jjJ N a I ~ CD '" m 9 ~ ~ I C) c: if; l!! ~ .i!! I Ii: LEGEND Approximate Location of Flood Hazard Boundary Zone X FLOOD HAZARD EXPLANATION Zone AE ZoneAH Zone X Flood Hazard Areas for 100-Year Flood Event; Base Flood Elevation is About 20 Feet (NAVD88) Flood Hazard Areas for 100-Year Flood Event; Flood Depths Could Range from 1 to 3 Feet Flood Hazard Areas for SOO-Plus-Year Flood Event a , , H J --r--- I ...- /' --%/~/ if ---! PROPOSED 11TRANDER BOULEVARD . -J ....... ,.j 400 HI Scale in Feet 800 I I .' Zone X ZoneAE 1. The flood hazard boundaries are adapted from the Flood Insurance Rate Map for King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas, Map No. 53033C0978F by Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2. This map illustrates flooding potential within the Springbrook Creek drainage area. Flooding potential within the Green River is contained within the dikes that border the river in this vicinity. The 1 OO-year flood within the diked Green River is estimated to be at elevation 28 feet as described in the report text. \ '" \ ZoneAE ) / / / 3. The entire project alignment falls within a high liquefaction hazard area. This condusion is based on conceptual design analyses and the map of Uquefaction Susceptibility of the Renton Quadrangle, Washington by the Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources (1994). 4. According to the City of Renton sensitive areas Erosion Hazards Map (Palmer and others 1994), the entire project alignment falls within a low erosion hazard zone. 5. Base map adapted from drawings provided by Perteet via the Buzzsaw website: 22044EB.dwg, dated 8-22-03; 22044pts.dwg and 22044ROW.dwg, dated 7-9-03. Zone X Und Avenue SW Zone X ! l Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension Renton and Tukwila, Washington HAZARDS MAP May 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG 4 3 Geotechnical and Environmentat Consullanls • • fJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I DRAFT Table 4.2: Estimated Elevations in Feet of Potential Liquefaction by Arema Performance Criteria Limit State ~=~"'="'=~ B-103 B-105 VWP B-107 lS~n;,It:~aJ1m -85 -115 o -85 -85 -115 -115 -100 -105 Based on the geologic conditions at the site and similar soil conditions encountered in the borings along the proposed alignment, the depths of potentially liquefiable soils along the SW 27th Street portion of the Build alternatives are anticipated to be similar to the conditions at the proposed underpass/overpass. The Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of the Renton Quadrangle compiled by Palmer, Schasse, and Norman for the Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources (1994) shows that the entire project area is within a high liquefaction susceptibility zone. The effects of the potentially liquefiable soil beneath the proposed action would likely include reduction of vertical capacity and a reduction in lateral support/increased lateral soil pressures on the proposed foundations and ground settlement. Estimated earthquake- induced ground settlements at the three deepest borings for the three design earthquakes are summarized in Table 4.3 below. 33 to 21 to 33 to 45 30 to 41 4.7.4 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading movement of gently sloping ground occurs as a result of pore-pressure buildup or liquefaction in the underlying soil deposit. The potential for lateral spreading is low because of the large distance to and relatively shallow depth of the Green River. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 44 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I DRAFT 4.7.5 Tsunamis/Seiches Tsunamis and seiches are earthquake-generated waves developed in a body of water. A tsunami wave could be generated by permanent ground displacements in a basin that contains a water body. These displacements could be due to permanent ground deformation along the fault rupture or from landsliding. Seiches are standing or oscillating waves developed in a closed body of water as a result of earthquake shaking and could be generated by distant earthquakes. The project area is not along a closed body of water or a basin and would therefore not experience a seiche or tsunami. 4.7.6 Landsliding and Erosion Because ofthe flat topography at the project site, the risk oflandsliding is very low. The Soil Survey of King County map (Snyder et al. 1973) was reviewed to approximate areas that may be susceptible to erosion when disturbed by construction. Soil units are considered to be erosion hazards if they are considered to be "severe" or "very severe" in Table 6 (Woodland Groups, Wood Crops and Factors in Management) of the Soil Survey. Table 4.4 presents the soil units, their geologic unit equivalents, and the level of erosion hazard. Figure 4.2 presents the Soils Map. Table 4.4: Erosion Hazard Units Woodinville silt loam on slopes <2% HaDIHeD HeD HeD HaDlHeD Slight Slight Slight Slight Fill materials (Hf), also designated as urban land (Ur) in the King County soil survey, should be considered severe to very severe erosion hazards on slopes exceeding 15 percent. For temporarily exposed, unretained cut slopes in native soils, the erosion hazard would likely increase. In addition to the Soil Survey information, the City of Renton sensitive areas map for erosion hazards indicates that the entire proposed project area is within a low erosion hazard area. This is noted on Figure 4.3. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 45 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I, I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 4.7.7 Flooding Given the connection between the Green River stage data and the neighboring groundwater elevation data in boring B-IOIMW, flooding in the Green River may significantly affect groundwater conditions near the proposed action. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (No. 53033C0978F, effective 511611995) indicates the 100-year flood elevation for the Green River adjacent to the proposed alignment is approximately 28 feet (NA VD88). Such flooding is projected to stay within the levee that borders the river but may cause an increase in groundwater levels to near the ground surface in the vicinity of the Build alternatives underpass/overpass and roadway widening. This conclusion is based on information gathered through January 2004 and should be considered conceptual. The Hazards Map shown in Figure 4.3 illustrates the approximate areas identified by FEMA that may be subject to flooding during 100-year, 500-year, and greater than 500-year flood events. 5.0 IMP ACT ANALYSIS Impacts created by soil and geology issues would be related to the effect of new structures on the existing features in the proposed project area. The types of structures that are anticipated with Alternatives 1,2, and 3 are an underpass (Alternatives 2 and 3), an elevated vehicular bridge structure (Alternative 1), elevated railroad bridge structures (Alternatives 2 and 3), fill embankments (Alternative 1), and cut slopes (Alternatives 2 and 3). In addition, at-grade roadways and a roadway widening would be constructed for each Build alternative. In general, the impacts of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would be comparable because their proposed layout are similar and they are located along generally the same alignment within the project area. Construction activity impacts differ from operational impacts in that the duration of the impact takes place during construction or within a short period of time after construction. Construction impacts do not continue in the long term. No indirect or cumulative geology and soil impacts were identified for the No Action or Build alternatives; only direct impacts were identified. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would be designed based on the available subsurface information, additional field explorations completed for final design, existing site conditions, and design and construction procedures and criteria approved for this project. If subsurface conditions at the site are different from those disclosed during the conceptual design field explorations, or site conditions change during the design and construction period of the project, future impacts to the site could occur. Many of the operational direct impacts described in the following sections could be mitigated by following established criteria for proper design and/or standard construction practice. The following impact paragraphs state if the impact that is described could be mitigated by proper design and/or standard construction practice. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 46 May 2004 City of Renton .1 I DRAFT Adequate geotechnical exploration and design studies could be used to plan and design appropriate mitigation of many of the operational impacts discussed. Soil borings and test pits should be performed at appropriate intervals along the proposed alignment in accordance with accepted engineering practices to provide adequate subsurface information for final design studies. In addition, explorations should be performed in the following areas: • Cuts or fills higher than 5 feet • Fills over soft soils • Each bridge pier location The operational impacts listed would be evaluated by an experienced geotechnical engineer who would then provide design recommendations considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the field explorations. These design recommendations would take into account the proposed features included in the project and would provide for adequate mitigation for these impacts unless otherwise directed by the City of Renton. Mitigation for construction-related impacts is based on the existing site information as well as on construction procedures in use when this report was prepared. As presented in the following sections, all construction-related direct impacts presented for the Build alternatives could be mitigated by design and construction procedures. Although some of the construction procedures described are nonstandard, they are not uncommon given current seismic design criteria and earthquake engineering technology. 5.1 No Action Alternative 5.1.1 Direct Impacts Cuts No cuts are proposed under the No Acti9n alternative. Fills No fills are proposed under the No Action alternative. Seismic Considerations Over time, design-level earthquakes could occur. If earthquakes of significant magnitude were to occur, there would be a potential for liquefaction in the project area; liquefaction could cause large ground settlements (see Section 4.7.3). Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 47 May 2004 City of Renton I I, I' I I t - I DRAFT Structure Foundation Construction No structure foundation construction is proposed for the No Action alternative. Relationship Between Topography and Alignment Design No cuts or fills are proposed for the No Action Alternative. Settlement Potential Seismically induced settlements as described in Section 4.7.3 could occur. In addition, long-term consolidation of soft, loose, and organic soils may occur. Vibrations and Noise Due to Foundation Construction No new foundations would be installed for the No Action alternative. Erosion and Sediment Transport During Construction No erosion or sediment transport impacts are anticipated for the No Action alternative. Construction Haul Routes No haul routes would be used for the No Action alternative. Construction Sundry Sites No sundry sites (pit, waste, etc.) would be used for the No Action alternative. 5.1.2 Indirect Impacts No indirect impacts were identified for the No Action alternative. 5.1.3 Cumulative Impacts No cumulative impacts were identified for the No Action alternative. 5.1.4 Mitigation Measures Cuts No impacts from cuts were identified for the No Action alternative. Fills No impacts from fills were identified for the No Action alternative. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report 48 Strander Boulevard Extension May 2004 City of Renton I' ' .. f I I I I I I, ,. I~ I: I I I DRAFT Seismic Considerations No seismic mitigation would be performed for the No Action alternative. Structure Foundation Construction No impacts were identified for the No Action Alternative because no new structures would be constructed. Relationship Between Topography and Alignment Design No impacts were identified for the No Action alternative because no cuts or fills are proposed. Settlement Potential No settlement mitigation would be performed for the No Action alternative. Vibrations and Noise Due to Foundation Construction No impacts were identified for the No Action alternative because no new foundations would be installed. Erosion and Sediment Transport No impacts from erosion and sediment transport were identified for the No Action alternative. Construction Haul Routes No construction haul route impacts were identified for the No Action alternative. Construction Sundry Sites No construction sundry site impacts were identified for the No Action alternative. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 49 May 2004 City of Renton I I, I: I, I Ii I a I I:· " I: ·1 ;I~ t DRAFT 5.2 Alternative 1: Construction ofa Roadway Overpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification ofSW 27th Street to Five Lanes 5.2.1 Direct Impacts Cuts Any umetained cuts may experience erosion and surface sloughing over the lifetime of the project. The degree of erosion would depend on near-surface soils, weather conditions, potential seismic events and establishment of vegetation, surface drainage, and other causes. In addition, in areas where retaining walls are proposed, the stability of the adjacent ground may be adversely affected if the walls are not properly designed and constructed. Cut slope surface slumps occurring in the future may result in the deposit of material onto the pavement and may damage the proposed underpass. For Alternative 1, umetained cut slopes are anticipated to be minimal. Design and standard construction procedures could mitigate impacts from cuts as described in the mitigation section. Fills Fill may be used along the roadway widening and new at-grade roadways for Alternative 1, as well as for approach fills for the overpass structure. Where space is limited, mechanically stabilized earth walls (MSE walls) could be considered to retain the fills. Currently, it is anticipated that the walls would be a maximum of about 6 to 10 feet tall along the roadway widening or at new at-grade roadways. The upper Holocene deposits are of varying densities and consistencies. The looser, softer, and more organic materials could experience significant settlement from the proposed fill. Settlements on the order of 5 to 10 inches could be anticipated where the proposed fill is about 10 feet high. Roughly 2 inches of settlement may occur within about 20 feet of the MSE wall toe, and 1 inch of settlement may occur about 40 feet away from the wall toe. For lower fill heights, less settlement would be anticipated. The majority of the settlement would occur primarily in the first two to three months after fill construction, but due to the presence of organic layers, settlement would likely continue for several months or years. The height of overpass approach fills may exceed 25 feet. Lightweight fill material could be used for high fill approaches. Because of the lighter weight of the fill material, the subgrade soil could support a higher fill than if standard fill were used. Lightweight fills that could be considered include expanded polystyrol (EPS), foamed cement, and other lightweight materials that would be stable over the life of the proposed action. Consideration of 100-year flood levels would be made in design of lightweight fills. If EPS is used as lightweight fill, the wall facing and top cap would require proper design and construction to protect the EPS from exposure to and possible decomposition from gasoline/diesel intrusion. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 50 May 2004 City of Renton I' I, I I, DRAFT Existing utilities that are located within proposed fill areas would be subjected to loading and settlement from the overlying fill. Settlement and some lateral loading may also extend out from the toe of the new MSE walls, resulting in potential settlement or lateral loading of adjacent facilities such as existing roadways, buildings, and utilities. Large lateral or vertical loading and movement could then result in damage to those facilities. The presence of soft soils beneath the proposed fills would also result in lateral movement as the subsurface soil compresses under the weight of the new fill. Lateral movement near the toe of the proposed fill could be as much as one half of the estimated settlement. Existing adjacent utilities or structures could be subjected to lateral loading as a result of this movement. In some areas, the existing, soft, sub grade soils may not have sufficient strength to allow for a stable fill, especially during the short-term construction period. Rotational and bearing capacity failures through the surficial soils and the fill could occur. Over time, the stability of the fill would improve as the soils beneath the fill consolidate and gain strength. Design and standard construction procedures could mitigate this impact. This impact is discussed further in the construction impact section below, because stability during construction would likely be the most critical case. Instability during earthquake loading may also result in fill failure. This type of failure would cause potential J.amage to pavements located on or near the fill. Seismic Considerations Alternative 1 would cross recent fill and Holocene deposits that are susceptible to liquefaction and its associated effects. The effects of liquefaction may include a decrease of bearing capacity for shallow foundations, reduction in lateral and vertical capacities of deep foundations, ground surface settlements, cut slope instability or slumping, and fill instability. Design could mitigate these seismic impacts. Earthquake-induced ground settlements of the overpass would not be completely mitigated; however, their impact would be taken into account in the design and some maintenance may be required after a design earthquake event. Pavements Inadequate subgrade preparation for proposed at-grade and roadway widening pavements could lead to settlement, potholes, cracks, and other roadway distress. In addition, if the design pavement section is inadequate, the same types of distress could also occur. Frost heave may occur in some areas as well, depending on the weather over the life of the project. Design and standard construction procedures could mitigate these impacts. Elevated Overpass Structure Foundations Because of the depth of loose, soft, and potentially liquefiable soil and anticipated bridge loads, deep, driven pile foundations would be required to support the proposed vehicular Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 51 May 2004 City of Renton I I, 'I I :1 I II I I I I, t I I: I I,' I I' I DRAFT overpass. These deep foundations would bear in underlying, nonliquefiable, competent soil. The deep foundation design would take into account the current AREMA seismic design criteria and the potential for liquefaction and its effects such as settlement and downdrag. No soil-or geology-related direct impacts are anticipated for the proposed overpass supported on deep foundations. Relationship Between Topography and Alignment Design The cut and fill subsections above address Alternative 1 impacts from cuts and fills. Settlement Potential The cut, fill, and pavement subsections above address settlement potential as an operational impact. Because the subgrade has soft soil to a sufficient depth, the proposed fill heights may not be stable on the existing ground. Failures could occur as the fill is placed and the shear strength of the soil resisting failure is exceeded. This could result in rotational failure through the fill and/or a bearing capacity failure of the entire fill, depending on the subsurface conditions and the fill configuration. In areas where the soft subgrade soils are cohesive, consolidation and strength gain would occur over time as the fill is placed. Therefore, slope failures under the proposed fills would primarily be a short-term, construction impact. In addition, temporary construction dewatering may cause ground settlements that may impact utilities and structures. Dewatering-induced settlements are discussed in the Groundwater Discipline Report prepared for this project. Design and standard construction procedures could mitigate the fill settlement impact. Vibrations and Noise Due to Underpass Construction and Railroad Bridge Structure Foundation Construction Appropriate construction procedures as described below could be used to mitigate vibration and noise impacts. Noise impacts are discussed in the Noise Discipline Report prepared for this project. Because of the depth of loose, soft, and potentially liquefiable soil and anticipated bridge loads, deep foundations may be required to support the proposed overpass. Due to the depth of potentially liquefiable and loose/soft soil, deep foundations would likely consist of driven piles. Pile driving would result in noise and vibration impacts to the site. The vibration caused by driving piles through the site soils could impact nearby railroad tracks and utilities because of settlement. Settlements would depend on the type and density of the subsurface soil where pile driving is occurring as well as the proximity of the railroad tracks and utilities. In general, tracks and utilities within about 20 to 30 feet of pile driving operations may be significantly impacted. Vibration impacts generally diminish as the distance from pile driving increases. Noise from pile driving would most likely just be an annoyance to humans nearby. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 52 May 2004 City of Renton II I I I. II I, I I I, :1 ,I I I I' e I' I I I DRAFT Potential Soil and Groundwater Contamination There is a possibility that construction activities would encounter potentially contaminated soil and groundwater. These issues are discussed in the Hazardous Materials Discipline Report prepared for this project. Erosion and Sediment Transport Construction of the Alternative 1 features would require some land clearing, grubbing, removal of topsoil, and other site preparation work. The areas beneath proposed fills and structures and in cut areas would be cleared and grubbed of all vegetation and debris and stripped of all organic topsoil. The debris resulting from clearing and stripping may be removed from the project area or stockpiled for later re-use in landscaped areas. Topsoil material would not be suitable for reuse as structural fill because of the high organic content. The prepared ground surface would have low erosion potential if exposed during the rainy season or in the presence of surface water; the erosion potential would be high in areas where there are exposed cut or fill slopes. Any areas that are disturbed during construction would be subject to increased erosion if proper control measures are not incorporated into the design. The surface water flow across exposed soil would generate sediment and deposit the sediment in a downslope area. The amount of erosion and sedimentation would depend on the amount of soil exposed and/or disturbed, weather conditions and/or groundwater conditions, and the erosion control measures implemented. The surface soil could erode and flow into storm water drains, into Springbrook Creek, and/or onto adjacent properties or streets. Within construction areas, the tires and tracks of heavy equipment may sink into exposed soft surface soil if no work pad is present. The construction vehicle tires could also carry soil onto roadways (haul routes) when leaving construction areas. Standard construction procedures could be used to mitigate construction erosion and sediment transport impacts. Standard long-term erosion control measures would also be implemented including paving, landscaping, and slope revegetation. Construction Haul Routes Construction haul routes would be determined by the contractor and approved by the cities of Renton and Tukwila. Sediment transport impacts on haul routes were discussed in the previous section. Construction Sundry Sites Construction sundry sites (pit, waste, etc.) would be determined by the contractor and approved by the cities of Renton and Tukwila. Alternative 1 would not require major excavation to construct the overpass. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 53 May 2004 City of Renton I I I t I I, DRAFT 5.2.2 Indirect Impacts No indirect impacts were identified for Alternative 1. 5.2.3 Cumulative Impacts No indirect impacts were identified for Alternative 1. 5.2.4 Mitigation Measures Cuts Mitigation for the Alternative 1 proposed cuts would consist of performing proper design of temporary shoring and permanent walls or slopes, defining the location and extent of unstable soils, and using proper construction procedures. To mitigate slope instability in retained cut areas, retaining wall design should maintain stability of the cut soils. In areas where unretained cut slopes are proposed, the subsurface deposits would be evaluated so an appropriate slope angle could be determined to maintain stability. In addition, vegetation and drainage could be used to improve stability. Fills Mitigation for fills must consider the estimated settlements, lateral movements, and stability issues related to the presence of soft/loose/organic, near-surface soils at the site. Because settlements may be on the order of several inches near the highest portions of the proposed fills, the fills would be designed and constructed to consider this settlement and related impacts. Potential mitigation measures for settlement include the following: • Preload the fill areas where site availability and time schedules allow. • F or retained fills, use walls that could accommodate large settlements such as MSE walls. • Sequence construction so that impacted settlement-sensitive structures are installed after most of the fill settlement has occurred. • Relocate existing utilities that are beneath or near proposed fills if the proposed loads and settlements would cause damage to the utilities. • Use lightweight fill materials where settlements must be minimized and alternative measures are not feasible. • Use geosynthetics (such as geogrids or geotextiles) below and within the fill to help stabilize and reinforce the fills. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 54 May 2004 City of Renton II I~ I' I, 'I I I, I I, ,I I t I 1\ I I' I I' I DRAFT Should lightweight fill be used to construct the overpass fill approaches, the design should account for anticipated flood levels to prevent buoyancy. In addition, proper design and construction of the wall facing and top cap would be required to protect EPS from exposure to and possible decomposition from gasoline/diesel intrusion. Mitigation measures for lateral movement resulting from fill placement are the same as those presented above for settlement. As settlement is reduced, lateral movement would be reduced correspondingly. Seismic Considerations Alternative 1 features should be designed considering the seismicity of the project area and the project seismic design criteria. Liquefaction-induced settlements and resulting downdrag forces could be mitigated for the overpass by supporting it on deep foundations such as driven piles. Pavements Mitigation for pavements would include proper sub grade preparation and pavement design. All pavement areas should be proof-rolled with a heavy vibratory roller prior to placement of the pavement section. Soft areas would be identified by this process and should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. Alternatively, the sub grade could be reinforced with geosynthetics prior to placing pavement subbase materials. In fill areas, mitigation measures as previously discussed for fills should be performed. The upper part of the fills should be well compacted to provide good bearing for the pavement. To mitigate frost heave, the pavement section should also be designed to an appropriate thickness for the climate conditions anticipated along the proposed alignment. The pavement section could also be designed to accommodate inadequate subgrade soils. Elevated Overpass Structure Foundations No geology and soil impacts were determined for the overpass structure that would be supported on deep foundations. Relationship Between Topography and Alignment Design The cut and fill mitigations described above in Section 5.2.4, Cuts and Fills, address mitigation of the relationship between topography and alignment design. Settlement Potential The cut, fill, and pavement mitigation sections above address mitigation of operational settlement potential under Alternative 1. The short-term construction stability ofthe proposed fills could be improved (if necessary) by using staged construction and/or Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 55 . May 2004 City of Renton 'I 11 I II , I I' I I: I I' i II I DRAFT geotextiles. These methods would improve the short-term stability of the embankments as the underlying cohesive soil consolidates and gains strength over time. Staged construction consists of building the fills in stages, depending on the amount of load the subsurface soil could accommodate at its existing strength. As the strength increases over time as a result of consolidation, additional fill could be placed on the strengthened subgrade while maintaining a similar factor-of-safety against failure. Monitoring of the settlement and pore pressure buildup and dissipation would be performed using instrumentation to determine the appropriate staging. Geotextiles could be used to reinforce potential failure zones within the fill. For example, several layers of geotextile could be placed at the base of the proposed fill. A higher staged fill could be constructed on the reinforced base than a fill without geotextiles. Although staged construction may still be necessary to construct the entire fill, using geotextile reinforcements could reduce the number of stages required or could allow for single-stage construction. Lightweight fill material could be used in areas where staged construction is not feasible. Because of the lighter weight of the fill material, the sub grade soil could support a higher depth of fill than if standard fill were used. Lightweight fills that could be considered include expanded polystyrol (EPS), foamed cement, and other lightweight materials that would be stable over the life of the proposed action. Consideration of flood levels would be made in design of lightweight fills. Measures to mitigate settlement resulting from temporary dewatering and/or long-term drainage are described in the Groundwater Discipline Report prepared for this project. Vibrations and Noise Due to Overpass Foundation Construction Driven piles may be used to support elevated structures. To mitigate noise and vibration during driven pile installation, low vibration/noise pile driving equipment could be selected. Alternatively, the steel pipe piles could be driven open-ended or could be driven into a predrilled hole, which would result in lower vibrations. Preconstruction surveys of existing structures and vibration monitoring during pile driving would be required to monitor and mitigate potential damage to adjacent sensitive structures. Mitigation for noise from pile driving is discussed further in the Noise Discipline Report prepared for this project. Erosion and Sediment Transport Construction best management practices (BMPs), such as construction staging barrier berms, filter fabric fences, temporary sediment detention basins, and use of slope coverings to contain sediment onsite, would be effective in protecting water resources and reducing erosion from areas with cuts, fills, and/or excavations. Erosion control measures suitable to the construction site conditions would be included as part of the Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 56 May 2004 City of Renton I I I, j I I I, DRAFT proposed action design. Temporary erosion and sediment control plans would be prepared for approval in accordance with BMPs used by the cities of Renton and Tukwila. Erosion control measures would include vegetative and structural controls. Other controls that could be implemented include restricting slope work activities to the dry season and limiting access to the site. Vegetative methods would include covering cleared or graded areas and excavation or fill approach slopes with jute or other netting as well as mulching or hydro seeding, as appropriate, to minimize erosion and encourage revegetation. Vegetation buffers would be maintained between construction areas and Springbrook Creek to filter out sediments. Structural controls consist of artificial means of preventing sediment from leaving the construction area. Parking and staging areas for vehicles and equipment could be covered with a gravel work pad where appropriate to prevent the disturbance and erosion of the underlying soil. Silt fences would be placed around disturbed areas to filter sediment from unconcentrated surface water runoff. Straw bales would be placed in paths of concentrated runoff to filter sediment. Temporary ditches, berms, and sedimentation ponds would be constructed to collect drainage. Cleaning tires and tracks on heavy equipment before they leave the construction site would also assist in retaining sediment on site. In addition, truckloads should be covered to mitigate sediment deposit onto roadways. Proposed mitigation measures would comply with stormwater design and treatment procedures based on the current City of Renton and City of Tukwila requirements. The erosion and sediment control measures would be in place before any clearing, grading, or construction. 5.3 Alternative 2: Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification ofSW 27th Street to Five Lanes 5.3.1 Direct Impacts Cuts Unretained cuts for Alternative 2 are anticipated to be less than 5 feet in height, and the underpass depth is anticipated to be a maximum of about 25 feet to design grade. The existing groundwater level is located above the base of the proposed excavation; therefore, drainage and uplift issues or base stability issues would need to be addressed during the lifetime of the project. Design and proper construction procedures would provide for the adequate operation of the underpass over the long term. The cut impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 57 May 2004 City of Renton I, I I I , I, I I I, I DRAFT Fills Fill may be used along the roadway widening and new at-grade roadways for Alternative 2. Where space is limited, MSE walls could be considered to retain the fills. Currently, it is anticipated that walls along the roadway widening or new at-grade roadways would be a maximum of about 6 to 10 feet tall. The fill impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Seismic Considerations The seismic impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Pavements The pavement impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Elevated Railroad Bridge Structure Foundations Because of the depth of loose, soft, and potentially liquefiable soil, anticipated bridge loads, and the railroads' movement/settlement requirements, deep foundations may be required to support the proposed railroad bridges. These deep foundations would bear in underlying, nonliquefiable, competent soil. The deep foundation design would take into account the current AREMA seismic design criteria and the potential for liquefaction and its effects such as settlement and downdrag. No soil-or geology-related direct impacts are anticipated for the proposed railroad bridges that are supported on deep foundations. If the railroads' movement/settlement requirements allow, the railroad bridge structures could be founded on secant pile walls that are tied into the underpass bottom seal. Following a design-level earthquake, the roadway underpass and bridge structures would likely experience liquefaction-induced settlements. The anticipated underpass and bridge settlements would be of a lower magnitude than the surrounding ground surface settlements because underpass construction would have removed (the excavation) or improved (the bottom seal) many feet of potentially liquefiable soil. The railroad track approaches would likely require grading to make the bridge accessible to trains. Relationship Between Topography and Alignment Design Cut volumes are anticipated to be on the order of 45,600 cubic yards for Alternative 2, while roadway widening and at-grade roadway fill volumes may be on the order of2,900 cubic yards. The impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 58 May 2004 City of Renton I, I I I, I I I I' I I I I I DRAFT Settlement Potential The settlement potential impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Vibrations and Noise Due to Underpass Construction and Railraod Bridge Foundation Construction Appropriate construction procedures as described below could be used to mitigate vibration and noise impacts. Noise impacts are discussed in the Noise Discipline Report prepared for this project. Because of the depth of loose, soft, and potentially liquefiable soil, anticipated bridge loads, and the railroads' movement/settlement requirements, deep foundations may be required to support the proposed railroad bridges. Due to the depth of potentially liquefiable and loose/soft soil, deep foundations may consist of driven piles or deep slurry walls (discussed later in this section). In addition, deep driven piles may be used to support permanent concrete underpass sidewalls, and/or to provide uplift resistance for the underpass base slablbottom seal. Pile driving would result in noise and vibration impacts to the site. The vibration caused by driving piles through the site soils could impact nearby railroad tracks and utilities because of settlement. Settlements would depend on the type and density of the subsurface soil where pile driving is occurring as well as the proximity of the railroad tracks and utilities. In general, tracks and utilities within about 20 to 30 feet of pile driving operations may be significantly impacted. Vibration impacts generally diminish as the distance from pile driving increases. Noise from pile driving would most likely just be an annoyance to humans nearby. Secant piles, which are overlapping drilled shafts with reinforcement installed in every other shaft, may be used as underpass sidewalls. Secant pile walls would be installed in conjunction with a bottom seal; the secant piles would likely be founded within the bottom seal thus creating an underpass "boat." Following a design-level earthquake, the underpass "boat" would likely experience liquefaction-induced settlements; if the railroads' movement/settlement requirements allow, the secant pile walls could be used as railroad bridge supports. Secant piles could be installed with equipment that does not cause significant vibrations. Because of the depth of loose, soft soil and the high groundwater table at the site, open hole excavation methods would be difficult. Caving or sloughing soil within the open hole excavation could impact adjacent railroad tracks and buried utilities. Bottom heave within the secant pile excavation could also occur. Typically, secant pile installations do not cause excessive noise. Steel sheetpiling with internal bracing (as needed) could be used as temporary shoring for construction of the underpass sidewalls. Given the loose/soft near subsurface soil conditions, it may be possible to push in and pull out the sheetpiling using hydraulic equipment. Otherwise, a vibratory hammer would be used to install and remove the sheetpiling. The installation and removal of sheet piles could cause undesirable Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 59 May 2004 City of Renton I, I I I, I I I I I, I I I I, ,1 I I I DRAFT settlements in the vicinity of the underpass excavation, especially if a vibratory hammer is used for installation and removal. In general, the magnitude of the settlements would depend primarily on the relative density of the estuarine/overbank and alluvial deposits and the intensity of the vibration resulting from the driving and extracting operations. Structures located more than 50 feet away from the sheet pile installation/removal operations would be less susceptible to vibration-induced settlements; Typically, sheetpiling installation does not cause excessive noise. Soldier piles and lagging with internal bracing (as needed) could also be used as temporary shoring for construction of the underpass sidewalls. Soldier piles are drilled and installed similar to secant piles, as described above. This temporary shoring method would require dewatering prior to and during construction. Overlapping cement deep soil mix (CDSM) techniques may be used to create an underpass bottom seal to resist uplift pressures. If the railroad bridges were to be supported separately from the underpass (on driven piles), the underpass sidewalls could also be constructed of reinforced CDSM. Reinforcement such as H-piles are pushed into the CDSM before it hardens. CDSM is a process to treat soil in situ to improve its strength and to decrease its compressibility and penneability. CDSM involves a series of one to four hydraulically driven mixing augers, 18 to 36 inches in diameter, attached to crane-supported leads. As penetration occurs, cement, bentonite, lime, or other stabilizing slurry is injected into the soil through the hollow stem of the augers. The auger flights penetrate and break loose the soil and lift it to the mixing paddles, which blend the soil and slurry. As the augers continue to advance, additional paddles remix the soil and slurry. Because the augers are not continuous up to the ground surface, the CDSM process does not produce significant spoils at the ground surface. The mixing process is repeated, overlapping the previous passes. The overlap is more easily achieved with a multiple auger rig resulting in more unifonn CDSM. The CDSM process typically does not produce significant vibrations and noise. As an alternative ground improvement method to CDSM, jet grouting could be used to create an underpass bottom seal. Jet grouting is a ground modification method used to create in situ, cemented fonnations of soil. The jet grouting technique is used to erode in situ soil and simultaneously mix it with cement grout to form soilcrete. Because much of the upper soils are relatively loose and soft, they would likely be eroded during grouting and would result in more grout replacement instead of a soilcrete mixture. The medium dense alluvial sand would tend to stay in place and get mixed with the grout. Jet gr0uting tends to have more spoils at the ground surface because soft/loose soils are removed and replaced with grout. Jet grouting is a bottom-up procedure. An approximately 6~inch-diameter hole is drilled to the design depth. Grouting rods are then lowered into the drilled hole, and grout is pumped at high pressure through the rods and out of a horizontal nozzle near the bottom of the rods. Air or air and water could also be pumped with the grout (through separate nozzles) to increase the erosion efficiency of the grout. As soil removal and replacement with grout continues, the rods are rotated and slowly lifted to create a soilcrete column. If only grout is used, soilcrete column diameters of 2 to 4 feet could be achieved. If grout with air and water is used, soilcrete Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 60 May 2004 City of Renton I, I I I, I I I I I, I t I I I I I I I I DRAFT columns with diameters from 3 to more than 4.5 feet could be achieved. Designed integration (overlap) of adjacent columns creates a soilcrete mass. The required thickness of the mass is dependent upon the soilcrete unit weight, permeability, and the hydrostatic uplift pressure at the bottom of the soilcrete. The jet grouting process typically does not produce significant vibrations and noise. Slurry (diaphragm) walls could be used for multiple purposes such as railroad bridge support, underpass sidewalls, and tiedowns for uplift resistance when used in conjunction with a tremie seal. Slurry walls are constructed by first installing two slurry guide walls, one on either side of the proposed wall alignment. The guide walls are about 5 feet deep and are spaced a distance a bit wider than the proposed wall width. A linear trench between the guide walls is excavated using one or more equipment passes. As the trench is excavated, mineral or polymer slurry is introduced into the excavation. Next a reinforcing cage, or a steel W or HP section, is inserted into the excavation. Finally, the concrete is tremied into the excavation displacing the slurry. The slurry is reconditioned and reused. A steel tube is often introduced at the end of the panel to make a connection with the adjacent panel, depending on the panel-to-panel connection and construction equipment. The joints between panels can be made watertight by means of water stops across joints, or by post-grouting through tubes attached to the reinforcing cage. Slurry walls can be constructed in widths up to about 5 feet. A practical minimum width is about 18 inches. The panel length is determined based on a number of factors, including face stability, concrete, size of reinforcing cage, location of bracing, and the type of excavating equipment. A panel cannot be shorter, or narrower, than one equipment pass. Minimum panel length is about 4 to 8 feet depending on the contractor's equipment. A top strut (internal bracing) may be required within the underpass excavation. The slurry wall installation process typically does not produce significant vibrations and noise. In lieu of tying down a relatively thin concrete tremie seal with driven piles or slurry walls, or using a thick bottom seal constructed of CDSM or jet grouting, a thick concrete tremie seal could be constructed to resist uplift pressure at the base of the thick tremie seal; however, a thick tremie seal would require a much deeper excavation. Tremie seal installation typically does not produce significant vibrations and noise. Potential Soil and Groundwater Contamination The potential contamination impacts to geology and soils as well as groundwater for Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Erosion and Sediment Transport The erosion and sediment transport impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 61 May 2004 City of Renton I, I I I I I, I· I I I I I I, I I I I I I DRAFT Construction Haul Routes The construction haul route impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Construction Sundry Sites Construction sundry sites (pit, waste, etc.) will be determined by the contractor and approved by the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila. Alternative 2 would require major excavation to construct the underpass. Due to the consistency of the soils that are anticipated within the underpass excavation, it is anticipated that the excavated materials would be hauled offsite for disposal. 5.3.2 Indirect Impacts No indirect impacts to geology and soils were identified for Alternative 2. 5.3.3 Cumulative Impacts No indirect impacts to geology and soils were identified for Alternative 2. 5.3.4 Mitigation Measures Cuts Mitigation for the Alternative 2 proposed cuts would consist of performing proper design of the temporary shoring and permanent walls or slopes, defining the location and extent of unstable soils, and using proper construction procedures. To mitigate slope instability in retained cut areas, retaining wall design should maintain stability of the cut soils. Based on the soil types present at the proposed project site, these walls would likely consist of temporary soldier piles or sheetpiling with a permanent concrete wall, diaphragm (slurry) walls, secant piles, or reinforced CDSM walls. Cross bracing may be used in some areas to improve stability by providing additional lateral resistance to the earth pressures behind the wall; this would likely be required in the relatively deep underpass sections. The base of the wall would extend a sufficient depth into undisturbed soils so that adequate passive resistance in front of the wall is generated to resist the lateral earth pressures behind the wall. Underpass sidewall instability may be an impact. If unexpected increased water pressure or additional loading from adjacent ground occurs, the underpass walls may become unstable and lateral movement of the wall or settlement adjacent to the wall could occur. The design of the underpass sidewalls should consider the soil, surcharge, and groundwater conditions as well as any settlement and lateral movement limitations. The design should consider the worst-case soil, surcharge, and groundwater conditions at each Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 62 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT location along the underpass, as estimated from the final design field explorations. Potential future loading conditions should also be considered in the design. Design and proper construction procedures would mitigate gro,undwater uplift pressures. The base slablbottom seal should be designed for the calculated uplift pressures plus an adequate factor of safety. It is anticipated that the uplift resistance could consist of a relatively thin concrete tremie in combination with deep, driven pile foundations or deep slurry walls for uplift resistance, a CDSM or jet grouted bottom seal, or a thick concrete tremie seal. In areas where unretained cut slopes are proposed, the subsurface deposits would be evaluated so an appropriate slope angle could be determined to maintain stability. In addition, vegetation and drainage could be used to improve stability. For cut slopes that would occur above the underpass pavement, catchment walls can be constructed. These catchment walls would extend above the edge of pavement/sidewalks and serve as temporary retention measures for soil and debris (such as vegetation) that may slide down the slopes from instabilities occurring on the cut slopes. If a slide occurs, the soils that are retained by the catchment walls should be removed after the event. Fills The fill mitigation measures for Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Seismic Considerations Alternative 2 features should be designed considering the seismicity of the site and the project seismic design criteria. Liquefaction-induced settlements could be partially mitigated for the underpass by using a ground improvement bottom seal. Liquefaction- induced settlements and resulting downdrag could be mitigated for the railroad bridge structures by supporting the structures on deep foundations such as driven piles or slurry walls. Catchment areas or small catchment walls could be constructed at the base of cut slopes or behind retaining walls to minimize sediment deposit onto the roadway after a seismic event. Pavements The pavement mitigation measures for Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Elevated Railroad Bridge Structure Foundations No geology and soil impacts were determined for the elevated railroad bridge structures that would be supported on deep foundations. As described in Section 5.3.1, Elevated Railroad Bridge Structure Foundations, if the bridges were supported on secant pile walls that are integral to the underpass structure, track approach grading would likely be Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 63 May 2004 City of Renton I, I I I I, I I I I I I I I ; I I I I I DRAFT required following a design-level earthquake to make the railroad bridges accessible to trains. Relationship Between Topography and Alignment Design , The mitigation measures for Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Settlement Potential The settlement potential mitigation measures for Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Vibrations and Noise Due to Underpass Construction and Railroad Bridge Foundation Construction Driven piles may be used to support elevated structures. To mitigate noise and vibration during driven pile installation, low vibration/noise pile driving equipment could be selected. Alternatively, the steel pipe piles could be driven open-ended or could be driven into a predrilled hole, which would result in lower vibrations. Preconstruction surveys of existing structures and vibration monitoring during pile driving would be required to monitor and mitigate potential damage to adjacent sensitive structures. Mitigation for noise from pile driving is discussed further in the Noise Discipline Report prepared for this project. Secant piles also may be used as underpass sidewalls and to support elevated structures. To mitigate vibrations, low vibration equipment (such as an oscillator system) could be selected. To mitigate potential caving of the soil in the excavated holes, casing would be used in the upper soft/loose soil. Water or slurry inside the casing could mitigate potential bottom heave that could be caused by the high groundwater table. Immediately following secant pile installation, the casing would be removed. To mitigate vibration impacts from sheetpile installation and removal using a vibratory hammer, the contractor could experiment with the hammer selected to evaluate its influence on adjacent ground settlements. Ifundesirable settlements occur, another type of hammer with less impact on ground settlement should be used. The sensitivity or tolerance to settlement of any particular buried utility and railroad tracks adjacent to the excavation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Soldier pile installation mitigation measures would be the same as for secant piles (described above). Erosion and Sediment Transport The erosion and sediment transport mitigation measures for Alternative 2 would be the same as for Alternative 1. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 64 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I 1\ I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I DRAFT 5.4 Alternative 3: Construction ofa Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Union Pacific Railroad Tracks Not Relocated, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes 5.4.1 Direct Impacts Cuts The cut slope impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. The underpass depth is anticipated to be a maximum of about 25 feet at the design grade. Fills The fill impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. The maximum fill wall heights are anticipated to be about 6 to 10 feet along the roadway widening. Seismic Considerations The seismic impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. Pavements The pavement impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. Elevated Railroad Bridge Structure Foundations The elevated railroad bridge structure foundation impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. Relationship Between Topography and Alignment Design The cut and fill discussions address impacts from cuts and fills. Cut volumes are anticipated to be on the order of 66,230 cubic yards for Alternative 3, while roadway widening and at-grade roadway fill volumes may be on the order of 400 cubic yards. Settlement Potential The potential settlement impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 65 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I i I I I I DRAFT Vibrations and Noise Due to Underpass Construction and Railroad Bridge Foundation Construction The vibrations and noise impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. Potential Soil and Groundwater Contamination The potential soil and groundwater contamination impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. Erosion and Sediment Transport The erosion and sediment transport impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. Construction Haul Routes The construction haul route impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. Construction Sundry Sites The construction sundry site (pit, waste, etc.) impacts to geology and soils for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. 5.4.2 Indirect Impacts No indirect impacts were identified for Alternative 3. 5.4.3 Cumulative Impacts No cumulative impacts were identified for Alternative 3. 5.2.4 Mitigation Measures Cuts The cut mitigation measures for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. Fills The fill mitigation measures for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 66 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Seismic Considerations The seismic consideration mitigation measures for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. Pavements The pavement mitigation measures for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. Elevated Railroad Bridge Structure Foundations The elevated railroad bridge structure foundation mitigation measures for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. Relationship Between Topography and Alignment Design The cut and fill mitigations address mitigation of the relationship between topography and alignment design. Settlement Potential The potential settlement mitigation measures for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. Vibrations and Noise Due to Underpass Construction and Railroad Bridge Foundation Construction The vibration and noise mitigation measures for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. Erosion and Sediment Transport The erosion and sediment transport mitigation measures for Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. 6.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Soil-and geology-related operational and construction impacts and recommended mitigation measures were developed based on the proposed project area geology, known subsurface conditions, and the No Action and Build alternatives. Nearly all of the impacts could be mitigated by proper design and standard construction procedures. Liquefaction and, in particular, liquefaction-induced settlement may require nonstandard construction procedures to partially mitigate; however, these procedures, although Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 67 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT nonstandard, are not uncommon given current seismic design criteria and earthquake engineering technology. If a design-level earthquake occurred that resulted in liquefaction, the ground surface for all project alternatives would likely experience large settlement. Deep foundations could be used to mitigate the impact of liquefaction-induced settlement and downdrag for either underpass or the overpass elevated structures. Underpass railroad bridges could be supported by secant pile walls that are integral to the underpass. Although the underpasslbridge structure would likely experience settlement following a design-level earthquake, the surrounding ground surface would likely settle more than the underpasslbridge. Alternatives 2 and 3 would be constructed as an underpass below the groundwater level. This would require construction of a tremie or bottom seal to resist uplift pressures as well as temporary and/or permanent sidewalls to resist lateral pressures. Temporary groundwater control would be required for construction of an underpass if a tremie option is used. Alternative 1 would be constructed above grade and would not require a tremielbottom seal, sidewalls, or temporary and/or permanent groundwater control. No Action Alternative 1: Construction of a Roadway Overpass Cross- Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes Current design-level earthquakes could occur and cause liquefaction. The effects of liquefaction may include loss of bearing capacity for existing shallow foundations, ground surface settlement, and lateral deflection of existing utilities. Liquefaction alone could cause excessive ground settlement. Fill settlement, instability, and lateral movement could impact underlying utilities or adjacent structures as well as walls or pavements constructed on the fill. Inadequate design of lightweight fill could result in fill buoyancy or decomposition due to the 1 OO-year flood and possible gasoline/diesel intrusion. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 68 None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I DRAFT Current design-level earthquakes could occur during the life of the project, causing liquefaction. The effects of liquefaction may include decrease of bearing capacity for existing shallow foundations, ground surface settlement, reduction in lateral and vertical capacity of new deep foundations, cut slope and fill instability, and lateral deflection of existing utilities. Liquefaction alone could cause large ground settlement. Poor subgrade preparation and/or design for proposed pavements could lead to settlement, potholes, cracks, and other roadway distress. Driving new pile foundations may cause vibration-induced ground settlements. Erosion of exposed cut or fill slopes could cause increased sediment transport onto other areas of the project, into storm water drains, and into Springbrook Creek. Alternative 2: Cut slopes could experience slope Construction of a instability. Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track and, Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes Cut walls used to retain slopes and excavations could lack soil and groundwater resistance. Underpass bottom seal/base slab could lack adequate resistance to groundwater uplift pressures. Fill settlement, instability, and lateral movement could impact underlying utilities or adjacent structures as well as walls or pavements constructed on the fill. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 69 None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Current design-level earthquakes could occur during the life of the project, causing liquefaction. The effects of liquefaction may include decrease of bearing capacity for existing shallow foundations, ground surface settlement, reduction in lateral and vertical capacity of new deep foundations, cut slope and fill instability, and lateral deflection of existing utilities. Liquefaction alone coLild cause large ground settlement. Poor subgrade preparation and/or design for proposed pavements could lead to settlement, potholes, cracks, and other roadway distress. Driving new pile foundations or temporary sheetpile shoring may cause vibration- induced ground settlements. Erosion of exposed cut or fill slopes could cause increased sediment transport onto other areas of the project, into stormwater drains, and into Springbrook Creek. Alternative 3: Cut slopes could experience slope Construction of a instability. Roadway Underpass Cross- Valley Link, Union Pacific Railroad Tracks NOT Relocated, and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes Cut walls used to retain slopes and excavations could lack soil and groundwater resistance. Underpass bottom seal/base slab could lack adequate resistance to groundwater uplift pressures. Fill settlement, instability, and lateral movement could impact underlying utilities or adjacent structures as well as walls or pavements constructed on the fill. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 70 None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. None Identified. May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Current design-level earthquakes could None Identified. None occur during the life of the project, causing Identified. liquefaction. The effects of liquefaction may include decrease of bearing capacity for existing shallow foundations, ground surface settlement, reduction in lateral and vertical capacity of new deep foundations, cut slope and fill instability, and lateral deflection of existing utilities. Liquefaction alone could cause large ground settlement. Poor subgrade preparation and/or design None Identified. None for proposed pavements could lead to Identified. settlement, potholes, cracks, and other roadway distress. Driving new pile foundations or temporary None Identified. None sheetpile shoring may cause vibration-Identified. induced ground settlements. Erosion of exposed cut or fill slopes could None Identified. None cause increased sediment transport onto Identified. other areas of the project, into stormwater drains, and into Springbrook Creek. 7.0 REFERENCES American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA). 1999. Manual for railway engineering, Landover, Maryland, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association. Atwater, B.F. 1987. "Evidence for great Holocene earthquakes along the outer coast of Washington State" Science, Vol. 236, pp. 942-944. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1995. Flood insurance rate map for King County, Washington and incorporated areas: Map No. 53033C0978F, effective date May 16. Mullineaux, D. R. 1965. Geologic map of the Renton quadrangle, King County, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-405, 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000. Palmer, Stephen P., Schasse, Henry W., Norman, David K. 1994. Liquefaction susceptibility for the Des Moines and Renton 7.5-minute quadrangles, Washington, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Geologic Map GM -41, 2 sheets, scale 1 :24,000, with 15 p. text. Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 71 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Renton (Wash.). 2002. City of Renton sensitive areas and wetlands maps, erosion hazards, Renton (Wash.)., Technical Services, Planning, Building, Public Works, map available at http://www.ci.renton.wa.us/. Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S., Kammerer, A.M., Wu, 1., Pestana, 1.M., Riemer, M.P., Sancio, R.B., Bray, J.D., Kayen, R.E., and Faris, A. 2003. Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified and consistent framework: 26th Annual American Society of Civil Engineers Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queen Mary, Long Beach, Calif. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 2001. Draft Technical Memorandum, Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Corridor Improvements, Phase 1 Preliminary Geotechnical Information. Report by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Wash., 21-1-09369-001, for Berger/ABAM Engineers, Inc., Federal Way, Wash., May. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 2004. Geotechnical Report, Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements, Renton and Tukwila, Washington. Report by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Wash., 21-1-09369-002, for Perteet Engineering, Inc., Everett, Wash., February. Snyder, D.E., Gale, P.S., and Pringle, R.F. 1973. Soil Survey: King County Area, Washington. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, U.S. government Printing Office Item No. 102-B-47, November, 100 p. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2003. Environmental Procedures Manual. M31-11. Web page available at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/fasclEngineeringPublicationslManualsIEPMlEPM.htm Draft Geology and Soils Discipline Report Strander Boulevard Extension 72 May 2004 City of Renton I I I I I I APPENDIX A I SUB SURF ACE EXPLORATIONS 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 APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A.l INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... A-I A.2 CURRENT SOIL BORINGS ................................................................................... A-I A.2.1 Drilling Procedures ..................................................................................... A-I A.2.2 Soil Satnpling ............................................................................................. A-2 A2.2.1 Thin-Walled Tube Satnples ......................................................... A-2 A2.2.2 Standard Penetration Test Satnples .............................................. A-3 A.2.3 Soil Classification ....................................................................................... A-3 A2.4 Monitoring Well Installation ...................................................................... A-3 A.2.S Well Development ...................................................................................... A-4 A2.6 Vibrating Wire Piezometer Installation ...................................................... A-4 A.2.7 Groundwater Observations ......................................................................... A-4 A.2.8 Boring Logs ................................................................................................ A-S A3 PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATIONS ................................................................... A-S A.4 REFERENCE ............................................................................................................ A-S TABLE Table No. A-I Previous Exploration Data LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. A-I Soil Classification and Log Key (2 sheets) A-2 Log of Boring B-I0l MW A-3 Log of Boring B-I02 (2 sheets) A-4 Log of Boring B-I03 (4 sheets) A-5 Log of Boring B-I04 MWNWP A-6 Log of Boring B-I0S VWP (3 sheets) 2 I· I -09369-002-R2-AA.docIwplMSOffice A-i 21-1-09369-002 DRAFT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Figure No. A-7 A-8 A-9 A-I0 A-ll A-12 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 A-17 A-18 A-19 A-20 A-21 A-22 A-23 A-24 A-25 A-26 A-27 A-28 A-29 A-30 A-31 A-32 A-33 A-34 A-35 A-36 A-37 A-38 A-39 A-40 A-41 A-42 A-43 LIST OF FIGURES (cont.) Log of Boring B-I06 MWNWP Log of Boring B-I07 (3 sheets) Log of Boring B-I08 MWNWP Log of Boring B-I09 (2 sheets) Log of Boring B-II0 MW Log of Boring B-lll Log of Boring B-112 Log of Boring B-201 Log of Boring B-202 Log of Boring B-203 Log of Boring B-204 Log of Boring B-205 Log of Boring B-301 (2 sheets) Log of Boring B-302 (2 sheets) Log of Boring B-303 Log of Boring B-304 Log of Test Pit TP-301 Log of Test Pit TP-302 Log of Test Pit TP-303 Log of Boring B-305 (2 sheets) Log of Boring B-306 (2 sheets) Log of Boring B-307 Log of Boring B-308 Log of Boring B-309 Log of Boring B-310 Log of Boring B-311 Log of Boring B-312 Log of Boring B-313 Log of Boring B-314 Log of Boring B-315 Log of Boring B-316 (2 sheets) Log of Test Pit TP-304 Log of Test Pit TP-305 Log of Boring B-317 Log of Test Pit TP-306 Log of Boring B-318 Log of Boring C-301 21-1-09369-002-R2-ANwp/MSOffice A-ii 21-1-09369-002 DRAFT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS A.1 INTRODUCTION The current subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling 17 borings and installing 5 monitoring wells and 4 vibrating wire piezometers (VWPs) between the West Valley Highway and East Valley Road. The boring locations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, presented as Figure 3.1 in the main text of the discipline report. The borings are designated B-I0l through B-112 (Segment 1 from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW) and B-201 through B-205 (Segment 2 from Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road). In addition, several previous explorations from other studies were used. The approximate locations of the previous explorations are shown on Figure 3.1 in the main text of the report. Perteet Engineering, Inc. surveyed the locations and elevations of the 100-series borings completed in Segment 1 after completion of drilling operations. Elevations are relative to the NAVD88 datum. The approximate locations of the Segment 2 borings were determined by measuring from existing site features located on the site plan. The approximate locations of previous explorations by others were determined from previous reports and by measuring from existing site features located on the site plan. Plotting the exploration location on a topographic map provided by Perteet Engineering, Inc. approximated the elevations of the Segment 2 borings and the previous explorations. A.2 CURRENT SOIL BORINGS The subsurface conditions along the proposed 6,000-foot-Iong project alignment were explored with 5 deep and 12 relatively shallow soil borings. The five deep borings, designated B-102, B-I03, B-I05 VWP, B-I07, and B-I09, were drilled to depths ranging from 101.5 to 181.5 feet. The 12 shallow borings, designated B-I0l MW, B-I04 MWNWP, B-106 MWNWP, B-I08 MWNWP, B-II0 MW through B-112, and B-201 through B-205, were drilled to depths ranging from 26.5 to 51.5 feet. The soil borings were accomplished between July 22 and August 6,2003. A. 2. 1 Drilling Procedures Geo-Tech Explorations of Kent, Washington, drilled the soil borings under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson, Inc., using truck-mounted, drill rigs. The borings were drilled using open-hole mud-rotary methods. Mud rotary borings are advanced by circulating thick drilling mud from the rig down through standard 2%-inch outside-diameter (O.D.) rods to a 4Ys-inch or 6-inch-diameter tri-cone bit at the bottom of the borehole. The larger tri- cone bit was used at monitoring well and VWP locations. The drilling mud is a mixture of bentonite powder and water. Cuttings are transported from the bottom of the borehole to the surface by drilling mud flowing between the drilling rods and the sides of the 21·1-09369-OO2-R2-ANwplMSOffice A-I 21-1-09369-002 DRAFT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I borehole. The cuttings are deposited in a settling tank at the ground surface and the mud is recirculated. Soil samples are taken from the bottom of the mud-filled open hole. For worker safety, field screening was performed to evaluate the potential for hydrocarbon contamination. Volatile screening techniques included the use of a photoionization detector (PID), which provides a qualitative measurement of the volatile organics in soil, as well as visual and olfactory observations on the soil samples obtained above and below the groundwater level, respectively. Based on the PID readings and visual/olfactory methods of observation, no signs of potential contamination were noted in any ofthe boreholes except boring B-203, sample S-3. In boring B-203, sample S-3, at a depth of about 7.5 feet below ground surface, an odor was detected using olfactory methods; an environmental sample was obtained and submitted for testing. The boring B-203 soil cuttings and drilling mud were transferred into three drums by the drilling subcontractor and stored on City of Tukwila property until environmental analytical testing was complete. After completion of drilling and sampling, all borings except those with monitoring well or VWP installations were sealed with bentonite grout and chips. Borings with monitoring wells and VWPs have an "MW" and "VWP" after the boring number (for example, B-104 MWNWP has both a monitoring well and a VWP installation). All cuttings and drilling mud were left on City of Renton or City of Tukwila property. It is anticipated that Conoco-Phillips will take possession of the three drums containing potentially contaminated soils stored on City of Tukwila property. A.2.2 Soil Sampling During drilling along the proposed alignment, representative soil samples were obtained. In general, soil samples were collected at 2.5-foot intervals to a depth of 30 feet and at 5- foot intervals thereafter. Two types of soil samplers were used: thin-walled tubes and standard split spoons. Symbols used on the boring logs indicate which sampler was used at each depth interval. The sampler types are discussed in the following sections. A. 2. 2. 1 Thin-Walled Tube Samples Relatively undisturbed samples of cohesive soils were obtained using thin-walled (Shelby) tubes in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation: D 1587, Standard Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Geotechnical Sampling of Soils. This sampling method employs a 3-inch O.D. thin-walled, steel tube connected to a sampling head that is attached to the drill rods. The tube is slowly pushed by the hydraulic rams of the drill rig into the soil below the bottom of the drilled hole and then retracted to obtain a sample. The tube samples were classified in the field and recorded on the logs by the field representative. The tube samples were carefully sealed and transported upright to the Shannon & Wilson laboratory for testing. 21.1-09369-002-R2-ANwplMSOffice A-2 21-1-09369-002 DRAFT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ( A.2.2.2 Standard Penetration Test Samples To obtain disturbed soil samples from borings, Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were performed in general accordance with the ASTM Designation: D 1586, Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. In the SPT, a 2-inch O.D., 1.375- inch inside-diameter (LD.), split-spoon sampler is driven with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to achieve each of three 6-inch increments of sampler penetration is recorded. The number of blows required to cause the last 12 inches of penetration is termed the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value). The number of blows causing the last 12 inches of penetration is termed the Standard Penetration Resistance or blow count, N. When penetration resistances exceed 50 blows for 6 inches or less of penetration, the test is terminated and the number of blows recorded. The SPTs were recorded by the field representative and are plotted on the boring logs. These values are empirical parameters that provide a means of evaluating the relative density or compactness of cohesionless (granular) soils and the relative consistency (stiffness) of cohesive soils. The terminology used to describe the relative density or consistency of the soil is presented on Figure A-I. The split-spoon sampler used during the penetration testing recovers a relatively disturbed sample of the soil, which is useful for identification and classification purposes. The samples were classified and recorded on field logs by the Shannon & Wilson representative. The samples were sealed in jars and returned to the Shannon & Wilson laboratory for testing. A.2.3 Soil Classification An engineer or field representative from Shannon & Wilson, Inc. was present throughout the drilling and sampling operations of the current borings. The representative retrieved representative soil samples and prepared a descriptive field log of the explorations. Classification of the boring samples was based on ASTM Designation: D 2487-98, Standard Test Method for Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes, and ASTM Designation:D 2488-93, Standard Recommended Practice for Description of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), as described on Figure A-I, was used to classify the soils encountered in the soil borings. The boring logs in this report represent the interpretation of the contents of the field logs. A.2.4 Monitoring Well Installation As part of the investigation, five monitoring wells were installed to evaluate groundwater conditions that may be encountered during construction. Each of the five wells was slug tested to estimate hydraulic parameters, and a pressure transducer/datalogger system was installed in the well closest to the Green River (boring B-I01 MW) to monitor groundwater level fluctuations as compared to the Green River water level. Monitoring wells are designated with an "MW." Because the borings were performed using a mud 21·1-09369-002-R2-ANwplMSOffice A-3 21-1-09369-002 DRAFT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I rotary drilling rig, the drilling mud was pumped from the hole prior to installation of the well screen and riser pipe. The monitoring wells were constructed of new, commercially fabricated, threaded, flush-jointed, 2-inch-diameter Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Well screen generally consisted of new, commercially fabricated, threaded, 10-foot-long, flush- jointed, 2-inch-diameter, O.OI-inch-wide, machine-slotted screen. A silica sand filter pack was poured in the annular space between the boring and the well screen to about 2 to 3 feet above the screen. A minimum 2-foot-thick bentonite seal was placed in the annulus above the filter pack to within 3 feet of the surface. The wells were completed slightly higher than the elevation of the surrounding grade by placing an 8-inch-diameter flush-mount steel monument over the top of the borehole. The monuments were set above the adjacent grade to reduce surface water inflow. The steel monuments were set inplace with quick-set concrete. A.2.5 Well Development Monitoring well development was performed to enhance the hydraulic connection between the screened portion of the monitoring well and the surrounding soil. The development procedure consisted of a combination of surging and pumping. The saturated, screened section of each observation well was surged and pumped simultaneously to remove water, drilling mud, and sediment from the bottom of the well. Development equipment consisted of a Waterra TM 2-inch-diameter, Acetyl surge block/check-valve combination attached to the bottom of a dedicated section of semi- rigid: high-density polyethylene (HDPE) tubing. The sediment load of the purged groundwater was measured periodically by filling a container and observing the amount of sediment that settled out. Wells were pumped until no further improvement in water quality was observed. A.2.6 Vibrating Wire Piezometer Installation As part of the investigation, four VWPs were installed to evaluate groundwater conditions that may be encountered during construction. VWPs were installed in four borings and are designated with a "VWP." The VWPs were calibrated and hung at the target installation depths. With the exception of boring B-I05, the VWPs were surrounded with filter pack sand from about 2 feet below the VWP tip to about 2 feet above the VWP. Bentonite chips were used to fill the annular space within the borehole except at well screen (see above) and VWP depths. Bentonite grout was used at boring B-I05 to surround the VWP and fill the annular space within the borehole because of the difficulty placing the filter pack at the target installation depth. The VWP depths are shown on the boring logs. A.2.7 Groundwater Observations Where observed, groundwater was noted during drilling. Groundwater levels in the monitoring wells were also read after well development. Both the during-drilling and the 21-1-09369-002-R2-ANwp/MSOffice A-4 21-1-09369-002 DRAFT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I more recent groundwater level measurements from monitoring wells and VWPs are noted on the boring logs. These measurements may not be representative of the highest potential groundwater levels. A.2.B Boring Logs The current boring logs for the proposed alignment are presented in this appendix. A boring log is a written record of the subsurface conditions encountered. It graphically illustrates the geologic units (layers) encountered in the boring and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) symbol of each geologic layer. It also includes the natural water content, blow count, and soil strength (where tested). Other information shown on the boring logs includes the groundwater level observations made during drilling, well and VWP construction information (if applicable), ground surface elevation, types and depths of sampling, and Atterberg Limits (where tested). A.3 PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATIONS Several previous subsurface explorations were also used in the study; the approximate locations of these explorations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 3.1, in the main text of the discipline report. The previous subsurface explorations include 18 soil borings, 6 test pits, and 1 Dutch cone penetration test (CPT), designated B-301 through B-318, TP-301 through TP-306, and C-301, respectively. Table A-I of this appendix summarizes the consultant, project name, completion date, designations, and other figure number for each of the previous explorations. The logs for these explorations are presented as Figures A-19 through A-43. The locations of the explorations were estimated from previous report site plans. A.4 REFERENCE American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2003, 2003 Annual book of standards, Construction, v. 04.08, Soil and rock (I): D 420 -D 5779: West Conshohocken, Pa. 21-1-09369-OO2-R2-ANwplMSOffice A-5 21-1-09369-002 DRAFT I I SHANNON & WILSON, INC. TABLE A-I PREVIOUS EXPLORATION DATA I I Boeing Longacres Site December-90 16 B-302 A-20 I Consultants, Inc. Proposed Warehouse on SW 27th Street July-87 B B-303 A-21 A B-304 A-22 Consultants, Inc. SW 27th Street Warehouse August-94 TP-I TP-301 A-23 I TP-13 TP-302 A-24 TP-2 TP-303 A-25 A GeoSciences, Inc. SW Culvert Replacement October-98 BH-2 B-305 A-26 I BH-I B-306 A-27 Associates, Inc. Conoco Phillips Tosco Renton Terminal November-02 LAI-15 B-307 A-28 LAl-l2 B-308 A-29 I LAl-11 B-309 A-30 LAl-IO B-31O A-31 LAl-I B-311 A-32 I LAl-2 B-312 A-33 LAI-3 B-313 A-34 LAl-16 B-314 A-35 I Inc. Proposed Stores Building February-82 5 B-315 A-36 I B-316 A-37 TP-7 TP-304 A-38 TP-16 TP-305 A-39 I Associates, Inc. Lind Avenue August-94 B-1 B-317 A-40 TP-7 TP-306 A-41 I Consultants, Inc. Manufacturing S January-85 B-318 A-42 P-I C-301 A-43 I Notes: B = Boring C = Dutch Cone Penetration TP = Test Pit I I I I I 21-I-09369-002-RI-TA-I.x1s 21-1-09369-002 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I- f b Cl ~ z 'i: rn ~ Cl '" CD M '" o Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S& W), uses a soil classification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Elements of the USCS and other definitions are provided on this and the following page. Soil descriptions are based on visual-manual procedures (ASTM 02488-93) unless otherwise noted. S&W CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL CONSTITUENTS • MAJOR constituents compose more than 50 percent, by weight, of the soil. Major consituents are capitalized (Le., SAND). • Minor constituents compose 12 to 50 percent of the soil and precede the major constituents (Le., silty SAND). Minor constituents preceded by ·slightly· compose 5 to 12 percent of the soil (Le., slightly silty SAND). • Trace constituents compose 0 to 5 percent of the soil (i.e., slightly silty SAND, trace of gravel). MOISTURE CONTENT DEFINITIONS Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist Damp but no visible water Wet Visible free water, from below water table ABBREVIATIONS ATD At Time of Drilling Elev. Elevation It feet FeO Iron Oxide MgO Magnesium Oxide HSA Hollow Stem Auger ID Inside Diameter in inches Ibs pounds Mon. Monument cover N Blows for last two 6-inch increments NA Not applicable or not available NP Non plastic OD Outside diameter OVA Organic vapor analyzer PID Photo-ionization detector ppm parts per million PVC Polyvinyl Chloride S8 Split spoon sampler SPT Standard penetration test USC Unified soil classification WLI Water level indicator GRAIN SIZE DEFINITION DESCRIPTION FINES SAND- -Fine -Medium -Coarse GRAVEL" -Fine -Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS SIEVE NUMBER ANDIOR SIZE < #200 (0.08 mm) #200 to #40 (0.08 to 0.4 mm) #40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm) #10 to #4 (2 to 5 mm) #4 to 3/4 inch (5 to 19 mm) 3/4 to 3 inches (19 to 76 mm) 3 to 12 inches (76 to 305 mm) > 12 inches (305 mm) -Unless otherwise noted, sand and gravel, when present, range from fine to coarse in grain size. RELATIVE DENSITY I CONSISTENCY COARSE-GRAINED SOILS FINE-GRAINED SOILS N, SPT, RELATIVE N,SPT, RELATIVE BLOWS/FT. DENSITY BLOWS/FT. CONSISTENCY 0-4 4 -10 10 -30 30 -50 Over 50 R ~ lim ~ ~ rErl LH:J rrl LLJ Very loose Under 2 Very soft Loose 2-4 Soft Medium dense 4-8 Medium stiff Dense 8 -15 Stiff Very dense 15 -30 Very stiff Over 30 Hard WELL AND OTHER SYMBOLS Bent. Cement Grout Bentonite Grout Bentonite Chips Silica Sand PVC Screen Vibrating Wire -Surface Cement Seal Asphalt or Cap Slough Bedrock Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND LOG KEY February 2004 21-1-09369-002 II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. ~ 1;j b I (!) ~ z :;: U) ..., D.. I ~ en '" (") en 9 N N U) I U) :5 u (!) z iC 0 I; 0) COARSE- GRAINED SOILS (more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve) FINE-GRAINED SOILS (50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve) HIGHLY- ORGANIC SOILS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) -, (From ASTM D 2487-98 &. 2488~93) MAJOR DIVISIONS ~SYMII()L lie TYPICAL nF' 'IIUN .... G I' -_ Well-graded gravels, gravels, W ~",. gravel/sand mixtures,llttle or no fines Clean Gravels r-_ (less than 5% P v U Gravels fines) GP lo-r: Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand D ') "-mixtures, little or no fines (moffi~an50% ~ __________ ~ ______ ~rc~.u .. ~ ________________________ ~ of coarse I. fraction retained I' ... l-on NO.4 sieve) Gravels with GM ~.III ~. Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures Silts and Clays (liquid limit less than 50) Silts and Clays (liquid limit 50 or more) Fines 1- (more than 12% ~.L?!I fines) GC ~,,::;;; Cl.ayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay ~ mixtures Clean Sands (less than 5% fines) Sands with Fines (more than 12% fines) Inorganic Organic Inorganic Organic SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH _ .. :.:.:.:. f·· I·' 1--- I-...: - Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Inorganic clays of low to medium p!asIicity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, Silty clays:lean clays Organic silts and organiC silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silty soils, elastic silt Inorganic clays or medium to high _ •• , plasIicity, sandy fat clay, or gravelly liil clay ~ ./ / v. . /, Organic clays of medium to high ~ '/ ., plasticity, organic silts '/. '// Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat, humus, swamp soils with high organic content (see ASTM D 4427) Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington 1. Dual symbols (symbols separated by a hyphen, i.e., SP-SM, slightly silty fine SAND)are used for soils with between 5% and 12% fines or when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart. SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND LOG KEY 2. Borderline symbols (symbols separated by a slash, i.e., CUML, silty CLA Ylclayey SIL T; GWISW, sandy GRAV£Ugravelly SAND) indicate that the soil may fall into one of two possible basic groups. February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmenlal Consullants FIG. A-1 Sheet 201 2 ,I; , ' I I I I' I I I I I I~ I I I ~ ... ~ ~ (3 ;: .. II: SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 30.1 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Medium dense, gray, silty, clayey, fine gravelly SAND; moist; scattered organics; (Hf) SM. Loose to medium dense, brown to dark gray, trace to slightly clayey, slightly silty to silty, fine SAND; moist to wet; trace of organics; scattered iron oxide staining between 12.5 and 14 feet below ground surface (bgs); (HaD) SP-SM. Very soft to soft, dark gray, trace to slightly fine sandy, clayey SILT and silty CLAY with numerous layers of loose, silty, fine sand; wet; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; scattered iron oxide staining between 15 and 16.5 feet bgs; (HeD with thin Hp layers) MUCL. Medium dense to dense, dark gray, trace to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered organics; trace of gravel in sample S-15; (HaD) SP-SM. NOTE: Sulphur odor noted during well development. ~------~B-O~TT=O--M~O~F-B-O~R~I-N~G------~ COMPLETED 7/2212003 LEGEND u: .r: a. Q) o 4.5 14.5 (5 E .0 a. E a. >-6 (J) a:: 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 '. ..... 0 ..... '.' 0 0 '" Q) a. E til (J) II 21- 31 41 I ~ 5 r' 6I~~ :~~ 91 101 111 121 -Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test IT Thin Wall Sample [8]. .. ~ !!U8l ~ Piezometer Screen and Sand Filter Bentonite-Cement Grout Bentonite Chips/Pellets Bentonite Grout ~ Ground Water Level ATD 1: Ground Water Level in Well NOTES 1. The boring was pertormed using Mud Rotary drilling methods. 2. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. 3. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurtace materials. 4. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. u: .r: a. Q) Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) A Blows per foot o 0 20 40 60 I .. I .: 5 "--'''---__ ._·--11 ______ -'-:. _. _____ ._ .. __ _ I .' i '1 '~.: I 10--------.----..... ----.--.. -.--- I .' I,; ••• I ! . 15 ----.--+----~ •• ----.--.--I... ...... .... i , •• .•. \ ~6 20 ~~--:-'-. __ l...1 -----+-1 -.---- i ,I . I . 1-1 __ -,-•• ' . t I .. I 1 I I 45 -----+-OI----+- I I 50 ·------+---~-./_--~------I .... X. o 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-101 MW February 2004 21-1-09369-002 60 a: 5. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes and definitions. 'I ~ 6. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG A-2 « Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants • ~L-__________________________________________ ~ ____________________ ~ ________ ~ :·1: , , '·'1' , I /' I I I I I' i I I I\~ I-~ SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 27.3 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Loose, brown, silty, fine SAND; moist; scattered organics; (HaD) SM. u:: ..c a. OJ 0 I-=-::-f -:-b----:-:-~--::----d:---:-----1 5,0 So t, rown, slightly fine san y, clayey n SILT; moist; iron-oxide staining; scattered r I \~o~rQ~a~n~ic~s;~(H~e~D~)M~L~. _______ ~ 7.0 ~;oose, dark gray, silty, fine SAND; wet; r 9.5 iron-oxide staining; scattered organics; ~H~a~D~)SP~-~S~M~. ________________ ~ Very soft to to medium stiff, trace to slightly fine sandy, clayey SILT and silty CLAY with several layers of very loose to loose, silty, fine sand; wet; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; scattered iron oxide staining between 10 and 11.5 feet below ground surface (bgs); layers of peat between 25 and 27 feet bgs; (HeD with thin Hp layers) MUCUOL. I--=D-e-n-s-e,-d-a-rk--g-ra-y-,-tr-a-c-e-to--sl:-:-ig-:-h-t-Iy-s-"iI:-ty-,""'fi-n-e--l 33.0 to medium SAND; wet; scattered organics and wood fragments; scattered silty clay lenses; (HaD) SP-SM. (5 E en OJ .c a. a. E a. E >-6 C/) «I a:: C/) o II o 21 o 31 o 41 o :~ 7I aI 9I "~ 11 12I ' .. ' .. 131 ' .. ' .. ' .. 14I ' .. ' .. ' .. lsI ' .. '. - ""0 .... C til :3-o «I (53: 'Sl C> :a 'C 0 C> c 't: " 0 u:: ..c a. til 0 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) .A 20 i , , 1 Blows per foot 40 60 i. i 5 ··~·-~-f~-~·-jo-, -, -, -~~ i, ,. i , I 10 ---------~-I--l-_.J--------. ,,-~ 1 . I , :1::,1 15 ~----l~ •• :~+I-: -J.-: :-:-:1 20 It-~--, -, -, -i---, -, ~-,-, r~~·-,-,-, ~:------J--•. --A-----] ,;; I i 30 --I' I " I 0 ___ • i I' . j . . . ! .... I ! ,i ' , i 1 !' , , . --1'--------. , , . , , I I , , I .: I '.1 40 ~---'--, -, --'-+1'-' •• -, ,-,-, -, -!~'-, -, -, -, "I' II ::: , I, ' , , , . , , , ' .. , , ' , , 35 451-----,---1--0------,: -------- " . I . j~ ____________ ~C~O~N~T~IN~U~ED~N~E~X~T~SH~E=E~T ________ L-__ -h~~':LL~ ____ L-_______ 5_°-L-~:~:~:~~~·:_--:_--_-·_"L-_':~: __ :_:-_:_·L~:_-:_:~II_:~'_: _:_:_: __ ,_._.~ 4ir lsI ' .. ' .. • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test IT Thin Wall Sample LEGEND Sl Ground Water Level ATD o 20 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-1 02 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 60 I I· I' I I I I I I ~ ... SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 27_3 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Stiff to very soft, gray, slightly fine sandy to fine sandy, slightly clayey to clayey SILT and silty CLAY with trace of fine sand; wet; layers of silty, fine sand; numerous organics; (He D) MUCL. u:: ..r::: li Q) 0 78_0 ~1--------B-O-n---O-M-O-F-B-O-R-IN-G-------1101.5 COMPLETED 7/23/2003 (5 E .0 Cl. E Cl. >-ci U) a:: Ul ~ a. E It! U) --17~ --- ---lsI --- -- --191 --- --201 -- ..... --- --211 -- 221 231 241 251 261 -0 .... C Q) ::I-o It! (53': ..r::: li Q) Standard Penetration Resistance (140 Ib_ weight, 30-inch drop) ... Blows per foot o 0 20 4~ 60 -,- ! I ! : . . 60 .-.-----.--.. -t-------.-· ~------.----... - ! ; I 65 ------.-.----. -1--_-_ -~~4t--I_ .!. .... -.. i .. ..... . 1__ _ _ _ _ - ~: ~-:-~ ~~~r . :-:~~r-· ---- i -I-80 --.--.-----,.--------0------ i i ! I I I i , , 85 ----.--.--.-t. --1----1--0---+1------.--~! --I ---! ---I i I ! 00 ~~~ __ ---i----'.---l+-: -. ------I 95 i • I i I 1 OO,~:-: ----:-~-::-. r~~~-:-:~~·ct I : I-->1 105 ----------·1--- I ~ ,I ~ ~--------------------------__________ -L ____ L--L~L-__ ~ __________ L-________ ~l __________ ~ ________ --i • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test II Thin Wall Sample LEGEND Sl: Ground Water Level ATD o 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevarcllSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-102 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 60 .1 j I I' t I I SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 25.9 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Interbedded, loose, brown, silty, fine SAND and medium stiff to soft, fine sandy, clayey SILT; moist to wet; scattered organics; iron-oxide staining between 5 and 6.5 feet below ground surface (bgs); (HaD) SM/ML. u:: .c 0.. OJ 0 1--:-:---:----:--:--:----::--:-:-:---::---1 7.0 Very soft to soft, dark gray, slightly to fine sandy, clayey SILT and silty CLAY with several layers of very loose, silty, fine sand; wet; scattered iron-oxide staining; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; layers of dark brown peat encountered between 22.5 and 24 feet bgs; (HeD with Hp layers) MH/CH/OH. I--:M-:-e-d'O':'i-um-d-:-e-n-se-to-d-en-s-e-,-d"-a-:rk-g-r-a-y-, -tr-a-ce-to--l 26.0 slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered to numerous wood fragments between 27.5 and 29 ft bgs; (HaD) SP-SM. (5 E CIl OJ .0 C. a. E c. E >-0 rn co a: rn 0.3 11 21 r}.. : 0.3 31 '" @ j§ 0.3 41 co -2 '" 0 0.5 0.6 51 0.3 sl 71 81 91 101 111 ' .. ' .. ' .. 121 ..... 131 ' .. ' .. ' .. ..... ' .. 141 ' .. ' .. ' .. 151 ' .. ' .. lsI 'C .... u:: Standard Penetration Resistance c OJ (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) :l-.c o co 0.. Blows per foot (5$ ... OJ 0 0 20 40 60 ; . i . I i e I 5-'" ---:-~-.. -. ~i-:--.. -.-~~.:-r-~"-"'--"'~ ~-~ I ...•.. i '.1' '. i . ! ---...... ---.---....;1-------1·-· .. -··-··-· .-I·el ...... . I ..• _.. . .1 . i ! ! -... _----I. i i· i ... 10 15 --.- ~ i i'- 20 b:]--r . ~ .-~-~ 1 1 I , 25 _____ .___ _1 _______ .• ; __ .. _ .. _ .. ____ _ 30 . . . • ·1 " .: _I_n~ .. 11::\1 i 35 -~:--.. 1 .••. , .. :-----.- , .. \.. . \ " 40 . .1· r---"- 45 .. _'--' ._-' '_1:--' -'0_' . -" {.~ ........... ---.-- . ... :: .j . I 50 ~~. -+-.... 1 --------.. -.. ~ CONTINUED NEXT SHEET ::: :. :. :. : I :. :-: ~.. ·1 .. ~~-------~~~~~~~----J--~~-J--L-----~0----~20--~-~~4~0-----60~ Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test II Thin Wall Sample LEGEND 5l Ground Water Level ATD • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-1 03 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 64 104 I I ,I ; SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 25.9 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Medium dense. dark gray. trace to slightly clayey. fine sandy SILT; wet; scattered organics and wood fragments; (HeO) ML u: £ i5. Q) 0 66.5 t--=-M-;-e-d::-iu-m-s-:7tiff;;--:"to-ve-ry-s-o-::ft-. -g-ra-y-• ....,sl,-ig-:-h-,-:tI,-y----I 73.0 clayey to clayey SILT and silty CLAY with layers of medium dense. silty. fine sand; wet; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; (HeC) MUCL I-.,.-V=--e-ry-s-o-:ft,-t-o-m-ed-.."i,.--u-m-s-t""iff:--. -g-ra-y-.-s-lig-h-t-Iy----l 93.0 clayey to clayey SILT and silty CLAY with layers of medium dense. silty. fine sand; wet; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; (HeO) MUCL '0 E .0 0. E 0. >-c:l (J) a:: '. '. '. '. ..... '. '" Q) C. E co (J) 17.1 24TT 251 "0 ... C Q) :::J-o co C9~ u: Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight. 30-inch drop) .r::: 0. Q) ... Blows per foot 0 0 20 -40 60 i -i , j i, ! I' i 60 ---~-··~~--~·-t-~~·:.:-,--, -,-i ! I I i .! . . . . I 65-------t---O -1--+'------- I, II . ! . . . 70 -' ---' '-,-' '-J :: I ,-: ----- i --·~~r···" 'I, ........ '~ ... "" , " "I,········ .,""'" , " .". I ........ ......," ____ I ____ • __ _ I· : : I I I -, . 75 80 .. -------"-----0 ---------~ '-+1-11----11 .• ----'Xii 90 _~':~:.'" .' I •.... , I ..... . 9lk . i •• 0---;--.-,-: -:-1 ~ 100 < 'I <0 •• d ~: : • . I' ... ;t------------------I 108 0, "I 105~~_:::~1 ••• 111 .~ ... CONTINUED NEXT SHEET • ~----------~~~~~~~~------L---~~~----L-------~~0----~---~20--------~40---------6~0 • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test IT Thin Wall Sample LEGEND :;z Ground Water Level ATD • % Water Content Plastic limit I • I liquid limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila. Washington LOG OF BORING 8-103 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 :1 I ' .. I 1- SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 25.9 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Very dense, dark gray, trace to slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL; wet; cobbles are potentially present; (Hag) GW-GM. NOTE: 1. Difficult drilling. 2. Broken pieces of rock may have increased blow counts. Stiff, dark gray, silty CLAY with trace fine sand; wet; scattered organics; (HeC) CL. Very dense to dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine and fine to medium SAND; wet; trace fine organics; scattered silt lenses; (HaC) SP-SM. Very dense, gray, slightly sandy to sandy GRAVEL, trace of silt and clay; wet; scattered layers of medium dense, slightly silty to silty, slightly fine gravelly, fine sand; (Hag) GP. NOTE: Lost drilling mud from about 140 to 165 feet -making drilling difficult. CONTINUED NEXT SHEET LEGEND u:: 0 E tJ) Ql ..c .c e- E e-li >. ci Ql (J) 0 a::: C. E ca (J) ~ 12~-"-· ~ .. ~ · ~ .. 30::I: · ~ .. ~ • 123.0 I 127.0 '. · . ... · . · . . . .. . ... 341 138.0 ... 36= 37= 3sI • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test TI Thin Wall Sample ~ Ground Water Level ATD "0 ~ C Ql :1-o ca (53: u:: Standard Penetration Resistance ..c (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) a. .A. Blows per foot Ql 0 60 0 -20 40 -i I ;:>U/'> . i .. i I . I i I I . . I . . . I .... 115--.----; -----1----5015-- : I I I I I I 120 -0.: _: I---------r-· ..... . .. I ·1 125 -----.. 1-----.-----0------ I I I· . I· 130 -. _. -. -. -. -. ~--L~.--. -~-. _L_· -:..:..- . I I ·1 I .. 135 -----h--.. -+~ ---.-.-__ ·1 I ....... 1 I· 140 ~------!f-:. ".,·-----e -----. ······~·T········· ·····::I:::···:~ 145 ·-0 .. -I· . . ... ·1· .... ·5~~~-~ . . . . : I: : ! -I I 150 -.. +-·----<;50/3"- 155 -.-:-.-. -. -. -. -+-: -: --. -.. --~I-. -. -. -. -5~ 160 --0---+--------~-----I .67 - ./ ..... . . . . . .. . . .. .... o -20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-103 60 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 : I I',' -, " ,t ,I I 'I;',· -,' II: SOIL DESCRIPTION u: .s::. E. OJ Surface Elevation: 25.9 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 0 I--:-:---:----:--:---~_:__.___cc:____::_--__I 169.0 Very dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, trace of coarse sand and fine gravel; wet; grades to gravelly in sample S-43; (Ova) SP-SM. (5 .0 E >-(/) ..... ' .. ' .. .... ..... ..... ..... 1------:s:-::o::-:n=O:"::M-:-::::O-=F--:S::-::O::-::R::7IN:-:-::-G----I 180.9 I-'- COMPLETED 7/24/2003 LEGEND E (f) OJ C. a.. c. E ci t'C a: (/) 40~ • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test II Thin Wall Sample :!l Ground Water Level ATD "'0 ..... c OJ ::1-o t'C 53: u: .s::. E. OJ 0 170 175 o Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) ... Blows per foot -20 40 -60 ! ~' .• ', il~ '-'-'~.----:--. -. -'I'~~-· .-.-.--. t·--~--~--68. . I I . ! i i I , I I .----. --... -+ -.. --.-. ----·-1···· '--·"50/5·" I II I i I 180 .-----.• I~-. -. -. -. -. -, ~-i--:~'-~'5075" i ·1 195 210 o Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-103 60 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 .---, 'I:' ,1/ I': I',: .i ' .. , I I: t I I, SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 25.8 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Very soft, brown mottled, clayey SILT; moist to wet; layers of silty, fine sand; scattered to numerous organics; iron oxide staining; (HeD) ML. Very loose to loose, dark gray, silty, fine SAND; wet; occasional organics; (HaD) SP-SM. Very soft to soft, gray, clayey SILT with trace fine sand and silty CLAY; wet; scattered organics and wood fragments; (HeD) MUCL. Loose to very dense, dark gray, silty grading to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered organics; layers of fine to coarse sand with trace of silt; (HaD) SP-SM/SM. u:: "0 .0 .c E 0.. >. Cll en 0 7.0 '. '.' '. '. 14.5 23.0 '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. ..... '. '. E en "0 Cll c: Qi Q. c.. Q. :l- 0 E a ro ro C5~ a:: en ~ 7. 0 II 0 21 0.2 0 0 31 1 ~ 41 51 0 ~ ~ 0 61 - 0 71 0 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 Sl. ~ 0 0 ~ ~ .c 0.. Cll o 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) ... Blows per foot 20 40 60 I I .to • i . 1-1 _--,-I ~I • ~ , ! 51~ .-.~--•. -j-. -. ------: i o ---- I . i ! i 1°T-----t~o-~J-.. -.-. ___ 15~---!_; ---1.----· 0-! . I ... I' I· , I 20 i ~---.----II ..... . i ··1 ! • · ! ! · -:-·f~-:-~~·-:_: -~ ~~--:'-"~--. .-.-! . · ! . . i i • I 25---- . . 1 ______ +-1 •. _ 30,-, - .. : I : ---+------- I I !. .. . : I . . . i . . ! 35I--.-.--.-.-.. -.~i-'--=~-'-y.-.-.t-.-.-.. -.~.~-.I :: ... : I· :::::: I: . : . : : : : : , . I ..... I······ 40 : ~F I · ·1 : . . . . . I . · i . . ! •.. ----1-------. I' .•. :1 . . . .. .:,':.:\ . ·1· 45 50 --------. +-1-: '_'_'1·. --+-1---'-'-. ~ BOnOM OF BORING . : : . : : I : : : : ~: . 1 ... ~ COMPLETED 7/25/2003 . :. .:::: I :: :: : : ,.. .. '. 51.5 ~~-------------------------------------L----L--L __ L-__ -L __________ L-________ ~ __________ ~ ________ --i 60 • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test LEGEND [ED rsrJSI El:[]8l f2rnl ~ ~ NOTES 7. Piezometer Screen and Sand Filter Bentonite-Cement Grout Bentonite Chips/Pellets Bentonite Grout Ground Water Level ATD Ground Water Level in Well Ground Water Level in VWP o 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-1 04 MWNWP February 2004 21-1-09369-002 I I I' I, I I, 1,-" , r SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 26,5 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Loose, brown, slightly fine sandy SILT; moist; scattered organics; (Hf) ML. u: .c a. Q) o 1-:-:----:--:-----::--:-----;---:S::-;-;-:::;:-:----1 4,0 Very soft to soft, brown, clayey IL T, trace fine sand; wet below 7 feet; scattered iron oxide staining; scattered organics; layer of silty, fine sand in sample S-2; (HeD) ML. I-:-:----;----;-----:-:-~;:--~S;::-;-;~--;d-;:f ----I 10,2 Very loose, brown, silty, fine AND an ine sandy SILT; wet; (HaD) SM/ML. I-:-:----:-----:----;::-~:--:-::-:---;-f ;:----16,0 Very soft, gray, clayey SILT with trace a fine sand and silty CLAY with numerous layers of loose, fine sandy silt and silty, fine sand; wet; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; scattered iron oxide staining; peat layers between 22.5 and 28 feet bgs; (HeD with layers of Hp) MUCUOL. 1-77""-::---;---~-;-----;--k;-----;---:------i 30.5 Medium dense to dense, dar gray, trace to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; layers of fine to coarse sand; scattered organics; (HaD) SP-SM. LEGEND (5 ,0 E >. CJ) ',' " ',' " ,,' ;- .' ,,' :- ',' " ',' ' . . ' ',' " '0' -. " ',' :' If) Q) a. E III CJ) "'0 ... C Q) :::J-o III (53: • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test IT Thin Wall Sample [8J Piezometer Screen and Sand Filter ~ Bentonite-Cement Grout ~ Bentonite Chips/Pellets E2IJ2I Bentonite Grout SZ Ground Water Level ATD 1: Ground Waler Level in Well NOTES ~ Ground Water Level in VWP 1, The boring was performed using Mud Rotary drilling methods, u: Standard Penetration Resistance .c (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) g. A Blows per foot o 0 20 40 60 i I I ! • i i I ! ,I, , 5 --._., ___ L ___ .• ---!--------.----, , 'I' , ' I , "H: I '. 10 I~ ____ ~_' _' _,_L~~ __ ~_. ~.~_J~_~_~~_~ ____ ~ I~ '""" I ' , , , , , , , , I "" ,., "I,." """ ~ : ' I, , ,. , : I 15-~-:--,-, -, -, ,-, -i ,-~-, ,-,-, ~t-, -, ~-~--.---~~ , . , : : : : : : I : : : : : : : : : , ' , : : :: ::~,72 , II ' 20 -_____ 1 ! 63 , II i I .' I ' : I I i 126 25 ------4' \---r·1 30 \:1: ~-: ,---- 35 ' : : :\ I.~._'_---- ::K::::: 40 ~_---';_: _' • : I : : "\: : :: " ••• ·r·I······· Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-105 VWP February 2004 21-1-09369-002 , j • 'I' ; I' I ~ f : \ ,Ii I" , I I \ 'j 'I; t I , ! II 'Ii' I ,I, 1\; I -I I SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 26.5 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Soft to very soft, dark gray, slightly fine sandy to fine sandy, slightly clayey to clayey SILT and silty CLAY; wet; layers of medium dense, silty, fine to medium sand; scattered organics; (HeD) MUCL. u: .c: a. OJ 0 70.5 1-----------:-f---------I88.0 Medium dense, dark gray, ine to medium SAND, trace silt; wet; scattered organics; trace shell fragments; (HaC\ SP. I-:-:----:----~ff--:--:----;:-I --:-:C:--::f ---; 94.0 Very soft to very sti ,dark gray, sightly ine sandy to fine sandy, slightly clayey to clayey SILT and silty CLAY; wet; scattered organics; (HeC) MUCL. "0 U) OJ .0 Q. E E >-Cf) to Cf) 17 '. '. '. : '. '. '. '. : '. lsI '. : '. '.' ' . '. 191 .. '.' '. : '. '.' '. 201 22JI* ...... ::~.:::: I ...• :.;.: 24 . ..... : 251 26TT 271 "0 Qj c: ::J til 0 ... 3: (!J u: .c: a. OJ Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) .... Blows per foot o 0 20 40 60 ~ . I , ' I 65 -:---.-~----~.--~---. '-' ~~ --+-~ -~--... ! .. i ; . I ! "I 70 --------1---.--4'--- I .. i 90 100 105 i I i ·1 . ! . ; : t . I .. 1 ---' .~-' '-' -' '-.-~ : : I i I ----I: I: I-----+-c.t---tl----I . ! j .. I ---. ' : II : : : I : : ! : : : : I : +--------,i----.--.-.. --------.. ---I ••• •• ----.."..~___1f_---------•. ---- ~ 1--------------------1 108.0 ~ ~~ ____________ ~C~0~N~T~IN~U~ED~NE~X~T~S~H~E~8~ ________ _L ____ ~~L_ __ _L~~~ __ ~L-~~----~----------~--------~ 40 60 o 20 N § IX: W t; « • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test II Thin Wall Sample LEGEND 03J ~ ~ E2rnI 5i. :l NOTES ~ Piezometer Screen and Sand Filter Bentonite-Cement Grout Bentonite Chips/Pellets Bentonite Grout Ground Water Level ATD Ground Water Level in Well Ground Water Level in VWP 1. The boring was performed using Mud Rotary drilling methods. 2. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. 3. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials. 4. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 5. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes and definitions. 6. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevarcllSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-105 VWP February 2004 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A-6 ~L_ __________________________________________ ~ ____________________ ~ ________ ~ Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 20f 3 " 'ii I:: II: I' .', I I' I I II 'I' I I 'I 'I· II' I· 1,,1 SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 26.5 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Very dense, gray, trace to slightly silty, sandy, GRAVEL; wet; layers 01 slightly silty, gravelly sand; (Hag) GW-GM. u: ..c c.. Q) 0 (5 CI) Q) .Q 0. E >-E en co en id-L 0 • .-0 30= -,4 0 • ~-311 0 Interbedded, very soft, gray, silty CLAY and 123.0 I- medium stiff, clayey, sandy SILT; wet; (HeC) 32 1 CUML I---:-M-:-e-d"'"iu-m-d:-e-n-se-,-g-r-a-y ,-s-'li:-g-:-h-:-tly-s""ilt-y-to-s:7ilt-y-, l=-in-e----1 127.0 .. '. ". ", SAND; wet; layers 01 fine sandy silt; scattered .' organics; (HaC) SP-SM. :~~ :; 331 .. "." :" .' "." -. '.: : 341 :". :: "." " I-----,-------,......,...-,-------------j 139.5 ::. •.. :: '. Very dense, gray, slightly silty, sandy 35 I GRAVEL, trace of clay; wet; layers of silty, ~ ~ fine sand and silty, gravelly sand; scattered • ~ organics; cobbles are potentially present; (Hag) GW-GM. o I------=B-=-O=TT=O-=--M:-:O::-:F--B--O-R:-I-N--G----~ 152.0 ~ COMPLETED 7/25/2003 NOTE: Lost large amounts 01 drilling mud (starting at about 151.5 feet). Driling very difficult. Could not advance boring beyond 152 feet below ground surface using mud rotary drilling methods -placed vibrating wire at 36:I:: 37::C ..c c.. Q) Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) A. Blows per loot o 0_ 20 40 60 -I oU{b~ . : : ... : 1: 1 --0----;----·-·--··:·-·-----50/4.5"- I ' ...... '!'" . f······ .. .... r . ! 115 I: I 120 --, -, '---'-'-1-' ,-:-~---~l'--~---70 . : i :. ! : '. ,I ! 125 ---.--: ---0--+--------· .. '1:"'1 -. I_ . . i I. . . I 1301-------+; ; I I , '1-. . I .. . ., ! 135'., ::":11 ': :·~.:----·l,·--::-::: , . . . "" -, " i . ,.".. 140 __ . '_' • I . -' !" .. , , · ... : : I, . . , . 6q · . : I: : ! .. i 145 -e-.-.-,--+-,'-.-.------,--t----r5076~ I . .' .,... I 1501--'-----t-1 -----+; ·----5015-! ... . , , I ' , . ! , , i· ,. . , . , ---.-1 > : '" " , I' : : : : : : : I : : 155 I I 160 I , . I . , . . . ' ~~--------------------------~--~--~~------~--'-'-'-"-'-'-'~'-'-'-'-'--'-'~I_'_"_'-'-'-'-'~' 40 60 bottom of baring. o 20 '" 8 ..... • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test IT Thin Wall Sample LEGEND em Piezometer Screen and Sand Filter ~ Bentonite-Cement Grout ~ Bentonite Chips/Pellets ~ Bentonite Grout Sl. Ground Water Level ATD ~ Ground Water Level in Well NOTES 5! Ground Water Level in VWP 1. The boring was performed using Mud Rotary drilling methods. 2. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. ,3. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials. 4. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. • % Water Content Plastic limit I • I liquid limit Natural Water Content Strander Boulevard/SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-105 VWP February 2004 21-1-09369-002 II: 5. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes and definitions. '1 ~ 6. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A-6 « Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 3 ~L_ ______________________________________________ ~ ______________________ ~~~~~~ ," ill ,',: I: Ii , , I 1_" I " ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 23,9 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Loose, brown, trace to slightly clayey, silty, fine SAND and fine sandy SILT; moist to wet; scattered iron oxide staining; scattered organics; (HeD) MUSM. I-7"L-oo-s-e-, -:da-r7"k-g-ra-y-, -s;7lig-:h-:tI;-y-s"7:il7""ty-:t-o-s7.'ilt;-y-, f;'-iln-e--l 7.0 SAND; wet; scattered iron oxide staining; scattered organics; (HaD) SP-SMISM. t··, I--:-:----:-----,:--.,..-,:------::----:---i 12.0 r··· Very soft to soft, dark gray, trace fine sandy to fine sandy, slightly clayey to clayey SILT and silty CLAY; wet; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; scattered shell fragments in sample S-10; layers of dark brown peat between 22.5 and 26.5 feet below ground surface (bgs); burnt wood fragments encountered at about 26.3 feet bgs; (HeD) MUCUOL. Medium dense to dense, dark gray, slightly silty to silty, fine to medium SAND, trace of clay; wet; layers of fine to coarse sand; scattered silt seams; scattered shell fragments encountered about 50 feet bgs; (HaD) SP-SMISM. BonOM OF BORING COMPLETED 7/28/2003 26.5 51.5 I:' I:' i-' I'" r'- r" r" r-· t·· r·· r-· I:' r" f-- 'I 0,1 21 ~ ~~ 31 41 ~m 51 61 71 81 91 101 "1 121 -131 141 151 u: Standard Penetration Resistance .s:::. (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) g. ... Blows per foot a 10 20 40 6C . I . i t 'I-, , ' i ' 51-/~-------,--~------------~!---.:--------1 " ',', ,I . ~ . . i . . . . i 10 --f--------+--------·.: ------------1 ill .••••• ~ 15~----------r--'--t---1-i-----.e·-----1 ... ,,"" ~' .. ' .... ' 201----------r---------r---------.·,6-2-'k 25 .~ , " 146 , , ,4 ~ ---.. --i--------.• ~- '" '. , , ~ " ~~-----.-----+-------I 1\ 351-: : : ~.. ,'--'x--\-t-,--, ,-,-, ,-I ...... -. 401--~--+_--i-.----_r~\~-----1 -It 45-.:;-;:-.,.-1:-=;( ••... 50 -,-,-,-, ,-.--~I~~.~_.,----r--.-,-,-,-.--I i ~~----------------------~---L-L~--L------L------~------~----~~~r o 20 40 V~ ~ I • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test LEGEND [E[J Piezometer Screen and Sand Filter ~ Bentonite-Cement Grout I8IJ8I Bentonite Chips/Pellets IaJ2l Bentonite Grout Jl Ground Water Level ATD ~ Ground Water Level in Well NOTES X Ground Water Level in VWP 1, The boring was pertormed using Mud Rotary drilling methods, ~ 2, The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and ~ the transition may be gradual. c. 3, The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-1 06 MWNWF ~ nature of the subsurtace materials, 9 4, Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. February 2004 ~iL __ 5_'_R_ef_e_rt_o_K_EY_f_0_re_x_p_la_na_ti_0 __ nOf_S_ym __ bo_IS_,_co_d_e_s_an_d_d_e_fin_it_io_ns_, ____________ ~~ ________________________ J ____________ ~ 21-1-09369-002 6, USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG A-7 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants • , I I' : '. :\ / ;,Ii I ,I, " I I' " I 1\, I I' ,I, I I I: .'- 'I~ I" i SOIL DESCRIPTION Surlace Elevation: 24.1 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Medium stiff, brown and light brown mottled, clayey SILT and loose, silty, fine to medium SAND; moist to wet; scattered organics; numerous iron oxide stains between 5 and 6.5 feet below ground I"'\surface (bgs): (HeD) MUSM. Very loose to loose, dark gray, slightly silty to silty, fine SAND; wet; trace of clay; (HaD) SP-SM/SM. u: ..c li CD 0 r 7.0 I--'-v-e-ry-s-oft-to-m-e-"'di-u-m-s-t-oiff-:-,-g-ra-y-,-s-lig-h-t-Iy---14.5 clayey to clayey SILT and silty CLAY; wet; scattered to numerous organics; (HeD) MUCL I--:-M-=-e-d7:-iu-m-d-e-ns-e-to-d-e-n-s-e-, "'"'d-a-rk-g-r-a-y,-t-ra-c-e-t-o--l 22.5 slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered layers of soft, silty clay and silty, fine sand; scattered organics; (HaD) SP-SM. LEGEND '0 E (/) CD .0 c-o. E c-E >-ci CJ) t1l a:: CJ) 11 o 21 ' .. : 0.2 31 41 . 0,1 ' .. 51- o s1 11 81 'l 10 ..... ' .. ' .. ..... 111 121 ' .. ' .. ' .. 131 ' .. ' .. ' .. 141 '-. ' .. ' .. 151 '-. lsI • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test TI Thin Wall Sample 'Sl Ground Water Level ATD "¥ '" :S 'C c '" C 'C " c "'0 '-C CD ::l-o t1l (53: u: Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) ..c li A Blows per foot CD 0 0 20 40 60 .. . ..:... I 5 -.. -.,-.-: ~ i----:~-I I 01 -.-.. -- ! ! ! 10 '" 10 ):-------T----.:------:- ! I I I 15,. ---T----, I .-- 20 I ,I • _______ :___ I ! I -I .- i ! I 25 ----__ :l ____ :._.~' -' ,'--,----. -I , ! I , i i . I -". 30 -------~-. I o I 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-107 60 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 ,t , 1,( " I ", .' I I • ' I I " 'I'; ,Iii lu I" !;1 ~ ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 24.1 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Medium dense to dense, dark gray, trace to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; layers of soft, silty clay and silty fine sand; scattered organics; (HaC) SP-SM. ~~~------~--~------~------~------~ G Dense and very dense, dark gray, slightly u: .c 0. <ll 0 58.0 103.0 (5 E Ul <ll .c 0- E 0- >. 0 en c:: i5.. E I'll en '. 17~ '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. .... ' . '. '. '. "0 .... C <ll :l-o I'll C5~ u: .c E. <ll 0 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) ... Blows per foot 20 40 60 I 60 ---.-------• --+---.------ I i : I 65 -----1-. ---: -i ------- 70 ·f!.~. :: Iii ! 75 .----t-. -. -:e---L-.-------- ; II 80 --------1- ! .. : II I . ! -'I I .. 85 _. ___ .-+1 -. ' I:: --I-- I': _·1 90 . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . ..'N··-···· . i .-\\-•. -. -. ·+1 --. -.. - 100 ~-----+-I e-.--\--+------- 95 : ...... .. . I . . .. . I : : :j 105~----4---~--~--------1 ~ .. :: I::: :\::: ~ CONTINUED NEXT SHEET _ .. I···::: \ :. silty, gravelly SAND and slightly silty, sandy o! GRAVEL; wet; (Hag) SW-SM/GW-GM. ~~------------~~~~~~~------~----~LL~----L---------lO--~-t---~20--------~4LO--------6~O~ LEGEND • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test IT Thin Wall Sample Sl Ground Water level ATD • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-107 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 • • I ,.' f I, , I i '. I· I '. I I 10:: . I , -.,; ,I,; I,·, jJ SOIL DESCRIPTION u: (5 E en Q) .c a. C. .c:: E a. a. E >-ci Q) en co Surface Elevation: 24.1 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 0 a.. en 2B~ 1--:-:---::---:-------:------------1 117.0 Medium dense to dense, gray, trace to slightly fine gravelly, fine sandy SILT grading to slightly fine sandy, silty CLAY below about 127 feet; wet; layers of silty, fine sand; scattered organics; (HeC) MUCL. I--=-----~--:--___:,....,..,_=_-_:__"._---__l 130.5 321 Dense, gray, silty, fine SAND and fine sandy SILT; wet; (HaC) SM/ML. I--=D':::'e:':'n=-sLe:::'to':'::v:":'e.Lry=d:.:lec.ln':"s:':::e:'::, g:Lr"'::a::':'y:'::, t":':ra~c:::'e-t-o-s-li-g-h-tly--1133.0 ~ silty, sandy GRAVEL; wet; broken rocks ~ recovered; cobbles potentially present; ~ (Hag) GW-GM. . ~ .. ~ • 1------=::===-:-:::-=-:=-==:7:~-----1 152.0 ~ BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 7/31/2003 NOTE: Boring lost drilling mud from about 140 to 152 feet below ground surface. Boring was grouted to circulate drilling mud. Boring was advanced to 152 feet where boring was terminated due to very difficult drilling and gravels caving. • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test IT Thin Wall Sample LEGEND NOTES 'Sl Ground Water Level ATD 1. The boring was performed using Mud Rotary drilling methods. 2. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. 3. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials. 4. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. "0 ... c: Q) ::J-a co 5~ u: .c:: C. Q) 0 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) A Blows per foot .. 20 40 60 115~1~-- .. l .. +--~ 120 ----J--oITi -~-' I '" . I ... . I . i . . . 125---~F··:·:·:I: --- :1·::: ... 1301-----.1;...... ___ • I ·::I··:·:~ . I · . . . . . . . . i . . 135 --0-----;-·---·------'----·-·-- . . .! I \.. ..:: .90 : I::::": I: 140 -O---i;·-----!-i ----50t4~ ':1 .. :: 1 ..:: ... :!." .... "I' 145 --0----+'------11---50/5". · . . .. ... I . . . :: ;: : I: : : 150 -+-------"t----50/5"· I . I · .. : : :1: : : 1551-----1---------4--------- 160 --.----~----___i----_I o 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-107 60 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 cc: 5. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes and definitions. , I ~ 6. uses designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A-8 « Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 3 ~~--------------------------------______________ L_ ______________________ ~~~~~~ i.·I"'i ; I 'I'j , '1'\ , , ! I: I~ '. I, I I: I I I,J ~ .... ! , SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 23,2 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Soft, brown to dark brown and gray, slightly clayey to clayey SILT and loose, silty, fine SAND; moist to wet; scattered organics and numerous iron oxide staining; mottling in sample S-1 ; (HeD) MUSM. u: .r::: Q. CIl 0 I-~~---:--:----""---::-f ---::-:-:-:=----1 10,0 Very loose, dark gray, silty, ine SAND, c.......trace of clay; wet; (HaD) SM Very soft to soft, dark gray and green-gray, clayey SILT and silty CLAY; wet; scattered to numerous organics; (HeD) MUCL. ,;-12,0 1--------------,1,....,.--,---1 19,0 Medium dense, dark gray, trace to sightly i\ silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered r 21,3 i \organics; (HaD) SP-SM. Very soft, dark brown, silty PEAT and peaty 1\ SILT; wet; partings of silty, fine sand; (HeD r 25,0 I \and Hp) PT/OL. Very loose, dark gray, slightly silty, fine SAND and very soft, slightly fine sandy 1\ SILT, interlayered; wet; scattered organics; r 30,0 I \(HaD) SM/ML. Medium dense to dense, dark gray, clean to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; trace of coarse sand; occasional organics; (HaD) SP-SM. \ ~I------------------'---l 48.0 (5 E en CIl J:l a. c.. E a. 6 E >. III en a::: en o o o o o o ' .. '. , ' .. ' .. ' .. ' .. ' .. ' .. ' .. ' .. ' .. '0 c: Qj ::J-o III 0~ ~ u: .r::: Q. CIl o 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 Ib, weight, 30-inch drop) ... Blows per foot 20 40 60 , 'I' i i i I • 4i i \ i ! 5 --'>----, r-~"------·-'·i---.. -, --, ,-, -,-, ,i,.: , I ! e , Ii" i 10H~'-.-,-, -, '-:-:-:+j' -~~1---·64 N '" I • , ~~'," i -1511\,\-----" ,-_____ .64 , , r-' -:--~-:-~-l ' , . , • " .,.!.' '" • •. .' .... .• j . . . ,! ' " 66 20 -----\--------)------~' ,,,I,.. i" """ I 117 25 ' , _______ l __ · ,-' --:-:-'.- • ' I I I i l~:::·l 30 i -----, .. -----. " , I I ' :" ' I I , I ' I ',,' 35 ',.", ,,!, ~.~ '-i-, " " I"; I --I 40 . : I : : : : " I ' , , , " " . . , , , , , " .,,"" .,"""'" 45 '71. • • • • ' • , • I • --~-~ ~-j~---= Dense, dark gray, trace to slightly silty, fine ' , , , , , , " "",. ,. I ' : ' , , : : : : ~ to medium SAND; wet; (HaC) SP-SM. '. . 50 ',"""',', ' •. :~ . ~l-, -' -' -' --I il----c-B-g--;r=p""~,-~-~-;-:-/~--1R--/~-~-~-3 ---~ 51.5 ' "I ~ . • • • • • • •• •••••... I a ~--------------------------------L---~~--L---~------~~0--------~20~------~4~0--------60~ LEGEND • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test II Thin Wall Sample [EJ Piezometer Screen and Sand Filter ~ Bentonite-Cement Grout E8IJ8I Bentonite Chips/Pellets eIl2l Bentonite Grout ~ Ground Water Level in Well :z Ground Water Level in VWP • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-108 MWNWP February 2004 21-1-09369-002 r"} Ii ,I '. I I I 1- 'I' , ..... J I~ I 1-; I; I,,: t--: SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 23,3 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Medium stiff, brown, clayey SILT; moist to wet; scattered organics; scattered iron oxide staining; (HeD) ML. u:: .e: c.. Ql 0 I--:---------:,-----,----d-:--:-k -----I 5.0 Loose to very loose, brown to ar gray, silty, fine SAND; moist to wet; layers of clayey silt and fine sandy silt; scattered organics; scattered iron oxide staining; (HaD) SM. I-..,..V---:-f-----:-----"""'I-------l 12.0 ery so t, gray and gray-green, c ayey SILT; wet; layers of loose, slightly silty to silty, fine to medium sand; scattered organics and peat lenses; (HeD) ML. 1--0-:---::----:-::-:-----:-----::--=-=---1 18.9 Medium stiff, brown and gray, silty PEAT and clayey SILT; wet; parlings of silty, fine ,sand' (HeD and Hp) PT/ML. r 22.0 Loose, dark gray to slightly green-gray, silty, fine SAND and soft, clayey SILT; wet; scattered organics; (HeD) MUSM. I--o-:-~---:-----:-----:--:----::--:-:--l 27.0 Medium dense to dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered layers of organics; (HaD) SP-SM. ~1--:-v:-e-ry-stC:;iff:-, -g-ra-y-,-:-t-ra-c-e-:-to-s":7lig-=h-:-t:-ly-:f::-in-e-s-a-n-d=-y-, ---1 46.0 ~ ,""",silty CLAY; wet; (HeD) CL. G ;.; ~ Loose to medium dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; scattered layers of organics; scattered layers of clayey silt; (HaC) SP-SM. ~ 48.0 "0 E .c c. E c. c:i >. (J) a:: 0 0 0 0 0 ' .. ' .. ' .. ' .. ' .. ' .. ' .. ' .. ' .. ' .. . . ~ ' .. ' .. . . en "0 ... Ql 0. c: Ql ::::I-E o «I (55: «I (J) 11 21 31 "Sl. co :E 'E a 41 co ·2 " a 51 61 :~ 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 u:: Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) .e: c.. Blows per foot A Ql 0 0 20 40 60 , , i ; i i. 5 -:---~-:--:-.-•• -.-' ~~-.~~-.... ~ I l···-······I.· •••• ~.I.· .•• '.·· 10' ,. '-~~-. -i-. -.. '-. ,-. -.:------:.~ ', .. ·1 .. HI. .,. 15' -~ • .,.. . . L-· . --0-- J-~,·-~·~,·IL.·--·-·-·_tl_·-.--·--· _: _. _. !-' _ .. ____ ._:: ~~~9 ·1 I .1 ~ I --. ~-, . r~-~-~-. , ~~t-...• '-. ,-.. .1 • I ·1 I ! I 25 ' 30 -----: .~-' -' -~--'-:-' ~~ ... !. . 'j I . . ! ... I· . . . .. i .1 ! 35 I---__ ~I_. i 71 ~:I--?l . ~~ I' . . . 45 --. -. -.-.-. ~ -cD ... ~ .... ·::: .. 1::':···:1 ::::':.: 501----------tI+---~_-----t,------,--- ... !~ ... -.... 1 I ....... . . . .. .. . I ... . . ' .. ~ ~I_-----------~C~O~N~T~IN~U~ED~N~E~X~T~S~HE~H~------L----~~~----~----____ -L ________ L-_______ ~-'----------~ 40 • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test IT Thin Wall Sample LEGEND Yl. Ground Water Level ATD o 20 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-109 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 60 I," i \ ., 'J ' "I : "J' . " 'i ; 1· ,1 'I( .l ' ,I 'I, " 'J ,1 I, J, SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 23.3 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 ~ a. OJ o (5 E .c 0. E 0. >-0 (J) 0: ..... .... ..... " , 1-_:__-----:---:---;-----:-----4 66.0 ~: Dense to very dense, dark gray, clean to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, trace of gravel; wet; scattered organics; scattered shell fragments in sample S-24; (HaC) SP-SM/SP. Flakes of ash. Flakes of ash. '. , ..... . .... " , ' .. .... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ' .. ..... .... ' .. '. , I--V-e-ry-d-e-n-se-,-d-a-r-k-g-ra-y-,-g-r-av-e-I-Iy-S"-A-N-D-a-n-d-.-1 97.0 ~':' '" Q) 0.. E III (J) 19II 20I sandy GRAVEL; wet; trace of silt; :0:' ~ h numerous shell fragments' (Hb) SP/GP. ./'" 100.5 p;,:; 27:::C ~ BOTTOM OF BORING ~ COMPLETED 8/1/2003 i3 :.; .. cx: i ~ .... • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test TI Thin Wall Sample LEGEND 5l Ground Water Level ATD u:: ~ a. Q) Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) • Blows per foot o 0 20 .to 60 -.. . 60 ------1-------0-1---.-.. -.... -- I I 1 i i i ----.-L---------.-. __ ._ 65 -------.- I • .~~ I i -----,.,I---4D -J--·------· .... --,~~ i I ! I 70 75 --1-·_--- I i 80 -------: :-' :-+-~ '--:-~._i.----.. -------:-: I I .. 1 ------+-•. _----! 85 :1 \'\:: : I I : . : 90 '----.-+1 ~-·---f-I - I 1\ 95 ---C.---e----.-. f-I-. ----. -63- : : I: 105 ~.'-. -r' , -. ,-. +-"-:-50/6-- , .. : :, '" I ' , I , I 1------+-------+'-.----- 100 o ·1 I : I 1 : I 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Contant Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-1 09 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 60 1,1 I I,~ I Ii I I Ci ,; IJ II: SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 23.2 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Very loose to loose, brown, slightly clayey to clayey, fine sandy SILT; moist; scattered organics; scattered iron oxide staining between 5 and 6.5 feet below ground surface (bgs); scattered dark gray fine sand lenses; (HeD) ML. Very loose, dark gray, slightly silty to silty, slightly clayey, fine SAND and fine sandy SILT; wet; (HeD) SP-SM/ML. Very soft to soft, gray, slightly clayey, fine sandy SILT and silty CLAY with layers of slightly silty, fine sand; wet; layers of silty, clayey peat between 17.5 and 19 feet bgs; scattered to numerous organics; (He D) MUCUOL. Medium dense to dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, trace of coarse sand and fine gravel; wet; scattered lenses of slightly clayey silt; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; (HaD) SP-SM. Dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, trace of coarse sand; wet; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; scattered shell fragments between 50 and 51.5 feet bgs; (HaC) SP-SM. BonOM OF BORING COMPLETED 8/4/2003 LEGEND u: .c C. OJ 0 8.0 16.5 24.7 43.0 51.5 '0 .0 E >-U) ..... '. ..... '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. " '. '. r:- E en -0 OJ C Qj 0. a. 0. ~- 6 E o III (5~ III a:: U) ~ :-. ~ 0 0 0 0 0 • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test II Thin Wall Sample [BJ Piezometer Screen and Sand Fitter ~ Bentonite-Cement Grout ~ Bentonite Chips/Pellets ~ Bentonite Grout '!l Ground Water Level ATD :! Ground Water Level in Well u: .c C. Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) • Blows per foot OJ o 0 20 40 60 .1. , I ~_ ,I. 5 v~---f--.-~+----- 'I .. ' ,·,I·NP·" 10 ' 0-----' ~ , , i . : : : I 151----------+i.----------,~!-'~.~'----.--- J~ • ';..'" .. l, . ::1 11 ,',.,:::: :-1" . ., ,. I ' . , 25 ..• ;-, -'-'-'-'-'--' -I i .. '1 ... :::." ::I::~:::: :::' .. ::: 30, ... 1 .. 4-"1' ..... It{······ 35 "",.,. ." :l" ,I·",·· " . ... : : : :. .:::"\.': I : . : : : . : : : 409__._·· •. i ••.•••••• . . . . , " 'I'·"·'··· ~ 45 8, .... , ...... ~ .. ~ ..... , ... :."-::.' -:-:\:-: ::.-:: .. : 50 .~--~--------I , ...... " , ................ , o 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-110 MW 60 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 , , I···" i -~ I Ii I' I I)i I I. I " , I I, ,- I' I ' , ~ ;: , -.; I " .~ • .1 SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 22.4 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Loose, brown, fine sandy, slightly clayey to cfayey SILT, trace of coarse sand; moist; scattered organics; scattered iron oxide u: .r:. a. Ql 0 i'"staininq; (HeD) ML. ./ 4.5 Loose to very loose, gray, slightly silty to silty, fine SAND and fine sandy, clayey SILT; moist to wet; scattered iron oxide staining between 5 and 9 feet below ground surface (bgs); scattered organics; (HeD) I\SP-SM/SM/Ml. J Loose to medium dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine SAND; wet; (HaD) SP-SM. Loose to medium dense, dark gray, slightly silty to silty, fine SAND; wet; scattered seams and layers of clayey silt; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; approximately 5-to 7-inch-diameter logs between 22.5 and 26.5 feet bgs; trace of coarse sand between 30 and 31.5 feet bgs; (HaD) SP-SM/SM. BonOM OF BORING COMPLETED 8/4/2003 12.0 19,5 31.5 '0 E '" Ql .c a. 0.. E a. E >-ci en aI a: en o 11 ',' 0 21 '. 0 '. 31 '-0 41 '. 0 51 " 0 ..... 61 '. 71 '. 81 '. ..... 91 '. 101 ..... '. 111 '. 121 "C .... C Ql ::1-o til C3~ Yl '" ~ 'i: 0 '" " '" ::J 0 u:: ..r:.. 0. Ql 0 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) .... Blows per foot 20 40 I ! i i .: .. I ' , 60 'II! ...... 1. " _ ... 1 5 ~ .-~-~ -t~---:l-' . -~---~-- 10 .••... ~~~ •• 1.--+.--- ! .! I I ,I I 15 ------I ----O-'-'Ii------ "I' "! '" "I' , I' ,. ,I 20 ___ ,_ '" I ' ~ __ .. ,. __ ; i ,I i: .: , I ' , I 25 ----_____ L___ l ____ .... ----- , I ", ! , , I ' , , ! ".1 . . . ! i '/ 30 .. -----------+-------t-----.--, i I , I ! • • 1 .. 'j 351------,-,-,+I-,-,-,'----,,~I--, -, ---,-,--,-, . I . . . . . . . ~153 '!,.. ".1 " 40~--'~·-'-'-'-'~I--'-.. -----+I--------1 ,! .. , •• ,' ,I ' " '" I ' . . I . . . , , I, 'I 45 -----~~I, ",I , " " , , I ' , , , , ' , , , 1 ' , ' 'I" " " ~ __ _ 50 ----, I ' ... 1 ' : • : : ' ~ ...... I.' ..... ' I " ~~----------------------____ _L __ -L_L~ __ _L ______ ~_'_'_ .. _' ___ ,_,~I,_, __ ,_'_-_'~~'_' __ '_'_'~ ~ iii l-e (!) 0.: ~ W I- 2 (!) '" <D M '" 9 N • Sample Not Recovered I Standard Penetration Test LEGEND ~ Ground Water Level ATD o 20 40 60 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-111 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 I I I I I I I I, I I; I; SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 23.3 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Loose, brown, slightly clayey, fine sandy SILT; moist; trace of fine gravel; scattered organics; scattered iron oxide staining; soil description based on soil cuttings; (HeD) ML. u: .r::. 0. Q) 0 I--:-In-:-te-r"-b-ed-:-d"-e-:d:-, -so-:f::-t,-g-ra-y-,-c-=-Ia-y-e-y -:::S:-:CILC-::T~an-d""---l 7.0 very loose, silty, fine SAND; moist to wet; scattered organics; scattered iron oxide stainina; (HeD) MUSM. t--==:..:.:t.!..l.:..!.=L.:..::.=='--______ -J 12.0 Very soft to medium stiff, gray, clayey SILT; wet; trace of fine sand; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; (5 E en Q) .c 0-0.. -~ 0-E CIJ 6 III 0::: CIJ II- 21' 0 31 0 41 0 51 0 61 "O~ u: Standard Penetration Resistance c: Q) (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) ::J-.r::. o III 0. (5~ Q) A Blows per foot 0 0 20 40 60 . I . . ... . j ; , ·1 I 5·--------; -----j---..... -.. -....... - 10 I ." . i .I·!I-. . . . . . . I . . . .. . I .~ ___ . ____ .... ___ . I ." I· . .! •.. I: ... ·1 : 15 -.. _-I. I--h- '¥ 0> .S ~ c 0> c: .c: :> c layers of silty clay; layers of peat between 17.5 and 21.5 feet below ground surface .... I .•••• · 71 :' 82 (bgs); grading to clayey, fine sandy silt below about 22 feet; (HeD) MUOL. t--:-M"-e-d:-:-iu-m:--d-e-ns-e-,-d"-a-:rk:--g-ra-y-, -s7:"ilt-y-, f-:-:-in-e~S-o-A-:-N-:::D:--;-j 24.5 ~ wet; scattered lenses of clayey silt; (HaD) J 26.5 I \SM. BODOM OF BORING COMPLETED 8/5/2003 81 91 101 20-- 25·· _____ ~I __ -j I: .1 . i . . . • . 1 . : o---!!--------------...... : 1"&: :: . -: I .. : I·· -.: I 30----------!-------+-----.---.-----·1· .. ... i ... , ...... I . . . . I' .... '11 351-'-'-'-'-' -' '_'_LI_'_' _. ---+-1-------- ~ .~-----'-.---+-I~: '::::: _ .. __ : : : . : : I : : .. : : . : : I : : : . : : : : I : : : : : : : . : ,. 45 -I -----i--------.-... --~ -....... 1·······1 ~ .. :::: :'<-::-1 ~117 ; 50 ----: -: -; -; -: -. -: 1-1-'-'-:-:-:-:-:-:-+--:-< -- ~------------____________ -L __ -L-L~ __ -L ______ ~ ________ L-______ ~ ______ ~ • Sample Not Recovered I StandardPenetration Test LEGEND NOTES .sz Ground Water Level ATD 1. The boring was performed using Mud Rotary drilling methods. 2. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. 3. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials. 4. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. o 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-112 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 ~ 6. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG A-13 60 a: 5. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes and definitions. 1 « Geotechnical and Environmental Consuhants • ~~------------------------------------------------~----------------------~----------~ I r 1 I' 'I' I' I, 11 I 1"" SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx, 19,0 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Stiff to soft, brown-gray, trace to slightly sandy, clayey SILT and silty CLAY; moist; layers of medium dense, slightly silty, gravelly sand between 3.8 and 5 feet; scattered to numerous organics and wood u:: .s:::. E. Q,) 0 1"\ fragments; scattered iron oxide staining; r 7.0 1 \(HeD) MUCl. Very soft to medium stiff, gray, clayey SILT; moist to wet; trace of fine sand; scattered Nenses of clayey peat; scattered to f numerous organics and wood fragments; ~H~e~D~)M~H/~O~H~. ________________ ~ Very loose to medium dense, dark gray, trace to slightly silty, fine SAND; wet; f\ scattered lenses of clayey silt; scattered I \~~o~ro~ia~ni~cs~;~(lH~a~D~»)~S~P~/S~P_-~S~M~. ______ ~;- Medium dense to dense, dark gray, fine to medium SAND; wet; trace of silt; grades to trace of coarse sand with depth; (HaD) SP. 12.0 19.5 I-----=B=O=TT=O~M:-:-::O:-::F:-::B::-::O::-::R:::I-:-:N-:=G------l 26.5 COMPLETED 8/5/2003 "0 E U) Q,) .0 a. a. E a. E >-0" en «I a:: C/) 0 ,I 0 2I 0 3I 0 4I '. .. sI-..... :.: :: ..... :.: :: sI 0 ..... :.: :: ..... 7I :.::: ::.::;.; ..... eI :.: :: ..... :.: :: 9I ..... :.: :: 2 lOI "0,-c: Q,) ::J-0«1 53: 5l C> J! 'E 0 C> c 'r:: " 0 u:: Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 3D-inch drop) .s:::. E. Blows per foot A Q,) 0 0 20 40 60 • I 5-------,·---f·---·-•• r-f -o--__ ~- , i ' : :: I' : 4 ::2 10 f· i, : t:: 15 ,--~j -' ~-: :_' L-' '-' -' '.-' , I :::.:.1:.:::' I : I : ' : :' I I' I 20 ------,-----'---,----.- I I I .":. i l .. :', ! -,----!'----i i 25 I I 30 -----------1'-----' -, -f-I----:-:I 1 __ ,-, '---il_' '_'_'1 351------[ " """ I I , I I, . . . ~ .... i 40 ! " "" ,1" I: ! 45~~--j ••••.... ~ 50 1-: :-3 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ : : : : : ~""I"" .. " ",,,, !~----------------------~---L~~--L------L-"---'-,-,~,i-,-,-,,-'-'-"-'~"-'-'-"-'-'1' LEGEND • Sample Not Recovered 'Sl Ground Water Level ATD I Standard Penetration Test o 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardiSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-201 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 60 \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ .... ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 20.0 Ft. Datum: NAVD88 Very dense, brown and gray, slightly silty to silty, gravelly SAND; moist to wet; scattered iron oxide staining; (Hf) SM. u: .r: a. Q) 0 I--=S-:ti'O":"ff-to-sO-'f:-t,-g-ra-y-, -sl:-:-.It-y-:C:-:-LA-:-:-y.,..;-w-e-t;----~ 7.0 numerous lenses of peat; scattered to numerous organics and wood fragments; (HeD) Ct..JOl. I--:-M-:-e-d-:-i'-u-m-d-en-s-e-t-o-d-:-e-n-s-e-,-d-a-r'-k-g-ra-y-,-----1 17.0 trace silty to silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; layers of fine sandy silt; grades to fine to coarse sand with depth; (HaD) SP/SM. (5 .0 E >-en .. .. ..... :-::: ...... :-: :: ..... :.: :: ..... :.:.-: ..... :-::: 1-------::=-==::-:-::-==-=--=-=::-:-::-:--=:------1 26.5 S BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 8/5/2003 E C. c. 0 a: o o o o U) Q) 0.. E co en 3I*j 4I*~ ·c 51 c5 61 71 81 91 101 "0 ~ u: Standard Penetration Resistance c: Q) (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) :J-.r: o co a. ,,3: A Blows per foot Q) 0 0 20 40 60 • 73 i i 190/11" 5 ----~-·--I--. --i.-. _ •••• _. . . . . . . . I. . I . . ... 10 . i ____ +; __________ • i i ! 'Ii ~ i . ~ . I I 15 I . _______ ;, ___________ .. 72 ~I ! .. ! .' I .. I· ! , 20. -li l .-4l--_: " I 25 ---------~ -e '----1-----------1 ...... , ... , ",. I I . , 30 -----.----;-'. -----.-+'-------1 i. I I . : I .. 35-------·+1------·-·~1 -------I I.. .,"" · I " .. . . . · , . .. .. . . . 40 1 --'--: mil •• · .........,. · ......... I' .. 45 .1 .. . --. +,-.--. --.. -.--. -. _. .. t--". _.. '1 I . :: :: :: :: 50----~ ~I-------------------~--~~-~--~---------L--------~------~-----__i e '" i'j b (!) Q. :::!: w to-.., Q. ~ '" <0 M '" 9 N Sample Nol Recovered I Siandard Penetration Test LEGEND ~ Ground Water Level ATD o 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Strander BoulevardlSW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-202 February 2004 21-1-09369-002 60 n Ii I I I ) I I I I I I I' I I ~ &.; 0 ~ I, s N oJ, IT ... iii I til 0 i I II ~ 1: 0 III N 0 :l: I" ~ ~ ... . ;i N I' ~ co .., CD ~ I~; ;i 01 C C! I!! § I~ ;,; ~ I ~ RITTENHOUSE-2EMAN & ASSOC., INC. ~ Geotec/",icnl / l/ydrogeologicnl COl/sllllmlls BORING NUMBER_!:.!_f:~lntfnued) W.O. W-5Z63 PROJECT NAME Tukwfla Jack fn the Box SOIL DESCRIPTION s= ~ ~ a.. 11/ Ground Surface Elevation Approximately Flat Q ~ _______ iiiiiii ____ ~40 Hedfum dense to dense, saturated, dark gray, ffne to coarse SAND Total Depth 44 feet COmpleted 22 June 1907 SAMPLING I ~ 00 SPUT SPOON SAMPlE U r CD SHELBY SAMPLE ~ 2.5" I) RING SA/.f'lE 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 80 I STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE A BLOWS PER FOOT (140 lb. hammer. 30 Inch drop) o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 eo 90 100 _ ._ . .--J ___ ._, ___ . '." 1-.------'----, ---.... -·I~~~z~ ~' -- I--+--i--r--r--~~~-~~~-~-- .--... --'''-"-'--'-.--... _-----.. -----,---.--. -. --.. --4--4--+--4--+--+--+--+--- --+-,1--r--: -~--I-_I·-4_- -_. --. ., '--'-1---,- '---. _.--f---' -----. -,--_ .. _., -, --,_ ....... --.-_.- .. -.. ----.----. _. -+---1-+--1--+--'----... _, --.-. _._. -,- LABORATORY TESTS • " WATER CONTENT NP NON PLASTIC 8 Bt!LK SAMPlE GROUND WATE~ SEAL DATE WATER LEVEL AT T1t.£ OF DRILLING A 0 OBSERVATION I • 1-LIQUIO LIMtT !. '--NATUUL WATER CONTENT PLASTIC LIMIT * SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED WELL TIP Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-301 October 2003 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A-19 GeoIachnIcal and Environmental Consultanlll Sheet 2 of 2 I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I· 0 5- 10 - ... 15- w w u.. :z: .. J: ... a. ~ 20- 25 - 30 - 3S - 40- .. f N I ~ , o TESI'DATA BORING· 16 • .... • • UJ :J • • :!c .... • ... .... ...-I .... .... DESCIUPTION .... ?~'-JC a. Group 23 II "'c-D:! E • DD~ .0 .. 0 • S""bol Surf .... E1"""tion (CL): ~. -' J:tJ " cc~ DIU 111 : > ~ .:: .IMLI ",Ic<bedded rlllC .. Ddysdt &lid silty rlllc.."d ",,'I roo" loclt, 0 . SM ~,moiol) .. . . .. . ",' .. MD 33 78 3 • . ",':'. ",' . :. ",'. :;~ ML Gny sUI wilb rIDe .. ad ("",yoc(, 10 soh, "':1) I-S 1 • -11 1 • 1-1~ ~ ML Gny 'ill with IclUU or peat (OCCI, ""'I) MD f>l 61. .3 • f-20 ~ • Gndu 10 .. ith leasc.s or linc ... Rd 1-25 sr Black IiDC to medium und (medium dense, ""I) "1!1 •• , 1-30 MD 14 101 31 • 1-35 0 J '-40 Note: See Fi""" A·l Cor e.<plonalion or IY"lbol.e ~~ Log of Boring Geo ~~ Engineers Figure A-34 Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-302 October 2003 21-1-09369-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-20 GeoI8chnicaI and Envtronmental Consultants Sheet 1 of2 r -: I: iESrDATA BORING 16 I • (Continued) ~ • • L4J ~ • • :11: ~ • ... .... -4_ , ... ... DESOUPTlON ... :I~~ lC IL J) .... c-D:! == • DDX L.D -4D .J 01-DO~ IIIU II) I I 40 ::~:~~? 4 14 0 :\::: 45-:}~/ f-4 :-~":.:.: l I ko SP -amy fiIl~ """ with Wt and • tn. .... of o:pnic matt:r (m:di:om U • SM dcmc;wct) o· . o . .. . 50 -o· . f-5( o· 0 I o· 0 o. MD 23 101 lD • o· . ... o. 0 I ... 55-0" _. f-55 w .·0 W : tI. o· . Z .·0 G%d:s tD cand with &hdI ~ H U ~ .·0 I Z o . ... o· . D. :g 60-... ,....60 · . Ml..! G%31r= """1ml tDsihy~cand (m=-stiff.laasc. _I) : : :SM · . I ·0 6 • · . : ·0 : I 65-~:.: SM amy silty ~ and (m:dium Itt=. wet) f-65 : ·0:-: .:: .. - /. 22 • -: .. -.'. -:---, I 0 '. 70- -;-: ,....70 SP-Gray ~""" with Wt (d=. om) o. SM :i .·0 I: c 0 :5 ~ ... ]§I • '-'.; !larinl =p!ct::d &l iU f=l 0%1 I2/6f1O 75- G=d..-r =fMPd &l appmrim.tr!y 6 kd dmiDI driIIiD& .... 75 0 I 0 ... rb ~ --l!i e CI 0 i 80--80 Nat:: Sa fip= A-2 far • I lill ,of.",maa .; I "" ~ -z::: 0 m ... ~ ... '" Geo.Engineers Log of Boring FIgUre A-35 I' .., ... q --. ; Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street N 0 I~ q ." '" ... ... ~ T- o ~ Improvements Renton and Tukwila. Washington LOG OF BORING 8-302 1-g> == £! ~ .l!i I-~ u: 0d0ber2003 21-~ SHANNON & WILSON. INC • I FIG. A-20 GeoIIIchnIcaI and Env!ronmenIaI ConsuItanls Sheet2of2 , . .., II I: I 1-: I I I I I I 1- 0 < I CD c 0 -E ~ .., I 8 j! ~ -- I .s -til 0 => ~ I .. => :: -:: 0 m w 0 <;> I '" '" .., '" "9 --, ; N I. q '" '" .., '" 9 --I~ ; '" .: i2 I!! 0 .!: I-~ -= ~ BORING NO. B LapdBy~ . o.te 7-8-87 ELEV. -S'! US Depth (N) w G nph CS Soil Description 1ft.) Sample Blows (%) Ft. F:?·~ 1/2-sod !OW-Tan gravelly silty SAND with scattered I 38 9 t~:7~ SUI cobbles, dry l-S 'I 6 18 Hoi.st below 1', gray be~ 2. S' qu-l.Otsf I 3 85 llrownish-gray organic: SII.T, moist, LL-68 .oh Zl!ediUD stiff . I-10 I 48 PI-6 PUSH li~~ Interbedded with ~t 11' to 14' ][ I POSH ~ ...... 1S 42 . ~ . ' lZ I 16 29 mJ.-Interbedded gray clayey SILT and blac:k ~ 20 SID silty SAND, wt, mecUUZII dense I 16 28 f-25 -----" Gray SILT. nan-plastic:. dense, wet, I 5 34 -JIll. 3-lAyer clayey ~'. 29.S' I-30 ·32..s -I 12 23 Gray.ub-hlack silty fine to medium I-35 SAND, wet., medium dense im sm I 17 24 Hitll shell fra9Jo1l!llts belov 37.5' III ~ roo 40 T 21 :!1 Boring "te=:i.nated at 44 .feet belov existing 9%"ade. GroWldwater encoUl'.tered at 17 .feet daring allling. Boring bat::kfj,.l.led wi~ cul:tings. -. .. " s -. .-...... ~----.. • .aa.L ............. ,........._:'1-. .. _ ; --... .... -=-~-.. .... _ .. _---. --- BORING LOG PllOPOSEl) WAa£BODS£ • EI:5!'01i, WASH I NGN!iI Earth ' \ i. Ccn:tsult:aDts lDc. I:: . =TECHNICAL EHGlNEE"' ....• GEOLOGY Pmj. No. 3453 Date .July'S7 Pbrte 5 Stmnder Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-3D3 October 2003 21-1-09369-002 ,-, f ! I' I; I Graph I I I i ~ I I I I 0 <: II) I c 0 :; ~ .., I g N rA ~ .... .s ." I 0 => I iii I => :: -:: .. m N ::> " C> 1-m .., C> ~ ;i N ::> I: " C> m .., C> g .... ;i I; C> c:: == l!! ~ ~. 1--E: BORING NO. ____ AI.-- l.oggedBy~ Date 7-7-87 ElEV. -s'!:· us CS Soil Description 1/2-top:;oU Gray gravelly SAND with scattered cobbles. mo!.st. dense (fHl) Depth (ft.) I-5 Brownish-gray clayey SILT vlth~~~~e4ec-10~ organic matter. moiat. soft Gray sandy SII.T, vet, loose B!ack fin~ to llledima SAND, Wet, =edium dense I-15 I-30 I I ]I J[ ][ _I I I eN) B.OWI Ft. 48 26 POSU POSH PUSH 23 8 20 w (", 7 14 :225 US 54 ~! 53 28 LL-46 1'1-8 ~0.2:Stsf I 3 24 SID _G.!.a.i. cla.1!X SAND.,: wet, very soft. with _,,,, - --scattered ~e.l - I 14 n Gray silty SAND with shell ~ragmen~. wet, medi= dense --I-40 T 16 22 Boring te=iDatel! at 44 feet below existing grads. Croundwa~ encctmterea-at 9.5 feet daring drilling. l.-PVC 1Standp1pP. in£tall.ed to bottcm cif bor'...ng. Lower 10 fert dotted. BoriD9 backfilled wi::h- atttings. Water level; on 7-~7 va. 6~B feet. • Vertical &tu:: nnknow:'}. Devr.ions dete-DIIined vith r~ to a tempora=:y bench ~1t. the top of the n;-.rth side o~ Sou1:hwen 27th Street, .t all AS5UZIIIU! elevauOJO ::!: ~.O feet • .......... I_.-...-:._ .... __ ......... ~----= ... e .~..,......, .......,-,.-ra..--_ '"' , ____ _.___ ___ l J._--J ., ___ _ bi _~. BOfUNG LOG PllOPOS£D WAi!£iWUS£ m::Nl'OH, v:.SB IRG:tU!i Pro]. No. 3453 J Daa .luly·87 Plata 4 Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-304 October 2003 21-1-09369-002 I I· I I I I I I I I I I 'I I ;· .' I i Li ... o o :b q .... .... .s III o ; N -0 Ii' m ... "" TestPlt Log PrtIjecl Nama: S.W. 27TH Street Warehouse of 1 . ~ I Job No. \1..Dggsd by: 3453-4 DSL I ea;;~/94 Test Pit No.: TP-1 ~ ExcavaIIon Cantactor. Evans Brothers Construction Ground Surface a.vatIon: ± Notes: u W .r; Q. ('K.) III ~ Bi 4.4 -:; GI -o -eno ~ Q.": ~ U.J:I ene ;,IplLca ~;,I en CD C/l Sur1aca Conditions: Grass SM .f!!,!; Brown silty fine to coarse SAND with gravel, medium dense, mcist ~ 11-- 2 1--. SJ>-St,! .f!!,!; Brown poorly graded medium to coarse SAND with sill and gravel, medium dense I-- 31-- f-: 4 I-- I-- 51-- I-- 61--- 7-- FU.1.; Gray poorly graded medium to coarsa SAND with silt 8~~~i-~~~~ii~m~=~~~~~e~~~~~~ __ ~~~~ __ ~~~~ ____ -i I PEAT Dart< brown IitImus PEAT intert>etIr:ted with ~ sill, soft to mediwn stifI, wet to -aatwated 91.1 t!L l!.!l 9- 46.1 - 11~4-~4-~~~~~--~~~----~------------------------~ '--MI.. Gray SD..T, soft to medium 1IIiff, saluratad t2~ I-- 13,-- I-- 14 t-T---T--'TT.8S1~pi1ii"t;t&i;;;Ii;!;m;;;:iII1Sd~a1;;t1:14iitaeti;;;rtbbelaw;;i;;;;;;;d·i;i5i;;'Q;:Q;;;':;;;a,:j;;!w;:-. \Av...y;;;:;;,;;jllh;;;iOI~;=;;;;;;;md>;;;d;;_;;;t;;;-;_;;;;;;;pa;;Q;;.;---1 enca.mtsred at 8 teet durin; ex:cava!ion. t ~ ~,r-------~--~--~--~~--~-----------r------------------------------------~ Test PH Log &W.27TH Street Warehouse Rimtan.~ Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington ~ j LOG OF TEST PIT TP-301 e October 2003 21-1-O936~02 ~L ________________________________________ ~~~~'!l:-~'and~N:t:~::=.~~:'M~~~.,!,'s_1-t:F]:GL~~~~::~ u: .i' I I I I I I I · . - I I, : .- ;i N o q ; CI ; , 0--c .. Test Pit Log Project Name: S.W. 27TH Street Warehouse Job No. I logged by: 34534 DSl I ea:~/94 Test Pit No.: TP-13 Excavation ConW::tor: Ground Surface 8evation: Evans Brothers Construction ± Notes: qu = 1..25·1.5tsf qu<.5tsf 1111 .J. SM 1 SP-SM - 2-- 3- - 4-- 5-- 6-- 7- r-- B r--U PEAT 9-- lC2.3 :\I:,~ to;=: t!!~ 11 MH r- 12 - r- 13 r- r-- 14 FlU.; Brawn silty SAND with gravel, medlum dense. damp .BY; Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gmvel, med'wm dense, damp -becamas weI .BY; Gray poorly graded SAND with silt Gtay elastic Sll..T, soft to medium stiff. satw'atIItf Test pit wmina1eJ:j at 14 test heIDw existing gratia. Uinor gmundwater ~ em:mmtered a1 as feet during e>c:ava!ion.. of 1 ~It_------~--~--~~--~--~----------,_------------------------------------; .~ TestPltLog S.W.27TH S!r:et Warehouse Renton, Washlngtun Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington ~ ..... LOG OF TEST PIT TP-302 ~ ~ October 2003 21-1-09369-002 E ;L-__________________________________________ l-.SHANNO=~~=ma~~=-=!:.~:::SO~~::~::~I~F1~EL~~~~~~ , , I; I I I I I I I I I I~ ~ I 1: D :; :> < .., I 0 0 j! q ~ ~ .. S '" I 0 ... I .s I ii: -;; ." i- N 0 q e> I .., .., e> q ~ . ; N I ~ e> .., .., e> ~ I~·~ ; .., ~ E ~ I,~ ~ E: . Test Pit Log Project Name: S.W. 27TH Street Warehouse -I Jab No. I Logged by: .i 34534 DSL Excavation Cantactor. Evans Brothers Construction 4..7 13.6 1D8..2 ' fi ' t!tt..!l ,~ . .u •• 51.2 - 1- - 2- ,.-- 3~ ~ .. f- r-- 5 f- f- 6f- f-- 7f- r-- 8 f-- 9 f-- f-- 10 f-- f-- 11 f-- r-- 12 - 13 -- 14 ,.-- - 15 SP-SLl PEAT Ml I ~~/94 Swface CondiIiDns: Grass Test Pit No.: TP-2 Ground Surface 8evation: ± cf 1 ..flY,; BnIwn paady graded medium to coarse SAND wilh silt and gravel. medium dense, moist Dark brown IibIuus PEAT intetbedded wilh organic silt. SDIt tD medium aliff, _ to satura!etI Test pit II!IminaIetI at 15 feet beIaw existing grzde. Minar grtIII!Idwater seepage em:mmtemf at 75 feel during ex::ava!Ian. Test Pit Log S.W.27lH Street Warehouse Renton, WashlngtDIi Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street tmpmvernents Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF TEST PIT TP-303 October 2003 21-1-09369-002 r I; I; I I' I, I; I I' I; I; 1\ ~ 1:-II) c D :; ::J < .., 1:-0 0 N rb c;> ~ ~ 1\ .§ '" 0 e ~ .; I' e ::: ~ D m N 0 c;> 1:-tI> ... .., tI> c;> ~ . ; N li-0 9 tI> ... .., '" ~ ; 1\ "" ::: i2 ---l!! ~ I iii ll- • I"DRILlING COMPANY: Holocene DRIWNG METHOD: HSA. split spoon sampler SURFACE ElEVATION: 20 ~ mt CD til <{ ...J U ;;; ...J OJ i5 ... til :t 0 t: III ~ ::E I- UI > til C CD <{ 0-SM -- .. SM 25- 30- DESCRIPTION Loose to medium dense, dark yeDowish brown, slightly graveDy, silty SAND, moist. Fine to coarse sand. Fine to coarse subroumled gravel. Trace organics, grass, roots. lAW Loose to medium dense, dark grayish brown, silty SAND, moist to wet. Fine to medium sand. Trace organics, grass. (AllUVIUM) AI 27.5 feet grades to very stiff SILT with traee of fine sand. Contains trace fibrous organics matter. AI 32.5 feet grades to dark gray, sandy SILT, wet.. Fine sand. Trat:e sheDs in sampler tip. ~S-1 7-7-7 3-4-S 1-2-3 2-2-4 5-2-9 ~ s-6 5-11-13 2-2-1 en I-en w l-n:: w :I: I-o GS LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 4/27198 LOGGED BY: MB a: w !;{ Standard Penetration Resistance ~ (140 lb. weight. 30' drop) ;;; .. C A Blows per foot Z X E t: a: w o 0 '0 20 30 40 50 c .-~~,-,--,-,-,~~~~O ~:::::. A1 'I ~+-~~~-+~~--~~i~5 1.1 ~+-~~~~~+-+-~~-i~~'o , : : ... :. . ~.;.'>. /'1 ~+-~~~--~+-+-~~--1~'5 r ~: ii ~+-~~~~~+-+-~~~~20 : I:. l.~ I ! ~+-~~~---;~+-+-+~-i 1-25 ~+j _,--;j~' _·~i ~_,6;-,:~+-+-~~~ f-30 : AI::: i ~ ~+-~~~-+~~---;~~i~35 ~ : : j-~ ! I L-~~~~~~~~~~~L-~4D o 20 40 SO SO 100 w= Cantmtt IS) Plastic l.imIt I • I tiquid limit NatutaI Wan:r Content ND1t:. This bg of ~ =mxIitians appfias only at tlIe s;>e:ifie:Ilocathm and on the date inIficIIted \.. and therefma may ant ~ be imIicative 01 ather times Jml1Im lm::a!iIms.. -HWAGEOSCIENCESlNC SW 27th Street Culvert Replacement Renton, Washington BORING: BH-2 PAGE: 1 of 2 Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-305 October 2003 21-1-O936~02 . .. 1\ I: I· I: I· I: I I I I I I 0 <C I·-m 1: 0 :5 ~ <C I ... 0 0 !b ~ T" .9 I m 0 ... ~ .,; I ... :s::: ""'" 1:) m N 0 q rD I .., .... rD q T" . ; N I -0 q rD .., ... rD ~ I.J ; ... £; == E ~ I, j;! E -/DRllUNG COMPANY: Holocene DRlWNG METHOD: HSA. spm spoon sampler SURFACE ELEVATION: 20 ~ Feet :r Ii: w c tn tn « -' I.J -' -' 5 o tn '" ::E ::E ~ >-I/) tn « DESCRIPTION 4~~~,-----------------------~ If :':'SP .... 45-.'. 50- .... -'.- .' : ' .. -.-. -'.- -°0 - 55-'::.:. -0-0 Ir w w ~;;; '" w ::E «'" ... ~.:: >-::> !!?£ ~ Z w W tn", -' -' w_ Ire ... ... .~ ::E ::E Zo « « w- '" I/) ... a W10 12·12-16 ~S-11 15-23-29 ~~~·.~~L--L ______________________________ ~~S-12 ~15-20 65- 75- End of borehole a1 59.0 feet. Grll1.mliwllter seepage encountered at 17.5 feet at time of boring. '" ~ tn w ~ Ir W :::t ~ 0 LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 4/2719B LOGGED BY: MB Ir w ~ « ~ 0 Z :;I 0 a: 0 Standard Penetration Resistance 1140 lb. weight. 30· drop' 0; A Blows per foot ~ :r ~ ... 0 10 20 30 40 50 9 r-~~~~~~~~~~'-40 .. ie .. : .: i Ai I-.~-'i~+-l -i-'!f-+-! ·-4---'~~-I-45 :.r lAl I I ~+-~~-+-+~---'~~~r50 1e1': 1>' ~ i . 1-~" 1-+-~~-+-+~--~~+-l~r50 I-+--+--+-+--~-l-+--+--+-I -55 ~'+-i'_'+-+-+-+-~~~~'~'4~~ 1-+-~~~~~-+--+--+-41-75 !--,-~_i,-._~,="; -'--:3:---'----'----l~ ~Btl o 20 4l) 50. Btl 100 Water Cmlt!!nt (%) PIas1ic limit I • I 1.iquid I.lmit Nimmd Water Conwn I NOTE: TIns IDv ms:ttb:surfal:o! camIitirms ~unIy at the ~ I=ation and an the date indicated " 8m:! t!mrefmB amy not nel2SAriIy be indiI:at:ive of :tther times am1ltIr IDcatixms.. ~ SW 27th Street Culvert Replacement HWAGEoSCIENCESlNC Renton, Washington BORING: BH-,2 PAGE: 2 of 2 Strnnder Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-305 October 2003 21-1~9369-002 r 1 ! ; Ii I: I i I I I I I I: I I 0 <I: III I c 0 :; ~ .;, I-s ... rb ~ ~ I jj .. 0 = ~ ~ to I .., ::: -: 0 m ... l:> q C> 14 ... .., C> q ~ . ; ... I~ 0 q C> ... .., C> ~ I-j ; = ~ e ~ I-~ .i? E: /ORlUJNG COMPANY: Holocene • DRIUJNG METHOD: HSA. sp6t spoon sampler SURfACE ELEVATION: 21:t Feet OJ = -' :I: 0 t: '" ~ w > C rn 0 -' : -' 5-: : III rn « -' u -' 5 (/) ~ t-(/) « SM DESCRIPTION 7-asphalt concrete. Medium dense to very dense, dark yellowish brown, slightly gravelly, silty SAND. moist. Fine to coarse sand. Fme to coarse. angular to subrounded gravel (AW c:: w w u_ '" z .. w ~ «" n. t-.&: > :::> "'~ t-Z til; w w -' ..... w_ Ir .. n. n. . ~ ~~ Zo 04: 04: w-"'", n.:!:! ~S-1 15-28-28 Dark brown silt containing organic matter in ~~.~.~~~m~e_~ ____ 7Up~·~.~ __ ~~~~~=-~~~~S-2 1~17~ // OH Soft, very dark borwn, ORGANIC SILT, moist. 10-Vf" Contains organiCs, wood. leaves, reeds. rj~ rf/;' V-}7 rfh f/ 15-r.fj} rf~ ff .• SM 20-.. 30- 35- Loose to medium dense, dark grayish brown to very dark brown, silty SAND, wet. Fine to medium sand. (AlLUVIUM, 40-~1.l..........1 ________________________ _ 1·1-2 ~S-4 2-7-10 2·5-5 4-4-3 '" t-rn w I- Ir w :I: t-0 LOCAT10N: See MlJUre 2 DATE COMPLETED: 4127198 LOGGED BY: MB 0: w l-<I: ~ 0 Z => a o: CJ Standard Penetration Resistance 1140 lb. weight. 30· drop) 0; • Blows per foot ~ :I: t: w o 10 20 30 40 50 0 r-~~~~~~~~~~~O ~ ; -I 1> ~~~+-+-+-+-~~~~~5 , ",r jAl I ! ~+-~-+-4~,;--~~~-+-4~10 _.1,.: ~. A,.l,:", .. -:'::', •. i ~+-~~-+~~~~~+-~~15 IA ~ ~ ~ ~+-~-+~~~+-~~-+~1~20 , ~ ~ ~ I· ~~~+-+-+-+-~~~~r25 T! Ai ~~~~-+-+~--~~+-4r3D II. i 1 ~+-~~-+-+~--~~+-4r35 ~ "i(1 L-~~~~~~~~~JL~ 2l) 40 50 50 100 o w= C!Jnwtt f'l!,) i"Iasti: Limit I • I liquid 1imiI Natural Water Content NDn: This IDjj of ~ =nditiDns ap;>Iies only lit tm speciIi!:d Im::zni= and on the date inxIiczrted " and.th!=fme >my = ~ !HI inlficative Df 1:tther times andJar Io:::!niIms. ~ um SW 27th Street Culvert Replacement BORING: BH-1 HWAGEoSCIENCESlNC Renton, Washington PAGE: 1 of 2 Strandsr Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila. Washington LOG OF BORING B-306 October 2003 21-1-O936~02 .' ; I I I I I I I I I I 0 < ID l-1.: D :; ~ .., I 0 0 N .b ~ ~ I ~ I 0 f .,; I F --:::: D m N ::> q m 1-, '" .., '" q ~ . ; N I-~ ::> q '" '" .., '" ~ I,~ !ii .., .E = I!! ~ 1,,-· ~ l1. 'DRlWNG COMPANY: Holocene DRIWNG METHOD: HSA, split spoon sampler SURFACE ELEVATION: 21 ± Feet a .. :: t '" c DESCRIPTION 40-r-:':-''-''''-:S=-=P''''--:-:M:-e-::di''-um-d:-en-s-e-t-o-:d-ens-e,-d-:-a-:rt-gray--,-=fin-e-t-o---' .... .... 45-.'-.... -°0 " .' : " .. - 50-- . .... -°0 - .... 55-.'. medium SAND • Encountered some shells. a: w w u_ '" Z" w :E <1:'" n. I-~ >-::l 22.5 I-Z w w "'", ...J ...J w_ n.n. a: .. . ~ :E:E Ze <I: <I: w- '" III ... a ~ 5-9 11-11·13 ~10 6-11-11 ~11 10-16-20 ~:,--,-,'. L...--L... _______________ ..J~12 6-7-5 60- 65- 70- 75- so- End of borehole at 59.0 feet.. Groundwater seepage l1hserved at 17.5 feet at time of boring. '" I-'" w l-a: w :t: I-0 GS LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 4127/98 LOGGED BY: MB a: w l-<I: 3: e Z ::l e a: 0 Standard Penetration Resistance 1140 lb. weight, 3~' drop) A Blows per loot co ; :t: l-ll. W 0 10 20 30 40 50 e r-~~~~~~~~~~~-~40 r 1 -45 , r r-so ,. :.; ~--+--:,:-~-+-+-'~--:----,:-~--I -55 ., j-l ! ! ~ ~~-+~~~+-7-~~0 , , - , I--+-+__+-+~-;.._~-+__+_I -65 ~i . i < : I-+i ~~-;-+-_T_-+-+~-.;-_I -70 I--+--+--+-t~-;-~-+--;-_I -75 I L-~~_L~~~~~~~~IL_SO o 20 40 60 SO 100 Water !::Imt!mt (%) Plastic limil I • I l.iquid Limit Nawzal Water Cement NOTE: This lag of subsurface l:ImIIitions II;liIies anIy at the s;w:ifJell Io::atiDn and un the dale ~ '-mul tImnrlom may ran -=sarlIy be indianive Df other tima and/or lacatians. U~ SW 27th Street Culvert Replacement HWAGEoSCIENCESlNC. Renton, Washington BORING: BH-1 PAGE: 2 of 2 Strander Boulevard I SW 271h Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-306 October 2003 21-1-O936~02 1 I , . , I; I i . I I I I- ·1 I I I ! 1- I 1-. , . I~ I~ I·· 19 '" o i ii SAMPLE DATA i D !I ~ '"5 i: E Ziii .~ .. ~ I ~ ...... .a K E.£ j .& g ! ~;; til 11. ~a J-z -4 1 .1 , a ,-1 -. I .., 7 0 LAI-15 SOIL PROFIU! GROUNDWATER J I DJiIir.g Method: HoIbw-stem Auger E 1 ,... co GIO\lIId EI!mItilIn (ft). JJ '" J I .~ DriDed By: ~ D1~ me: iii ! sPI UgIII-.. IN tD II'IIInIm SNm nil $11 IBm .. (!Dca. wodI (no Ollar. 110 ~ -.. --.. : ~ A-m '. - - M1. -1:_~-mT"~~-·--- d.a=ilQ CoJmcoPhlIIips -Rmmm Tmm1naI Rsnmn. Wasmngtull Log of Bming 1.AI-15 - - - - - - - - rlgl.JlB A-21 ,,~ ~ ________________ --I. ______________________________ L------ Stmruier Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-307 October 2003 21-1-09369-002 .. I ,... ... L, -.u -, ---. ~ -. ~-'-'~l_J •. -- 1'110: 1:\Oraftlnu1211\09369-tl02121.1-tl0360-tl02 tlotlnUB.dwg Odlo: 11.(15-2003 Author: SAC 1116 ~:z: ~ (j) . W 0 I ~ 0 (I ~ !i! ~ r (j) N ..... , :!j 6 (i) to . ~ :P-b ~ ~ m ~ co ~ ~ ~ l! ::J III III t11 a~o Ul ~~~ III ~ ~ ~ r J> tIMlIIIUHt ~11It UDWIM\IJIIM'NT_IIIU~t.MJ lOlL IIItIMO LOG Ii I .... ,. !fl til fIn " til 1....--.1 .fl' 1~ II i s. ttl J. ~ ..... '" !:f (X) '1 I' ,....,....,....., , I ' .....--rr , 1:1 ~ , ... c· r • f .. C LOePII'I (II) , I N Simlill Number I ~ I a. IntllMlt Ii In i I !'. !: Sample, Type II .. " BlIlWSlFool J g II. . ,. I .. II PIO(ppm) I .. -, i: . . .... '. .. .. .. .': .: . .. ... .. ... . . ..' " .... :. ... . . :' O'lphlc Srmbol I I, , I . .I PJ! ,. I 11: 1~! ,I. " I! 1\ II 11 I , i I i I I +::l ~ , , , I uses 8ynilo1' I I, i f g . .t III Al ·Jr ~ II ti J ~ j .. r i III ~ I I 1 ~ Waler LI.,.,t ~ II~ B I .. - -..... -. -.. -. -.-------_. ---_. -. --"'1 _ .. L. \ ~ \ ·.r " ,." " .. " "" ... '. _~ 1:lItI: 1:\OraftlnIl1211\09369.otl2121.1-tl9369.otl2 Sotlnllll,t/wll l:Iulo: 11-tl6-2003 Author: SAC ro I ~ r-~ i o N 0 ::I Z 0 a-tlo 0 G) " " .~ w ~. ~i~ Ii ~ it! N G') :E :E -" til ~ I ~ LQ ~ :r .., . .:, s·:r p;~m ug i t ~ ::1_ o N J> .-. ........... ·~-"'·-"·~'r···""--· "J .---! . 1. . i ! ~ti~lh t~1 Ii I r' I • I I~.==_, i ~ i~fl" Ii.: ~ SIrr"li,Type ~ It ~ I ;: Blawe/Fao\ )jo t, . If ~ 1---1 I U I ,II' 0 D Plo (ppm) ft ~ 0 f i ~ .;i :' :' ": ." .. ' '. . ..... ': .~ .... : : : .... : '.' '" OraphklSyrTlbat J ~ , J l' ~l' . ....... . . .' .... '. '.. " '. .' ... '. II! uses S,mbol Ii i .1, 1 ., (II JT: IS I I J , lif!~ J! ~ n ! II' ~ if I ~ f I ~ IJ Ii fl ~ ~ ~ . it ~ 11 .~ I ~~i --------~--~~~ ~ .' .......... ' ......... '. ' .. '. ':.~ .... ,' .... : ......... 'I~."l' .. ~~IIf~1 .... • ........... " ',.,' ... ~ • '.' .," ....... ~ 0,' ••.••• J;~'. •.. ~. ~"\~"6~:~"':';"'. I"'· .,1.. • ..• , .. .... , ' IIIIIIJI II 1IJ1 III II III III mmrr rmfI 111111111 II III III 111111111 I ~J CO) ". . . ',' .. ' '.' ..... ' ". " .. '. ". . • ;u . ." '. '."t, .. ::.:,' .• ; .. .,. ' . .1,-~. 0 I lUi I I,(nd I I l" :n I f~1 i ~h ill ~ ~1 D! .~ I I I I I, 1 I -.----•. _., -. --. - - --.• _ .. , •.. -.. --.. ~ ~'.; ~ I.".... • • 1 \ , FiltH 1:IOralllng\211109369-OO2\21.1-011389-002I3otll1llll,dwll blllll: 11-011-2003 Author: SAC II 0 . n ~ . g r- °NO S-It i~ g G'l ~ ;;, ~ '" 0 il. 3" !1. "11 -l '" Ii ltJ C~ r ~ h~ ~ ., i!i ~if~ "t txI ~ :r ~ W' S' :!!!5~ ~ i G') W :J • 0) _ ~ ~ ~ N 10111101011 tIt1IOI M!IIM •• _II~.,OI'J tlWULOO J> Ii I ,..,. .. m III I ~, If. ( J I I!, 1 f i ~i I I ttl i. 11 i a ~ CI 1>"" ~1 0') " I i ''1-'-1-' -11 , , I '!: ;:: ~ I I • , , '" I .. I ... 10ap'I\cft) • I ........ N t I _ . '1 r""" I II t : " : , ' d I · .. "., ·r'.,:',. '!D~._' 11 ~I : I: , , ',:' .' ,'.', ,::.-.; , '," ":C, , " '" ~<'C"_' 1i! I I -'- I. If! !~! "" I f I I! II i! I: 11 I I 1 i I t<I~ Wile. Level C) ~ c: illt ti II r Iii fll( ! ~h III ~~. A ~. [ II I l I , _I - - - - - - - - -..... -.. -.. ----- - -.. --,-. ......... . ... _. "J PIIU: I:\Oraftlng\211\09369..()02\21·1-tl!l369-tl02 aotJl1\lB.dW\1 011111: 11"()6-2003 Author: SAC 1> ,~,. III~ 'IIIII~ ____ ._."" n ... __ •• •• __ .. II .-- ~ ~ 1 J. ~ ! .l J.eoplh (II) .. III.. ~ i l:z: I\) 0 0 "'1 o (j) ::J III Ii s ~ [H aJ 2~[ r ~ ~3~ ~ Z ~~~ I\) (j) . Q) ~ ! ~ g. :r :!!~ .... ~ r Gl w ~ ::J • 0) ~ ~ II f • .. ... .. ~ I I 1 t 8'1f'4I11 Numbe! ... & I"!tml ,.,..,. 11 ~ IS !II ~ 11. SImp/_Type II ~ " t .. ~ool c:r • ~ d. ,. ,n .. a .. .. .PIC (PfJII1I it .. JJ lS I,::: Oi:": ,,:.: ... ~ .. :':,: ..•. : ',:' '::', -I, :.::,_ I ',':1' ", .:~.'. ", • I" :', • ':::'0 . , .... : GrI pille SyntJaI ,il .' '. . .... '. . ........... is ,. fIJ ~5 uses s1!1lbol lit I.", I ~ J ~JI .n IH Iii ~ I I flf U If ~ If'-.Ii dx til If , iIi I' Hi I ~ -Ii i il ia ; I' Ii ~ ~ II t1 . 8. t I i I, 9. 54<1 ~ Water Leve1 .,' " •. ,'.,' ./. I •. '/ •• "',','1'.' . ','.'." ,' ... /,." .,' '. ','/0... ,,~',.~ ~,,'!i:;o,'" ..... II ••• ... ,·· ... • •• ··,.··.1:·," .• ·· .• \ .. · ," ,',. ".'. ·.·~.···01.··.··I ..... :.'':." to, ...... : .. ,' ·::~~11I1I11I1I1I1I11II1II 1IIIIIIIIIIIilIIIIIIIIII r ~ '. ,. ....... {,' ...... ',',:.~ '.'. ··t','·· ...... J-0..~~"~ . ••.• • '.' ":." '. ~ ............. " .. " .. '.. ' •••..• : ••.• ; .,'. .. ---pr ... ~., Illf 1 1111 III c: I i I II. ~~f .1 ftlt m 1 ii.. i III ~i 11 ~. I , , I I I I I I I --. -.. -•.•.. " •..•..•. _"_ .•. -.. -._"_.-.-~ " ,. _·_ .... ··1 .. ............. . FilII: 1:IDraftlngI2111093B9'()02121.1-tJ1I369'()0211otll1!la.dwg Dolo: 11'()S-2003 Author. SAC ,IMIJOUIJ lIt~ II!IIMIM'UIIllt'fJUf1YNlUl/ECtmlltIlllI1l'J Yll!u. LOll J> ~ J .!. I ~ !OeI'lll(fI) ~ t ~ • II f r I Ilg N 0 0 Dl Ii 8 ~ L~ .., 0.3( aJ -I~ l!il 0 i ~ ~ i ~ 'w~ r~G') ~i~ I l:D :r :r ~ W _. ~~;;: t ~ ~ ~ II r III • ... ., .. i I I I I 8111111. NUI1\IIet I .. Interval "''''I''' "U !It II· L\ 1$ r. ,. R'o Slmplw TYPI (; 118 • K . t ;: 81owI/Fooi ~ il s: II Ode ~ ~ PlD(ppm) n hi ILD == .::.:/::.:: :/ ::. . . :. ').'.~:. ':: ....... ,' ':" .... ':' .:.: .... ,' ........ :.:' ... '.:.-:: ' .. : ..... : a rapltlc Symbal 111 ~ III n uses Symbal (',fJ ~ , J ~JI JJ .IJf Iii It B. 1 f hi II . If ~ I J ~ Ii il~ .... Ir Ilf wi I · I I I . ~ 2' ~ . ji II ~ i.11 I I ~ . ! .U I.J . 11 If I II I I, i ;, i It 9. a~ Wallll'Level ~ .:.' . :"rfl .. '·:: :1.·· .. ::·.' .. · .. ',', ...• :/' ....... ,., ..... " ...... ".:I~ "\... "\... "\... ~ ..... H·,;':' .. ·.!4! I,.'." I} I.", .: .. '1\....'I.~· •• ' •••• t ,,0 0 ...... ,: •• ' ....... .!: .. ' ........ J ........•••••• " .. .,. : ."-::-Illlllllllll r II r IIIIIII~ 1111 t 11II11111111111111 I Ii') . .' .. : .. ' .... , .... :. ','1:" ',:.'. I' • ',., .•••. ' • .I~"\4""'" . ~ .' .! '.' .,: ....... ,.: •• :., .. " .. ,: ... : .•• , .• ~.: ........ : ... ' •.•.. .1, "l'!ot:~.I.~:' \. J. . Iii I Itt i ( ill i' . ~ I ! l ;~I I .tlt ill ~ ~i I i~' ~. ~ t l ,._, t.' ,j_J_I_~!......LLLL.L.L..LLL ~_~t_LLL.J._J_.L_.L.....LLJ_LJ .I J 1_1_ •.. J.,,-.J_J , J . .I_L.l-.I_:.LLLL_L.L . ..LJ i - --. -. --•.. -.. -.•.. -. - - - -... -_ .•. -. _-t ... . ~:::' '~' [',:':-~~'.~' I .. ' ~. L ,.. .",~, ."",1 ~ .. , ... ~j File: 1:\l:ItaftlngI211\tJ9369-o02121.1-oY369-OO2 Sottt1l1l1,dwll Dala: 11-06-2003 Author. SAC ro I ~ r-~ I ag ~ 0 5 r8 " ::J .~ W ~ § -g' c.3 1t -1"0 I~ 2l i.~[ z ~ at3-p Z • CII en N (j) :Ei:E i" m ~ ~ '11 6 ~ -S' G) to .... ~ f . ~ W * ~ ::J 0 N ,.-11lU IItOobS ~MIH11UIIt1\''''~.DI'J W!LLLDO 1>1 ~~ WI' ~ dlr ' -Ifll 11,. JJ 1111 ~JI I I I! I I lit if ., g- sa. f >i tb~ I' '" I r I , •• , I I ". I " I' ~ I I , I I 1 I .r • L I • , r I I I I I l ' , I I I I I , I ~ , 1 1 • , I I I I ~D8I>lh ('ft.) t ~ S J. L ... .. .. I a_~ Nvni1er I i I D IntfIrvIII .. N .. A r-'~" I~ I --~ .... --. i ., . !I . ~ It ~ .. • B1C1W11Foal ~ • :II> a " .. .. II II'Ul (Jlpm) D n~~'~~~~~";'~':':~:i';~~':'~'I"~~:'~'-,:'~:"~":':~':'~'('~'\~:;~":~~":~<'~'::'t~':;~-:"~":~~F.'~:~*·:·lo-~p~~-8r~~I~ _.-:.·.·.':·~.:.,: •• / ••••• I.·: .1,' , .• ' .. : .•.. ,.,1.:.: •••. f:'.: '.~ .• i.'~.li.P·li: . i!i %1 t. _. •• .Ifl u~ Ii B j I i I II. a J....a. cOl iiNI -1' {It IJ }I .1 '. ~~ lilli ;tl i~' I Ci1 ~ II ~ J .1 , I -,. -. -:. -. -.•.. -.. -.. -. -.. -. -... -... -.--.~ -... -.. -.. ~ -', I.. , ~, \ I, ,.. l 1", .. ~' .. _.. ,,_ ... _ ..... 1 ... _ •• '" ~ ... 01 File: 1:\bralllnn\211\tl!J369'()02\21·1'()1I3IlS.()tl2 aotil11J8.dwlJ blllll: 11'()6-2003 Author: SAC - 10lIIIII1011111"" WI ..... lNllllllftWlltlJEctlltllM02.III'J &ilL DO.lMJl.OCI ]> ~ ~ J l 1 1 ~ ~Deplh II\) . .. II I .. .. I l I I~Na.mber /<1/4,. I ' .. lnterv,1 !II ,I ! !I S.~lerTTpe 0 jf • t DlowJIFoot !4 )Ii III d PIO (ppm) !i co I &» Ion t: . • ,", •••• 0, •••••• 00". • 0' •••••• " " '0 •••• ' ••••• " • 0' 0, I I' • ., ' •• '.' to '. " '. " I ' •• " • '0 • '0" fO' .', " .', " ••• CI1Ip/lJa Symbol i'l • I' '0· •• 1' •• 0,',.' •.• 0'.' •• 0' ••• ,' 0, 00" '0 •• 0' If". 11 ••• '_' is .. ~!' I! uses S~I lrl I r I I ill ~1~ III J~i ~n ~ III J! IJ Bl II I ~ I ~ ~, ·Jf I: I' 11 ~ I It II .Ii ~. ~ .. i I ~3 II 0 11 I . I ~ S. 1 ~ f I I 0-W ~ r-Ig J\) 0 ::I 0. ~. .f<] W'alet La\lel I r g C) S' (JI . ' ~ ::I '"1 ~ W 0 ~-~ Ii -n 0.35-Ii) i aJ IH en ~ ~ 2 . 3-~ ! z • (JI en J\) C) :Em-:E iit -T c:J t ~ :u I :!l 6 w ~J.>i ~ to -~.~ : ~ 0l:Io ~ f I I ~ ~ , _t. I. 0 I . I. I -" 0 J\) " rl I ! , i , I ! , i I , , I ; !' ! I ~ ; I I I I I I ; I~ 0 I ~ c 0 :; ~ .., I 0 0 N . rb ~ .... I § .. 0 , t I~ .; ... :: ~ 0 m N 0 IT I: C> ." .., C> ~ .... . ;i I i N C IT C> . ." .., C> ~ lJ ;i CD l: = I!! ~ I. .i u: t PLATE I) BORING NO.5 ELEVATION: 16: FEET *CUl'HIC rrLST DATA u)c: DESCRI1'TIOlf O~--~~~~~~~--------------~~~~~~-------------- 5- 3 182 SH BROWNISH GRAY SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND CONCRETE RUBBLE (LOOSE TO HEOIUH DENSE, DAHP)(FILL) : ""PT ~ BROWNISH SILTY PEAT (SOFT, DAMP) f 10-. 12 .!!.L 5ROWNISH GRAY SILT WITH ORGANIC HATTER 181 (50FT, DAMP) - :z: -i= "" r.1 ~ 6!t.0\ IS_ 29.S\ 20 _ 37.1\ 25 _ 3D _ 35 _ 4D _ . '+ SP 63. . 7 91. - 6 83. I SH • DARK. GRAY FINE SANDWlTHA TRACE OF "SILT (LqOSE" WET) LENS OF SILT AT I2! FEET OCCASIONAL WOOD FRA GHENT S AT 18 FEET LAYERS OF SOFT SILT AT 222 FEET GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SHELL FRAGMENTS (LOOSE, WET) 7 BORING COMPLETED AT A D£FTH OF 39 FEET ON II 2-6-B2 -STABILIZED GROUND WATER LEVEL HOT OBSERVED PRIOR TO BAC~Flll]NC BOREHOLE Geo£ngineers InC. I Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and TUkwila. Washington LOG OF BORING 8-315 October 2003 21-1-O936~02 ~o~~~~ I FIG. A-36 11 -'; I! 11 Ii I I I~ I~ I : "- I,~ i .. :c> :: ~ o m N o q m m :0> :c> q T'" . ; N o q m m :0> :c> ~ t t! % ... j: Ao w c PLATE 1 . : BOR IN' NO.1 ELEVATION: 17: FEET *CUPRIC n:-r __ *~~~~D~AT~A~~~LO<.~'r-______________ ~D~£S~CR=I~PT~L~l~ON~ ____________ ___ 10- lS- 20- 25_ 30- 3S- 40- '16.7\ 7S '+5.3\ 75 £, • £, • I) • 8 • SH ~ r-- r-!L I ML SP 2 31t.S\ 85 • f-- 23.9\ 2 102. 511 BROWN SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND CONCRETE RUBBLE (LOOSE, DAMP)(FILL) LIGHT GRAY SANDY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (SOFT, ~AMP)(FILL) ... GRAY SILTY SANDY GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP)(FILL) BROWN SILTY PEAT (SOFT, DAMP) BROWNISH GRAY TO GRAY SILT WITH ORGANIC MATTER (SOFT, D~P) DAR~ GRAY fINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH LENSES OF SILT (LOOSE, WET) BROWNISH GRAY TO GRA~ SILT WITH A TRACE OF ORGANIC HATTER AND LENSES OF SAND (SOFT, DAMP) GRAY sILTY SAND WITH SHELL FRAGM£NTS (LOOSE, WET) GeoEngineea Inc.. I Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington ; LOG OF BORING B-316 ~ 1! October 2003 21-1~9369-002 ~ SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A:sT ~ Gaotet:hnIcaIIIIId EmrimnmenIal ConsuI!anIs Sheet 1 of 2 ~L-________________________________________________ ~ ______________________ ~ __________ ~ i r'l I ;1' , ri I' . i I: I~ Ii I: I, I: ., I: I: I: ; ~ I; c 0 ~ .., I: 0 0 N .r, ~ T'" ;,; I~ -= 0 I I to .., = -= 0 m N ~ I to> ... .., ::D -l:j' T'" . ; 1-: N 0 9 to> ... .., to> ~ I: ; C> c i2 e ~ I ]Ii u:: , PtATL r. r---------------~-----------------------~-----------------~~~ BORING NO. 1 (CONTINUED) *C~RIC *TEST DATA LDC DESCRIPTION ~O -r------------,---r-----------------~~~~----------------- 45 - t :50 - % ... 60 - 21t.5\ 22 100. 20 1&'1 28 26.1\ 97 • 17 ~ SP GRAY FlNE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL SHELL FRAGMENTS (MEDlUM DENSE, WET) £ORING COMPLETED AT A DEPTH OF 59 FEET ON 2-6-B2 STABILIZED GROUNO WATE~ LEVEL NOT OBSERVED PR10R TO BACKFILLING BOREHOLE GeoEn9~neers Inc. I • --" -_. -.-.~ .!"_ •• Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING 8-316 October 2003 21-1-O936~02 I~ f~i Ii I· I~ , I 0 -8~ 1-· I' gli -lO~ I: 10~ -1l~ I· I, J , I , ~ GeoEngineers I· c D :5 " < 1-, I'> <:> <:> N rb ~ ~ I: 13 CI D I < .!i I~ a iii :> t- N <:> q l-tD '" .., ~ q ~ . ; I~ N <:> q c:> ED .., ." 9 ~ 1_1 ;i CI c: i2 e ~ I~ 1!i u:: TEST PIT SH PT ML/OL - Inc. I SEVEN ELEVATION: 17~ FEET GRAYISH BROWN SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, CONCRETE RUBBLE, POCKETS OF SILT ANO OTHER DEBRIS (LOOSE TO KEDJ~ DENSE WET TO DAHP)(FILL) GRADES TO VERY WET AND SOFT AT ,. FEET DARK BROWN SILTY PEAT W1TH ROOTS AND WOOD (SOFT, DAHP) GRAYISH BROWN SILT WITH ORC;ANIC HATTER (SOFT, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 11 FEET ON 10/8/81 NO GROUND WATER SEEPA~E OBSERV~ DISTURBED SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 3, 9 AND 11 FEET , TEST PIT LOGS Strantrer Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF TEST PIT TP-304 October 2003 21-1-O936~02 ~! I; ,-; I; I; I; I~ I: I I I I- I 0 1-~ c 0 £ '" <I( t') I, 0 0 N .b q T'" T'" I. 19 '" 0 t I-J ~ n.. 1;; '" l- N 1- q to> m t') to> q T'" . I~' ; N 0 q to> m ... to> S! ~ 1-, ; CI c: = .E ~ I~ .Si Ii: TEST PIT SIXTEEN ELEVATION: 16~ FEET 0-8 B Pi ML -12; SP GeoEngine2rs Inc. I BROWN VERY SILTY GRAVEL WITH ORGANIC t1ATTE~ AND SOXE SAND (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, DAHP) (FILL) ABUNDANT WOOD AT 31 FEET 9ROWN SILTY PEAT (50FT, DAMP) GRAY SILT WITH ORGANIC MATTER (SOFT, DAMP) DARK GRAY FINE SANO WITH A TRACE OF SILT (LOOSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 12i FEET ON 213102 GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 12 FEET DISTURBED SAMP1.:ES OBTAtNEI> AT 21, 8;, ID ~ 12 FEET -----------1 Ji-, TES7,P!T LOGS Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila. Washington LOG OF TEST PIT TP-305 Ot:tober 2003 21-1-09369-002 ~o~~~;,s~~ I FIG. A-39 ;1 15 I; I: ! ' I: 1 I: I· I I I, I~! 0 I :J 1; D = ~ , ... Ij 0 0 j! ~ .... 1-· j§ CI 0 ... ~ I .,; ... J: ~ t) m N ~ 1-m '" ... m li' .... . ; , N I 0 IT m '" ... m 2 I~ ; DI J: C E ~ I~ .j u. Hole No. B-1 PROJECT: Lind AYenue Warehouse DRILL RIG: Truck-mounted . uA TE DRILLED: 7/20/94 LOGGED BY: Harit Dol2C1s. P.E. SAMPLER: SPT HOLE DIA: 8 in. INITIAl KATER DEPTtt 20:0 fL FINAL WATER DEPTH: 20.0 U. HOLE ElEV: s Road S.H. 29th Str~t TOTAL DEPTH: 39 ft D£SOUPTION Sur lace -Blawn grasses ana weaL Bra .... gra.ely silly Sand with sDllle COWles. hne graaea. moisllDDse ta me_oense. IFill Gray silty Sana. ce_graJN!a. .elY maul IDase. IFIIII Blawn i4ly Sana ana Sill. lme 10 aaedIUIII gr_a. wet. soIL son. G!IAPHIC TYP£ LOG SM II> III ~ BLOWS .. /fL II> _[ 8 .r-:-I5-- Ml -I 3 flEHAfIKS Moisture content -82.4% LL c 64.4% P ~ • 14.4% Moisture content -32.5% Moisture content", 31.7% Moisture content'" 53.3% Passing No. 200 -9l1.S% ~Gr=a-,~~==y-sm~.-U-l~m-a~te-a.~ar--~---~---e-.------------------~~Ml~~~~20-61cnrno..ater ~e. Bel:amrs soIL 5_ She! lJapI!IIts.. I~~~ t_ 01 BotmIlL tioa:llllJWilter at 12IUI teet an 7120184. I . -14 Moisture content -3-4.0% Passing No. 2~ -5B.2:t -25- -f 2 Mmsture content'" 35.2% "-Passing No. 200 c 52.9% f-,3G- _T" 1 5 Moisi= amrent -24..1: f-35- -I 8 Strander Boulevard I SW 27ih S1reffi Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-317 October 2003 21-1-09369-002 SHAHNONA WIl.5ON, me. FIG. A40 Gal!sludcal and'ElllitU"",,,ntal Car!suIlmI!s p Ii 1 i 1\ ~ 1 j I I I I I· I I ! -; I I I: I ; . IJ 0 1 ; ~ I~ 1.: a .z:; :; < i t') c c I~ j; ~ ~ 1 ]a i~ '" 0 ! i ! .!i I~ j[ ;;; .. T- N C Ii' C> 1-: CD t') C> 'i' ~ . ; I N C I~ Ii' C> CD .., C> ~ I~ ; .., " i2 E ~ . ~ 1-, ii: ~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ 0 --~ z £ ; Q, Ii Q, .. ... 1) UJ C X . I 6.5-7.0 83.4% 2 8.5-9.0085.6% en u UJ ::;) hll OL HH SP 8- I 10- 12- 14- ~. ENVIRONMENTAL I?~\.. • ASSOCLaJ:S" INC. ~ ---.-.- TES1 . IT 7 DATE EXCAVATED: 712V94 DESCRIPTION EXCAVATION METHOD: RuDDer-tired Backhoe LOGGED BY: Uoyd J. ReItz. E.LT. SURFACE ELEVATION: I S.W. 291h SI. Surface -Weeds Tan silly gravelly Sand. fine grained. dry. medium dense. Becomes blue 10 gray in color. moisl. Becomes wei. loose. Dark brown sandy organic Sat with roots. very moist. 5011. loid topsoil) Brown sandy Sill wilh some organics. very moist. 5011. Black sand with trace sat. fine grained. "ery lIItIist. loose. Stop~d at 12.D leel Caving at 4'10 6 feel. GJounowater at 6 fe:1 during excavation. Strnnrler Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF TEST PIT TP-306 October 2003 21-1-09369-002 1-1 IJ i ~ I I Gra ph I~ I; I. I I 1 I I ~ I~ III c D -= ~ I~ .., <:> <:> N rb ,. .... .... I: 13 '" !l l:D ~ ~ I, cO l:D :: 1i III N '" ,. I. e> CD .., e> ~ ; I' N ~ e> CD .., e> ~ I-j ; tr> " i2 e f 1-, :i? E: BUKING NO. Logged By JI~J Date ll10/B5 US CS Soil Description sm gray silty SAND, fine grained, with greenish sandy silt layers, moist, 11IlEOUJ..UlIl dense (FILL) wet, 1 Depth (ft.) 10 ELEV. 16: (N) w Sample Blows (%) I 21 5 I 4 I 10 £p;1.5 I -57 1) PI=23 I U 9 9 33 o 47 =.2 t.s~ 3 30 7 27 51 25 Boring teruinated at 44' he.l01.l existing grade. Groundl.r.lter obse.-....ation well installed to 19'. i , Earth \-Ccmsu1t:aDt:s Inc. - G£OT£CHNICAl. ~GIN££RING 6 taEOl.OGT BORING LOG PBO?OSED·~ srn: Proj. No. 2533 BER:mJ. RNSH 11)13 ttltJ Date Jan. 'S5 ~Iate 4 Stmnder Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-318 October 2003 21-1-O936~02 SHANNON & WIl.5DN, INC. FIG. A-42 GsalBdulical and EllwhIJI.Ii!ildal CansuIIa:nts I, n i ! 'I P i j , l I, I~ I I I; I I: , I~ I~ I~ Ii I I .; %:0 .E ~ N q C> '" .., m " ~ o ; ij C> '" .., Q :a ~ I .... -~r---, Duh .. O Cone Log P-1 E:lev. 16: c-. ........... ., ....... tIIC. 'I'O,M! ~e'" r -'""'~ 'L-...... "-"I"''' .. .. ... -----. • ~ -r-... brt.,. ..... Laft ~ ~ , I- ~ r I 1 I Il~ dlty SAND, dense to lIIedl1l:1 • _ e' 1---dense -0 ,0 ~, £ . , 01 I-becomin9 very laosa -, " t- ..... , zch clayey SILT, saft to medium 1 >01 , pt sti!! v/possibQe organic layer I I' .M' ,-f-lO at lO",moderate to hiqh plastic! ~ 0 , I r.:I silty SAND, loose To' 4- ~ . ~ I f-e ml clayey SILT, very sof~ to sof~ 0 'I-~ I am ailty SAND, loose to lIIedi= I"'\;; I-danse 1-~ wI clayey silt layer at 23~ 1- lJ.IlIl[~ 0 ~ 1-->- >-:U. claywy SnT. very .oft 8->--XI v~8ible ~anic 1ayer at 31' 110- '-~ am sll ty SAND·ld. th sandy silt II-layer.s,me-dimlldensa -:--Izr---.---- 11!!!11-= 10- ~ BOP Probe ten:dna~ a~ 45" bUnv I the exi.sting ~ aurn: •• 1-, L-so ---- J)D7CB CCt1£ l.OG .. -~ !;::~i -ol! PRlJl'QS£D HANOFAt:TtllUHG srr£ Cousul1:atnt:s InC. -';'- CEOTECHHICAL ENI:1HEERIHI: .. C£OLOQV Pro). No. itENTON, lfllS a I Md' !IN 2533 I Date .Jan. 'ss I Plste <4 Strander Boulevard I SW 27th Street Improvements Renton and Tukwila, Washington ; LOG OF BORING C-301 g> 0:: ~ Octobsr 2OD3 21-1-093fi!Hl02 ~~ ____________________________________________ ~~=HAN==.=~=O=~~~=&=~:.:i:S:J~~:.=I:N:C~·-L_F_I_G_._A __ ~~.J II I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I APPENDIXB IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICALIENVIRONMENT AL REpORT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5111 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Attachment to and part of Report 21-1-09369-002 Date: May 21,1004 To: Mr. Rich Perteet Perteet Engineering, Inc. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAUENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS. Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant. THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS. A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface explorntion plan designed to consider a unique set of project-specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and LUldergroLUld utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask: the consuJtant to evaluate how any factors that clla.n:,o-e subsequent to the date of the report may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: (I) when the nature of the proposed project is cha.n:,oed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refiigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors which were considered in the development of the report have changed. SUBSURFACE CONDmONS CAN CHANGE. Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consuItant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for example, groundwater conditions commonly vmy seasonaJly. Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/environmentaJ report. The consuItant should be kept apprised of any such ev.ents, and should be t:onsulted to determine if additional tests are necessary. MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS. Site explorntion and testing identifies actuaJ surface and subsurfuce conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were exn:a:polaterl by yom consultant, who then applied judgmentto n:n.trer an opinion about overaI1 subsurface conditions. The actuaJ interface between materials may be far moregraduaJ or abrupt than your report indicates. Actua.I conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can wOIk together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect. Page 1 of2 112004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A REPORTS CONCLUSIONS ARE PREUMINARY. The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actuaI conditions and to provide conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable recommendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction. THE CONSULTANTS REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION. Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretation of a geotechnicaVenvironmental report. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other project design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical, geological, hydrogeological, and environmental findings, and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to these issues. BORING LOGS ANDIOR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT. Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data.. Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical/environmental reports. These final logs should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom the report was prepared, and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific pmposes for which it was prepared. While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss the report with your consultant and perform the additional or alternative worle believed necessary to obtain the data specifically appt opt iate for construction cost estimating pmposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversariaI attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY. Because geotechnicaVenvironmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lorl:,aed against consultants.. To help prevent this problem., consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports and other documents. These responsibility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consuItant's liabilities to other parties; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consuItanfs responsibilities begin and end. Their ll5e helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and 1ake apptoptiate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions. The preceding parngrnphs are based on information provided by the ASFEIAssociation of Engineering Finns Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland Page 2 of2 112004 I I I I I I I I" I I I I I I I I I I I SEP A Environmental Review Application Strander Boulevard Extension Project ij City of Renton September 2004 -18 - HABITAT DATA REPORT The attached Biological Assessment provides the requested infonnation for this requirement. DEVELOPMENT PlANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 1 2UIJIt 1R1~~lEUVlED 18-1 Perteet Inc. I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Supplement to the Biological Assessment under Section 7, Endangered Species Act, for the Strander Blvd. Extension Project Applicant: City of Renton Project Number: 12239 This Supplement is provided by Perteet Inc. to the City of Renton in response to a review comment and question from the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT). On 3 September 2004. Brian Bigler of the WSDOT provided written comments on the August 2004 Biological Assessment prepared by David Evans and Associates. Inc. (a subconsultant to Perteet, Inc.) and provided by the City of Renton on behalf of the Washington Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Comment 1: The author has acknowledged in the comments materials WSDOT provided that the Sixth Field HUe code (171100130399) is appreciated. Unfortunately. I do not see that this HUC code has been referenced anywhere in the document. This code should be cited in the Executive Summary following the specification that the project will discharge stormwater to the "Green River and Springbrook Creek," and again in the project description where ever a stream WRIA number is referenced. Response to Comment 1: The HUC code is referenced at the end of the :first paragraph of the Introduction on page 1. Comment 2: The author mentions in a coupie of places that ••... water quality treOtment and detention [ are] designed to meet "enhanced treatment" standards ... ". And states in the discussion of Conservation Measures in Section 6.1 that ••... All stormwater facilities will provide enhanced treatment All stormwater facilities will consist of underground vaults buried with the ROW, except for one 50,000 slJUlITe-foot detention pond ... ". These two sentences are contradictory since vault BMPs do not meet enhanced treatment standards. On the next page. the author lists potential BMPs. and does not mention vaults. I get a sense that the statement regarding underground vaults is not correct, but whichever. it must be rectified before consultation with the services. Response to Comment 2: Section 6.1 of the BA describes how the stonnwater and drainage facilities are being designed to be in compliance with the standards for "enhanced treatment" per the 2001 Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manuafs (SMM). The SMM provides standards by which enhanced treatment can be achieved by wet vaults, which is accomplished through the use of a treatment train that consists of two vaults, as is listed in Table 32 of Volume V of the SMM. The vaults for this project will function in a series, and will consist of a wet vault followed by a sand filter vault. The report lists several options for enhanced treatment methods (treatment process best management practices)(BMPs). including wetpools. biofiltration, and filtration. The report then describes how these treatment process BMPs are provided by any of several treatment :facilities (stmctma1 BMPs) 5I1Ch as we1ponds, wetvan1ts, constmcted wetlands. sand :filters. and others. The report notes that stormwater treatment facility BMPs would use one or more of these types of systems, as per the SMM. I I '.'----.,.-.-------'.--_._Jtshol1\(tilJI!i.oJ)~ ~?t~(j i_~ ~e~!i?E-_~).t~~t.th~.,"S.,?,~,~O-~qu~e-foot" di~ension ofthe "50,000= '.-_I square-foot detentIon pond" IS an estImate that IS used In the 30%-deslgn'report and maybe-------· ... -- modified in the final design. Comment 3: The author mentions in the discussion of Indirect Effects on page 39 that the adjoining properties are zoned commercial/industrial, but makes no emphatic statement regarding whether there are any planned or permitted developments. I anticipate that the services (both) will require that the author confirm with the City of Renton Planning Department (get a citable communication) whether there are any building permits or planned development projects in the vicinity of this project. Response to Comment 3: The Boeing Company has plans to develop part of the Boeing Longacres property, King County tax parcel 2423049002, which is within the western portion of the project area. At this point in time, a Binding Site Plan has been approved and an EIS was prepared for a corporate office park. Sound Transit has plans to develop a commuter rail station to the north of Strander Boulevard, and they have a Temporary Use permit for existing facilities at this location. No permits have been approved for the future station to date. The City of Tukwila is working on a Transit Oriented Development Plan that will connect road, trails, and development in Tukwila to the Transit Station. . - I I I I I I I I Please call Dan Hansen or Richard Rutz ofPerteet Inc. at (425)-252-7700 if you require additional I information or have any questions about this Supplement or the Strander project. I I I I I I I STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PER TOOOO-0003 Prepared for: ~ CITY OF RENTON Department of Public Works Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Prepared by: DAVID EV ANS AND ASSOCL~TES, INC. 415 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425.519.6500 Fax: 425.519.5361 PERTEET, INC. 2707 Colby Ave. Suite 900 Everett, Washington 98201 _DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC. August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I = I I I I STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PERTOOOO-0003 Prepared for: CITY OF RENTON Department of Public Works Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Prepared by: PER TEET, INC. 2707 Colby Ave. Suite 900 Everett, Washington 98201 - Scott Swarts Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist DAVID EV ANN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 415118thAvenueSE Bellevue, Washington 98005 Angnst2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Studies and Coordination ......................................................................................... 5 1.2 Upland Habitat ............. ~ ........................................................................................... 6 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 6 2.1 Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes ......... 7 2.1.1 Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track ............................................. 7 2.1.2 New Roadway Construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale AvenueSW ................................................................................................................. 8 2.13 Improvements to SW 27th StreeL .................................................................. 8 2.1A Modifications to the Intermban TraiL .......................................................... 10 2.1.5 Modifications to South Longacres Way ....................................................... 10 2.2 Equipment .............................................................................................................. 10 2.3 Project Phasing ....................................................................................................... 1 0 2.4 Project SUIIlIllary .................................................................................................... 11 3.0 PROJECT AREA AND STUDY AREA DEFINITION .......................................... 12 3.1 Project Area ............................................................. : ............................................. 12 3.2 Action Area ............................................................................................................ 14 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASElJNE ............................................................................ 15 4.1 Fisheries Resources Overview ............................................................................... 15 4.1.1 GreenlDuwanri.sh River ................................................................................ 17 4.12 Springbrook Creek ........................................................................................ 17 42 Springbrook Creek Habitat Composition ............................................................... 18 43 Matrix of Pathways and Indicators ........................................................................ 19 4.4 Terrestrial Resources Overview ............................................................................ 20 4.5 Wetlands Overview ............................................................................................... 23 4.5.1 Wetland Vegetation ...................................................................................... 29 4.52 Wetland Hydrology ....................................................................................... 30· 4.53 Topography ..................... : ............................................................................. 30 5.0 SPECIES ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 31 5.1 Puget Sound Chinook ........................................................................................... 31 52 CoastallPuget Sound Bull Trout ............................................................................ 32 53 Bald Eagle ..................... _ .................................................................................. ~ ... 33 6.0 CONSER.V~A..TION MEASURES ............................................................................. 33 6.1 Stormwater Quality and Quantity ......................................................................... 33 Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment Page i Au~ 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I 6.1.2 Impact Reduction Measures during Construction ......................................... 35 6.2 Pile Driving and Removal Measures .................................................................... .36 6.3 Wetland Mitigation ............................................................................................... .37 7.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 38 7.1 Salmonid Impacts ................................................................................................... 38 7.1.1 Direct Effects ................................................................................................ 38 7.1.2 Indirect Effects .............................................................................................. 38 7.1.3 Effects to Baseline Conditions ...................................................................... 39 7.2 Bald Eagle .............. , .................. : ............................................................................ 41 7.3 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions ............................................................... .41 8.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ................................................................................. 41 8.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 41 8.2 Description ofEFH ............ : ................................................................................... 42 8.3 Potential Adverse Effects ....................................................................................... 42 9.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS ........................ , ................................................. 42 9.1 Chinook Salmon .................................................................................................... 42 9.2 Bull Trout ............................................................................................................... 43 9.3 Bald Eagle .............................................................................................................. 43 9.4 Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................................................ 44 9.5 Bull Trout Critical Habitat ..................................................................................... 44 10.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 45 llSTOFTABLES Table 1: USFWS Listed and Candidate Species Not Addressed in the BA ...................... 4 Table 2: NOAA Fisheries and USFWS Listed Species Potentially Present in the Action Area ............................................................................................................................. 5 Table 3: Summary of Project Related Elements .............................................................. 11 Table 4: Springbrook Creek Fish Species ........................................................................ 18 Table 5: Matrix ofPathwa)15 and Indicators Smmnary .................................................... 20 Table 6: Existing Habitat Conditions Within Project Footprint ...................................... 21 Table 7: Wetland Summary Table ................................................................................... 29 Table 8: Life-Cycle Timing of GreenlDuwamish River Chinook Sahnon ...................... 31 Table 9. Mitigation Required per Ecology Replacement Ratios ..................................... 37 Table 10. Mitigation Required per Local Jurisdiction Ratios .......................................... 37 Table 11: Salmonid Habitat Project Effects Matrix ......................................................... 40 Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment Page ii August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location Map ..................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Proposed Roadway Limits .................................................................................. 3 Figure 3: Typical Roadway Section ................................................................................... 9 Figure 4: Action Area and Project Area Map .................................................................. 13 Figure 5: StreaJIl Overview Map ... , .................................................................................. 16 Figure 6: Aerial Photograph ........... ' ........... ; ...................................................................... 22 Figure 7: National Wetlands Inventory Map ................ : .................................................. 24 Figure 8.1 Route Map ....................................................................................................... 25 Figure 8.2 Route Map ............................ , ........................................................................... 26 Figure 8.3 Route Map ........ : .............................................................................................. 27 Figure 8.4 Route Map ....................................................................................................... 28 APPENDICES Appendix A: Agency Correspondence Appendix B: Project Plans Appendix C: Expanded Matrix of Pathways and Indicators Appendix D: Wetland Descriptions Appendix E: Listed Species Habitat Requirements Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment Page iii August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; I I I I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The cities of Renton and Tukwila in partnership with a Project Stakeholder Committee composed of public agencies and private businesses propose to improve travel speed, reliability, and access in the RentonITukwila area of King County, Washington. This will be accomplished by constructing a new roadway across primarily undeveloped property to connect West Valley Highway with East Valley Road. A Project Team created by the City of Renton facilitated Project Stakeholder Committee meetings with affected agencies, such as the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); City of Renton; City of Tukwila; King County; and private businesses, including Boeing, Burlington Northern Santa.Fe railroad (BNSF), and Union Pacific railroad (UPRR) to determine the best approach to achieve the project goals. In summary, the project goals are as follows: • Decrease travel time and increase reliability; • Relieve congestion; • Provide access to the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station; • Improve freeway operation; • Encourage transit-oriented development; • Promote freight mobility and economic development. The Project Team assembled information about potential corridor concepts, existing and projected traffic that would be generated by the proposed corridor improvements, affected environment, and costs. Based on this analysis, the preferred alternative is Alternative 2: Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track and Modification of SW 27th Street to five lanes. The preferred alternative would result in adding a new roadway segment from Strander Boulevard to SW 27th Street and roadway improvements along SW 27th Street. This would result in a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and East Valley Road via Strander Boulevard in Tukwila and SW 27th Street in Renton. The proposed project will result in approximately 9.9 acres of pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS). However, there is currently approximately 5.4 acres of existing PGIS, therefore, the net gain in new PGIS is approximately 4.5 acres. The project proponent is proposing to provide water quality treatment and detention designed to meet "enhanced treatment" standards based on Washington State Department of Ecologys (Ecology) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. The project will treat a total of 204 percent of the total PGIS in the project area due to the presence of 5.4 acres of existing PGIS, which is currently discharged to the Lower Green River and Springbrook Creek untreated. Stormwater treatment measures designed to improve water quality during operation include wetpools, biofiltration, and filtration. Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during constmction include: temporary silt traps or sediment trapping pondslvanlts for capturing sedimen1-1aden runoff: discharge of runoff through grassed/plant buffer areas, temporary silt fences and/or straw wattles, and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological A ssessment O:IPROJEcnPlPERT0000-0003I05OODeIv\Fina) BA 082504\Fina1 BA (8-2S-04).doc Page iv August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; I II I I (SWPPP) throughout the duration of construction, which includes maintaining and cleaning facilities, and cleaning them after significant storm events. The proposed design may directly impact 13.28 acres of vegetation in the project area, including 2.02 acres of wetlands. The Lower Green River and Springbrook are located in the immediate project vicinity and the potential exists for construction activities to increase runoff and sediment delivery to these waterways. Runoff from approximately 2.0 acres of PGIS would discharge to the Lower Green River, and approximately 7.9 acres would discharge to Springbrook Creek. All stormwater discharging to the Lower Green River and Springbrook Creek would occur from existing stormwater pipes. Work below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) is limited to placement of a flapgate on an existing stormwater outlet to Springbrook Creek to keep floodwater out of the stormwater facility. This can be accomplished without conducting in-water work. In order to minimize impacts to the environment, the project design will incorporate BMPs, best available technology, and guidelines established in the Ecology Manual (2001) to minimize impacts to Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species and their habitats. This assessment was prepared to assist federal agency review required under the ESA to ensure that the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) does not fimd any actions that may jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or their critical habitats. Three ESA listed species were identified as potentially occurring in the action area: (1) Chinook salmon (threatened); (2) bull trout (threatened); and (3) bald eagle (threatened). Potential effects to these species were evaluated from a review of the proposed action, on-site evaluations of existing habitat, and the current and historical distribution data available for each species. The analysis of the project determined that the effect determinations are: "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" Puget Sound Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) Chinook salmon, CoastallPuget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) bull trout, and bald eagles. The proposed actions will have "no adverse affect" on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Pacific salmon or groundfish and coastal pelagics. The project is "not likely to destroy or adversely modify" proposed critical habitat for bull trout. Should critical habitat be designated prior to completion of the project, the project will have "no effect" on designated critical habitat for bull trout. Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biolo~icaJ Assessment O:\PROJECJiP\PERT0000-0003I05OOIkMFinal RA OB2504lfinaJ RA (S-25-04).doc Page v August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 INTRODUCTION At the request of the City of Renton and on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) prepared this Biological Assessment (BA) for the Strander Boulevard Extension project. The project is located within the jurisdictions of both the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila in Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 5 East; Sections 24 and 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East; Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East (Figure 1). Renton is located at the south end of Lake Washington on the edge of metropolitan and rural King County. The DuwamishlGreen River is within hydrologic unit code (HUC) sixth field number 1711 00130399. The purpose of this project is to improve travel speed, reliability, and access in the RentonITukwila area This would be accomplished by adding a new roadway segment from Strander Boulevard to SW 27th Street and roadway improvements along SW 27th Street. This would result in a cross-valley link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and East Valley Road via Strander Boulevard in Tukwila and SW 27th Street in Renton (Figure 2). DEA prepared this biological assessment (BA) on behalf of FHW A as required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). DEA reviewed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries website (Revised June 17,2004) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) county-wide endangered species listings for King County (Revised April 8,2004) to determine the potential presence of ESA-listed and candidate species within the project vicinity (Appendix A). The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) were also contacted to determine if listed species or potential habitat occurs in the action area Listed species under NOAA Fisheries jurisdiction potentially occurring in the action area include Puget Sound ESU· Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In addition, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Chinook, coho (0. kisutch), and pink (0. gorbuscha) salmon, occurs within the action area Nine listed species are identified on the USFWS county-wide listings for King County, including: Coasta1JPuget Sound bull trout (Salvelinus conjIuentus); bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus); marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus); northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), gray wolf (Canis lupus), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola), and golden paintbrush (Castineja levisecta) (Appendix A). Two candidate species are identified on the USFWS listing, including Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica) and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) (Appendix A). Spotted owl and marbled murrelet designated critical habitat was also identified on the USFWS listing; however, this critical habitat does not occur within the action area Therefore, this project will have ~o effect" on spotted owl and marbled murrelet critical habitat and critical habitat for these species will not be addressed further in the BA (Table 1). The project is ~'not likely to destroy or adversely modifY' proposed critical habitat for bull trout. Should critical habitat be designated prior to completion of the project, the project will have "no effect" on designated critical habitat for bull trout. Strander Boulevard Extension Project BiologiI:al ~A5se5smerrt O:\PROJECTIPIPERTO!JOO.OOO3\05OODelv\FinaI BA OK2504\FinaI BA (S-25-04).doc Page 1 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I Puget Sound East Passage -....:-=--~ -::---:. -:-:~ -:: Perh.."'et Engineering, lnc. ~~ CiyiL Transportation and Surveying City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension fl D Figure 1 Location Map I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II> ST .-' r z w '-' I ::> o v: STRAN~R \ i20T;-! , 0 ,1 """'-Peneet En~ineerim:. Inc. ~ -- ::-=-Civil. Transportation 3Ild Sun'eying SEC. 19, T 23N, R 5E, WM. ~EC. 25, I_2~N, R45E, WM. ,,~ lANGSTON RD ---i.33~D ST---'---~ ____ -... __ 3LVD "'~----- '-' or ~ l§ i: ~ > 0 => '" z < !,;... > T, 51 ( ~ (S 1301'", L--/\. ITS >-'j <' > \ \ \ 1\ U .o.IRP8?T I r- VI \ ~ ',I '--. City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 2 Proposed Roadway Limits I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 1: USFWS Listed and Candidate Species Not Addressed in the BA Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus Threatened Not Present -No marmoratus marmoratus Effect Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidental is caurina Threatened Not Present -No Effect Gray Wolf Canis lupus Threatened Not Designated Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos Threatened Not Designated Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Not Designated Marsh Sandwort Arenaria paludicola Endangered Not Designated Golden Paintbrush Castilleja levisecta Threatened Not Designated Pacific Fisher MaTtes pennanti pacifica Candidate Not Designated Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Candidate Not Designated Due to the lack of mature, contiguous forest within the action area, habitat for the northern spotted owl is not present. Therefore, the project will have "no effect" on the spotted owl and spotted owls will not be addressed finther in the BA (Table 1). Due to the lack of mature forest and marine habitat within the action area, marbled mmrelet habitat does not occur within the action area. Therefore, the project will have "no effect" on the marbled murrelet and mmrelets will not be addressed finther in the BA (Table 1). Due to the developed nature of the action area and location within the urban greater Seattle setting, grizzly bears, gray wolves, and Canada lynx do not occur in the action area. Therefore, the project will have "no effect" on grizzly bears, gray wolves, and Canada lynx and these species will not be addressed finther in the BA (Table 1). Marsh sandwort is assumed extiIpated from the State of Washington and has not been docmnented since 1896 when it was collected from "prairies" near Tacoma (USFWS, I 998a). Therefore the project will have "no effect" on marsh sandwort and this species wiD not be addressed further in the BA (Table 1). Golden paintbmsh typically occurs in prairie habitat on gravelly, glacial outwash. It is known from 9 extant populations in Washington, none of which are in King County (USFWS, 2000). Due to the lack of documented populations in King County and absence of prairie habitat in the action area, the project will have "no effect" on golden paintbrush and this species will not be addressed further in the BA (Table 1). The USFWS does not currently list any proposed species in King County. Two candidate species (pacific fisher and yellow-billed cuckoo) Strander Boulevard Extension Project BiologicaL4.sseSSIDeDt O:IPROJECnPIPERTOIJOO..OOO3I05OODe1v\FinaI BA 082504lFinaI BA (S-25-04).doc Page 4 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I = I I are mentioned for reference purposes only. Neither species is expected to occur in the action area so they will not be addressed further in the BA. Species further analyzed in this BA are identified in Table 2. Table 2: NOAA Fisheries and USFWS Listed Species Potentially Present in the Action Area Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Threatened CoastallPuget Sound Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened None Designated Proposed June 22, 2004 None Designated Field investigations of the action area were conducted on July 17 and 23, 2003, to document critical areas, species presence, and potential fish and wildlife habitat in the action area. DEA investigated habitat composition apd condition of upland habitats, wetlands, and Springbrook Creek. 1.1 Studies and Coordination . Existing literature and scientific data were reviewed to determine existing conditions, species distribution, habitat requirements, and other pertinent biological parameters. Published information about local critical areas was reviewed for evidence of wetlands and streams in the proposed project area. Following the review of project plans, public domain resource data, and multiple site visits, DEA prepared this report. The information reviewed included: • Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife -Priority Habitats and Species data. July 2003. Olympia, Washington; • Fish and Wildlife Technical Discipline Report -Strander Boulevard Extension Project. David Evans and Associates, 2004; • Wetland Technical Discipline Report -Strander Boulevard Extension Project. David Evans and Associates, 2004; • Surface Water Quantity and Quality Technical Discipline Report -Strander Boulevard Extension Project. Perteet Engineering, 2004; • Noise Technical Discipline Report -Strander Boulevard Extension Project. MFG, 2004; • Hazardous Materials Technical Discipline Report -Strander Boulevard Extension Project. Perteet Engineering, 2004; • GrolIDdwater Technical Discipline Report -Strander Boulevard Extension Project. Perteet Engineering, 2004; Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O:IPROJECTlPIPERT0000-000310500lklvlFinal BA 082504lFinal BA (S-25-04).doc Page 5 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • Floodplains Technical Discipline Report -Strander Boulevard Extension Project. Perteet Engineering, 2004; • Air Quality Technical Discipline Report -Strander Boulevard Extension Project. MFG,2004; • National Wetlands Inventor)! (NWI), Renton Quadrangle, 1 :24,000, United States Department of Interior (USDn -Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988; • United States Geological Survey (USGS), Renton Quadrangle, 1 :24,000. 1949, revised 1994; • A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization -Volume 1 -Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries (Williams et al. 1975). 1.2 Upland Habitat Upland habitat impacts were quantified by overlaying the proposed action elements onto an aerial photograph and then delineating the various habitat types under the project footprint. Delineating habitat types was achieved by drawing polygons around each habitat type using computer-aided design drafting (CADD) software. Plant species in the action area were identified according to Cooke (1997), Pojar and MacKinnon (1994), and Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973). Each habitat type was segmented into various types as defined by Johnson and O'Neil (2001). Habitat types typically associated with the Puget Sound lowlands include: • Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands; • Herbaceous Wetlands; • Westside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood Forest; • Openwater: Lakes, Rivers, and Streams; • Marine: Bays and Estuaries; • Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environments; • Westside Riparian-Wetlands; • Urban and Mixed Environments. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRlIPTION At present, West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW is an unimproved area with no roadway that directly connects Stnmder Boulevard with the area to the east. From Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road, there is an existing roadway approximately 3,600 feet long. The project a1tem.atives focused on strategies to cross the unimproved area, especially railroad tracks owned and operated by UPRR and BNSF. Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O:IPROJEcnPIPERT0000-000310500DeIv\FinaJ BA 082504lFmaI BA (S-25-04).doc Page 6 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2.1 Construction of a Roadway Underpass Cross-Valley Link, Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track and Modification of SW 27th Street to Five Lanes The proposed action would create a link between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Oakesdale Avenue SW with a single underpass of both the UPRR and BNSF tracks (Appendix B). The UPRR traCk would be relocated to the east to parallel the existing BNSF tracks. From Oaksdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road, SW 27th Street would be widened and include pedestrian facilities and landscaping. The five primary project elements are as follows: • Relocation of the UPRR track; • New roadway construction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW; • Improvements to SW 27th Street; • Modifications to the Interurban Trail; • Modifications to South Longacres Way. 2.1.1 Relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Track The UPRR track would be shifted to the east to parallel the existing two sets of BNSF track. To develop this alternative, a new railroad track would be constructed within a new 100-foot ROW adjacent to the BNSF ROWand then join with the existing UPRR track at both ends of the project area Approximately 5,500 feet of new track would be constructed at an elevation similar to that of the existing BNSF tracks. Construction would require placement of 125,000 cubic yards of earth and gravel for the new railroad bed. The new UPRR track would be located at the center of the new 100-foot ROW. Approximately the same amount of track and railroad bed would be removed from the existing UPRR location as will be construCted at the new UPRR track location. The railroad bed material would be disposed of at an approved location or reused as a construction fill material. Construction would be sequenced so that disruption of railroad service would be avoided or minimized. The construction of the new railroad track and the roadway underpass (see new roadway construction subsection below) would also be constructed simultaneously. When the new track is completed, train traffic from the western BNSF tracks would be temporarily shifted to the new track and construction of the underpass beneath the unnsed tracks would take place. After completion of the second section of the underpass, train traffic from the eastern BNSF track would be temporarily shifted to the western track, and the third section of the underpass would be constructed under the eastern BNSF track. When the underpass is completed, BNSF train traffic would be shifted back to their two original tracks, and UPRR train traffic would be relocated to the new track, and the existing UPRR track and railroad bed would then be removed. Strander Boulevard Extension Project BiologU::aI po, ssessment O,IPROJEClIPIPERTOOOO-OOO310500DeMFinaJ BA Olr'.5G4lFinaJ BA (S-25-04).dtx: Page 7 August 1004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2.1.2 New Roadway ~onstruction from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW A new roadway would be constructed from the intersection of West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Strander Boulevard to the intersection of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 27th Street. The roadway alignment would be an extension of Strander Boulevard and curve to match up with the existing alignment of SW 27th Street. An underpass of all three-railroad tracks (the relocated track used by UPRR and the two BNSF tracks) would be constructed to provide 17 feet of clear distance between the . roadway and the bottom of the bridge structure. The underpass section would include a pump system to remove the accumulated rainwater, which would first be pumped to a stoIIDwater treatment facility that will provide enhanced treatment prior to being discharged to either a wetland mitigation site or the Green River. If stoIIDwater is pumped to the Green River it will be discharged out an existing stoIIDwater outlet. Construction of the underpass will likely require pile driving, but the type (impact or vibratory) is uncertain. Therefore, this report assumes an impact pile driver will be used. From West Valley Highway to the underpass, the roadway would consist of five lanes (four thru lanes and a two-way left-tum lane), landscaped strips, a sidewalk on the north side, and a shared use path on the south side (Figure 3). Bicycle facilities would be provided in either combined travel laneslbicycle lanes or as a shared use path. The· landscaped strips would be provided between the traveled way and the pedestrian facilities, and in some locations where a two-way left tum lane is not needed, a landscaped median would be provided. From the underpass east to Oakesdale Avenue SW, a five-lane roadway, landscape strips, and pedestrianlbicycle facilities would be constructed. This section (including the roadway, pedestrian facilities and landscaped strips) would be 90 feet wide from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, staying, for the most part, within the appropriate existing City-owned ROW. The new roadway construction would result in three new intersections between West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW. There would be one intersection at the future Sound Transit Tukwila Station access road, and two intersections that would result from access roads to the Boeing Longacres site. New traffic signals would be installed at each of these intersections. 2.1.3 Improvements to SW 27th Street The existing section of roadway between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road would be widened to match that of the new roadway segment to the west (five lanes, landscaping strips, and ped.estrianlbicycle facilities on each side). The section would be 90 feet wide :from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, staying, for the most part, within existing City-owned ROW. At some locations where there are space constraints or the need to avoid wetland impacts, the planter strip may be eliminated. Strander Boulevard Extension Project BiolngiI:a1 .-' sse55IDi':IJ1 O:IPROJECTlPIPERT0000-000310500Deh,\FmaJ BA 082504IFinal BA (8-25-04).doc Page 8 August 2004 ----~-------------- {~q ~ ~ ~ fJ " :::0 ~ ~ i~i lTJ .~ I.Tl r', Z ~ i:l 'J e. (!S.': ~I o t:l :11 ""'" :;; (~ :'1 0 " n , ~ S· ;.:: z ~ {.~Q • ';:, ~ ,po R ~ "0 ~r ;0 o OJ c. ~ OJ CJ)('") .-to _ • ..., .-to w'< ::l 0 0._ ~ ;0 WID o a c 0 <D ::l < W ..., 0. m ?i <D ::l UI o· ::l '< " CJ) _. CD tg °CD ..., c!: o w ~ G' I~LANTER I G' SIDI:WALK STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION • ;,. TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION 90' ROW GO' 12' 12' 12' TURN LANE 'I THRU LANE "I TrlRU LANE ." -~~~-;'';':; WIDEN WIll-liN lI-lE ROW WITrI 51-IARED U5E PATH ON SOUTI-J SIDE G' PLANTER 12' SHARED ~ ... --" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Portions of the north side and south side of the proposed improvements may require a 3- to 8-foot block or rock wall at the back of the sidewalk to minimize impacts to the adjacent wetlands. A handrail would be required along the top of these wall sections. . 2.1.4 Modifications to the Interurban Trail The new roadway segment linking West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW would cut across the Interurban Trail. As a result, it would be necessary to construct a new means of making the trail continuous. The least obtrusive and preferred route is to have an at-grade crossing at either West Valley Highway or at the future Tukwila Station access road intersection. On the north side and the south side of the roadway, trail users would be routed onto the new bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the roadway, directed toward the intersection, cross the intersection, and then be directed back to the existing trail. 2.1.5 Modifications to South Longacres Way South Longacres Way, which is approximately 1,700 feet north of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway, is bridged by the UPRR track and the BNSF tracks. It currently provides access to the temporary Sound Transit commuter rail parking area. The existing railroad bridges over South Longacres Way are narrow and have clearances that are below the minimum requirements. As a result of this project, if South Longacres Way were to continue to remain open, improvements would have to be made to provide minimum vertical clearances. A new UPRR bridge structure would have to be built, improvements would need to be made to the BNSF bridge structure, and the vertical profile of South Longacres Way would have to be lowered. 2.2 Equipment The necessary equipment to construct the project includes but is not limited to: dump trucks, utility trucks, cement trucks, back hoes, pavers, rollers, paint trucks, vibratory pile driver, impact pile driver, excavators, graders, hoe rams, cranes, and bulldozers. Other types of equipment include generators, pumps, compressors, plus numerous types of hand tools. 2.3 Project Phasing Construction would be phased over a three:-year period starting in 2005. Phase one would extend SW 27th Street west toward the BNSF nrilroad tracks and take approximately 6 months to complete. Phase two would expand SW 27th Street between Oaksdale Avenue and East Valley Road, and take approximately one year to complete. Phase three would connect SW 27th Street to Strander Boulevard from the east side of the BNSF tracks to the western terminus of the project area. This phase includes moving the UPRR line adjacent to the BNSF line and constructing the tunnel under the railroad tracks. The third phase is anticipated to begin in 2007 and take approximately two years to complete. Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment Page 10 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 2.4 Project Summary The proposed transportation improvement project will result in the creation of new roadway, sidewalks, landscaping, underpass, railroad bridge, and stormwater treatment facilities within an overall project footprint of approximately 19.5 acres. All stormwater facilities will consist of underground vaults buried within the ROW, except for one 50,000 square foot detention pond near the railroad tracks. The area proposed for the detention pond currently consists of upland grasses and shrubs without wetlands. Strander Boulevard will be extended to connect with SW 27th Street while SW 27th Street will be expanded to four lanes. Existing roads and sidewalks within the overall project footprint account for approximately 6.2 acres. The remaining 13.3 acres are composed of wetland and upland habitats, which are discussed in Sections 4.4, 4.5, and Appendix D. As previously mentioned, no in-water work is proposed but a flapgate may be placed on an existing stonnwater outlet. Once constructed there will be approximately 9.90 acres ofPGIS within the project footprint compared with 5.4 acres ofPGIS currently within the project footprint (primarily associated with SW 27th Street). Water quality treatment and detention will be designed to meet standards based on Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology, 2001). Water quality and quantity treatment is discussed ill Section 6.1. Table 3 summarizes some of the pertinent project related elements. Table 3: Summary of Project Related Elements ;:'RffiJ~f~Jajeq,J:feJTI~jlf: -~~,j-~c_~ ."'-~,,--±;-:<i?":O,:~$'i:i: Total Project Footprint (excluding stormwaterfacilities) Area Currently Developed Within Footprint Vegetation Clearing Total Existing PGIS Total New PGIS After Construction Total PGIS After Construction Total Existing Enhanced Treated PGIS Total Enhanced Treated PGIS After Construction Net Gain of New PGIS After Construction Total PGIS with Enhanced Treatment after Construction due to project Percentage of New PGIS with Enhanced Treatment after Construction New Railroad Track LEngth Fill for New Railroad Bed Wetland Fin Wetland Buffer Impacts Wetland Mitigation/Creation Storrnwater Manual Anticipated Project Start Date Anticipated Project Duration Work BelnwlNear Ordinary High Water MarK In-water Work Pile Driving Blasting S1nmder BonL'·v3m.Exrensinn Project Biological Assessment Page 11 I ~iI:;';i~ :;;: ... :,:-~a.Jaiftj!YJ~-e~';i~~~~<:~:: ::;:::-!':ti", 19.49 Acres 621 Acres 1328 Acres . 5.4 Acres 4.5 Acres 9.9 Acres 0.3 Acre 9.5 Acres 4.5 Acres 92 Acres 204 Percent 5,500 feet 125,000 cubic yards 2.02 Acres 3.90 Acres (included in veg$tion clearing) 3.01 to 3.80 Acres Ecology 2001 Manual 2005 Three years +/- Aapgate on existing stormwater outfall Not Required Underpass and New Railroad Bridge Not Required August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.0 PROJECT AREA AND STUDY AREA DEFINITION 3.1 Project Area The project area is defined as the immediate vicinity of the proposed action. The project area includes the area between Strander Boulevard east of the Green River and East Valley Highway west of SR f67, and the UPRR and BNSF railroad tracks (Figure 4). The project area also includes secondary project features such as staging areas, detours, and mitigation sites, which have not been identified at this time. _ S1Iander Bonlevmd Extension J>roject Biological Assessment Page 11 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I w > <t -'-~-: <t _5_,_ 5 1'>=rl-:" ~:-j Sr ~ S \ I I , ... 147/i-i Si ~307~ ~ Peneet En!!ineering, Inc. ijf-,.,." . ~ Civil. T ranspon;Jlion and Surn~ymg SEC. 19, T 23N, R 5E, W.M. SEC. 25, L2~N, R45E, WM. ;:--- 1- ';; 5T rtl· City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension ---Action Area I Project Area £ (s 130,:; '. I Approximate Scale 2.3" = 1 mile Figure 4 Action Area and Project Area Map I I I I I I I I I I I I ; I I I I 3.2 Action Area The action area includes all areas that could be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action and is not limited to the actual work area (project area). The project area and secondary project features are considered when defining the action area. The action area will include potential effeCts from visual and audible disturbance, terrestrial habitat impacts, and impacts to aquatic environments. Visual and audible disturbance related to ordinary construction activities is expected to exceed ambient levels up to 0.25 mile from the project area and secondary project features including staging areas, mitigation areas, and detours (Figure 4). Impact pile driving may be necessary during construction of the underpass and construction of a new railroad bridge over the access road to the temporary Sound Transit commuter rail parking area. Therefore the action area associated with ambient noise increases for the activities that include pile driving and is expected to extend up to one-mile from these locations (Figures 4). All indirect effects including audible and visual are expected to be contained within this one-mile radius. The primary potential aquatic effects will be turbidity increase and sedimentation from construction activities. The extent of turbidity and sedimentation effects can vary widely depending on sediment sources, particle size, and flow fluctuations. The potential for pollutants entering water bodies can be greatly reduced by implementing a spill prevention control and countermeasures (SPCC) plan. Due to project Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other performance-based standards, and the existing high sediment loading in Springbrook Creek and the Lower Green River, water quality impacts are not expected to be measurable in comparison to background conditions. Therefore, the action area is anticipated to extend a quarter-mile around the entire project area and one- mile around the underpass and railroad bridge. Due to the one-mile extension of the action area around the underpass and railroad bridge, the action area is typically at least O.5-mile around the project area except in the vicinity of SR 167 (Figure 4). Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment frIPROJECnPIPERTOOOO-OOO310500DeMFimII BA OK2504lfinaJ BA {S-25-041.doc Page 14 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I = I I I I 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 4.1 Fisheries Resources Overview The action area is located within the GreenlDuwamish River watershed -Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9. The action area is primarily within the Springbrook Creek subbasin located east of the mamstem Green River and west of SR 167 in the vicinity of 1-405, Washington (Figure 5). Springbrook Creek is an approximately 12-mile-Iong stream, with an additional 23 miles of tributaries and drainage ditches, that enters the Black River at river mile (RM) 0.65 (Williams et al., 1975). The Black River enters the GreenlDuwamish River at RM 11.0. Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O:IPROJECnP\PERT0000-000310500DeMFinai BA 082504lFinai BA (S-25-{)4).doc Page 15 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .~~.>.:.;' .. " .. " .. '," -;:: ~:.~>:~ ~'.: ,::, ....... ~ ........... '" ":-.>:<.: ........... ~ .......... ",,' Project Area 0_ ,'-:', \ -..::/ \ \ ;;',,- DUWAMISH RIVER Kent Area ''-:~' ~:-'-p--- J/ ~ City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension ~ Peneer Engineering. Inc. Source: Williams et aI., 1975 ~ .~ ____ Civil. Tr:m5por!.alion and Sur\"~ying SYN!90LS ?ASS.o.BL£ .. BA~RIERS -IMPASSABLE U1L 'P:JlIs lTIL ~ C05C.:JCle!:. ~ ~~;~.::::-;: Be:lloo'er O:J:ns ~ .~ !...Ol; Jams ~ ~ ~c:ns ~ - 5rr-eo<:"l Mil~ :12 -, ~ --~ Figure 5 Stream Overview I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; I I I I 4.1.1 Green/Duwamish River . The GreenlDuwamish River is a sixth-order, 93-mile-long river with a 556-square-mile watershed (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). The Green River is an extension of the Duwamish River defined as that segment of riveT from RM 11.0 to its headwaters in the Cascade Mountains. The GreenlDuwamish River is typically segmented into four primary reaches. Reach 1 is the Duwamish River proper from Harbor Island at Elliot Bay to RM 11.0, which is located at the confluence of the Black River with the Duwamish River. Reach 1 is referred to as the GreenlDuwamish Estuary subwatershed because the saltwater-wedge can extend upstream to RM 11.0 due to dredging and chronic low-flows resulting from hydrologic modifications (dams and diversions). Reach 2 starts at RM 11.0, extends upstream to RM 32.0, and is referred to as the Lower Green River subwatershed. Reach 3 starts at RM 32.0 and extends upstream to RM 64.5 at the Howard Hanson Dam. Reach 3 is referred to as the Middle Green River subwatershed. Reach 4 starts at the Howard Hanson Dam (RM 64.5), extends upstream to the headwaters, and is referred to as the Upper Green River subwatershed. The GreenlDuwamish River is one of the most manipUlated river systems in the Puget Sound region, based on the rerouting of major tributaries (Black, Cedar, and White Rivers), construction of the Tacoma Diversion Dam and Howard Hanson Dam, extensive filling of estuarine wetlands, bank-armoring, straightening, and general habitat modifications resulting from intensive development. However, the GreenlDuwamish River basin is used by several species of salmonids, including Chinook, coho, sockeye, chum, Atlantic, and pink salmon, and steelhead, cutthroat, and bull trout. Some species such as sockeye salmon are rarely observed, while others such as Atlantic salmon are escapees from net pen facilities in Puget Sound. Other species such as bull trout have occasionally been captured in the DuwamishlGreen River, but are not known to currently reproduce in the river system and may be part of an anadromous component searching for potential prey sources. Both hatcheries and fry plantings influence the current abundance of salmonids in the GreenlDuwamish River. Three hatcheries currently operate in the basin including the WDFW's Green River and Palmer hatcheries, and the Mucklesqoot Indian Tribe's Keta Creek Hatchery. State, tribal, and private parties have all planted various numbers of several different species of salmonids in numerous tributaries to the GreenlDuwamish River over time. 4.12 Springbrook Creek The Sprin."obrook Creek subbasin is located east of the mainstem Green River in the vicinity of Renton and Kent. The Springbrook Creek subbasin is the largest in the Lower Green River basin and covers approximately 15,763 acres (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Springbrook Creek is an approximately 12-mile-Iong stream, with an additional 19.1 miles of tributaries and 3.8 miles of drainage ditches, that enters the Black River at RM 0.65 (Wjlliams et al., 1975). The Black River enters the GreenIDuwamish River at RM 11.0 approximately 0.75 mile north of 1-405 in the vicinity of Fort Dent Parle Primary tributaries to Springbrook Creek include Mill and Garrison creeks plus several other smaller unnamed tributaries add to its overall drainage networlc Strander Boulevard Extension Project Bioloojcal Assessment O:IPROJECTIPIPERl1JOOO.OOO310500DdvIFinaI BA 082S04IFinal BA (S-25-04).doc Page 17 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I Adult salmonid data collected at the Black River Pump Station (BRPS) from 1983 through 1994 counted an average of 120 fish per year in Springbrook Creek ranging from a high of 291 in 1992 to a low of 47 in 1985 (Harza, 1995). Based on its relatively small size, Springbrook Creek is most conducive to utilization by smaller or agile salmonids such as coho salmon, and steelhead and cutthroat trout. However, habitat quality has been severely impacted in the Springbrook Creek subbasin by industrial and commercial development within the low-lying floodplain and by residential development in the surrounding foothills. Furthermore, the BRPS has also impacted salmonid abundance in Springbrook Creek by restricting both upstream and downstream movement of adult and juvenile salmonids. Springbrook Creek is used by several fish species (Table 4). The abundance and distribution of these species varies significantly both seasonally and spatially. Based on electrofish data collected by Harza (1995), three-spine sticklebacks are the most abundant species in the low-gradient Green/Duwamish River valley floor, while sculpin, coho salmon, and cutthroat trout are most abundant in the high-gradient foothill areas. Coho salmon, three-spine stickleback, lamprey, rainbow trout, and cutthroat trout were common in transitional area between the valley floor and foothills. Table 4 also includes data collected during a coho salmon smolt emigration study conducted at the BRPS from April 8 through June 16, 1994 (Harza, 1995). Based on this data, coho salmon and three- spine sticklebacks are the most abundant fish species in the Springbrook Creek subbasin (Harza 1995). However, it is important to note that these data represent fish captured at the BRPS during an approximately 2-month period and cannot be correlated to the entire Springbrook Creek subbasin. Table 4: Springbrook Creek Fish Species [1Ct!.iill!tOll Nimi~ : -~ --'----'-,~ , ----, -, -. ------, -' --.' -:-: -... ;~~ " $o~,~--:'T.I~-:' ',. ----'. _. CohO salmon I Onchomynchusk5mch I Harza, 1995 I 1,456 Chinook salmon Onchomynchus tshawytscha Kerwin,2000 I 0 Winter steel head troutJRainbow Onchomynchus mykiss Harza,1995 103 trout Cutthroat trout Onchomynchus clarki Harza, 1995 8 Pumpkinseed sunfish Lepomis gibbosus Harza,1995 I 12 Speckled dace Rhinicti1ys osculus Harza,1995 I 1 Three-spine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus I Harza, 1995 I 1,874 I Lamprey I Lampmra spp. I Harza, 1995 I 26 I Sculpin I Cotlus spp. I Harza, 1995 I 1 4.2 Springbrook Creek Habitat Composition Based on the results of a stream habitat assessment conducted by Harza (1995), the SJIIin-:,obrook Creek subbasin is composed of approximately 83 percent low-gradient glides, 13 percent rimes, < 1 percent pools, and < 1 percent steplnm habitat types. DEA conducted stream habitat surveys along Upper Springbrook Creek (09-0020), Garrison Creek (09-00??), and a short section of the mainstem of Springbrook Creek (09-0005) where it parallels SR 167 (DEA, 2001). Based on the survey results, it was determined that glide habitat dominates all reaches west of SR 167, while rime habitat dominates all Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O:IPROJECTlP\PERT0000-0003IOSOODelvlFinaJ BA Olr'-504lFinal BA (8-25-04),doc Page 18 A~oust2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I reaches in the foothills to the east ofSR 167. Pools, when present, tended to be relatively shallow and lacked habitat complexity. Furthermore, quality-spawning habitat is absent west of SR 167 but is available in the foothills where gradient increases. However, any salmonid that makes it through the BRPS must navigate through weed-choked segments of stream, numerous culverts, and depending upon the time of year, potentially lethal water quality prior to reaching suitable spawning gravel in the foothills east of SR 167. 4.3 Matrix of Pathways and Indicators Existing stream and watershed conditions were quantified by using watershed and habitat parameters as defined by the "Matrix of Pathways and Indicators" developed by NOAA Fisheries. The "Matrix of Pathways and Indicators" summarizes important parameters for six major pathways including: • Water Quality; • Habitat Access; • Habitat Elements; • Channel Condition and Dynamics; • Flow/Hydrology; • Watershed Conditions. These six major pathways are further broken down into a total of 18 "indicators." As an example, the water quality pathway is composed of three indicators: temperature, sediment/turbidity, and chemical contamination/nutrients. The indicator conditions are classified as either: "properly functioning," "at risk," or "not properly functioning." Criteria for each condition is defined by a range or goal based on the best available scientific data available, but criteria are not absolute, and may be adjusted for unique watersheds (NOAA Fisheries, 1996). The USFWS utilizes two additional pathways in the matrix of pathways and indictors to specifically address bull trout including subpopulation characteristics and integration of species and habitat conditions (USFWS, 1998b). The subpopulation characteristic pathway is composed of four indictors including subpopulation size, growth and survivaL life history diversity and isolation, and persistence and genetic integrity. Table 5 smnmar:izes the baseline conditions in the action area based on NOAA Fisheries and USFWS criteria Appendix C contains a detailed description of each pathway and indicator, plus the rationale for the conclusions summarized below. Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment Page 19 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 5: Matrix of Pathways and Indicators Summary Water Quality Habitat Access Habitat Elements Channel Conditions and Dynamics Flow/Hydrology . Watershed Conditions Subpopulation Characteristics (bull trout) Species and Habitat Temperature* 1 FAR Sediment FAR 'Chemical Contamination & NPF Nutrients Physical Barriers PF Substrate FAR LWD NPF Pool Frequency NO Pool Quality/Depth FAR Off-Channel Habitat NPF WidthlDepth Ratio NO Streambank Condition NO Floodplain Connectivity NPF Change in PeaklBase Rows NPF Increase in Drainage Network NPF Road Density and Location NPF Disturbance History NPF Riparian NPF Reserve/Conservation Areas Subpopulation Size NPF Growth and Survival NPF Life History Diversity and NPF Isolation Persistence and Genetic NPF Integrity Species Integration/Habitat NPF Conditions Key: Note*] = Temperature indicatoT can become not properly functioning during wannfdry periods. PF = Properly Functioning FAR = Functioning At Risk JII-pf = Not Properly FunctioninglFunctioning at lJnaccept.;ID1e Risk ND=NoData NA = No Bull Trout OT Suitable Habitat Present 4.4 Terrestrial Resources Overview NPF NPF NPF NPF NPF NPF NPF NPF NPF NO NO NPF NPF NPF NPF NPF NPF NPF-NA NPF -NA NPF -NA NPF-NA NPF-NA The action area for terrestrial wildlife consists of developed parcels used primarily for commercial purposes, roadway and railroad infrastructure, and undeveloped areas. The undeveloped areas are composed of several relatively large parcels that contain wetlands, grass fields, shrubs, and deciduous forest. The existing project footprint is partially developed in the vicinity of Strander Boulevard and SW 27th Street (Figure 6). The overall project footprint is approximately 19.49 acres, with 621 acres currently developed and the remaining 13.28 undeveloped. Stran.df:r J30ukvanj Extension Project Biological Assessment O:IPROJECTlPlPERT0000-0003I05O!lD-..JvIFiDaJ BA =lfinal1l.J\ (lk25-04).mc Page 10 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Therefore, approximately 13.28 acres of potential wildlife habitat would be cleared. Table 6 provides an overview of existing habitat conditions and acreage within the project footprint. Additional land owned by the City of Renton located immediately south of the proposed Strander Boulevard extension between the railroad tracks may be used for the only above ground stormwater facility proposed for this project. This area is composed of upland grasses and shrubs, but was not included in the calculation below due to uncertainty of the exact location of the approximately LIS-acre (SO,OOO-square- foot) stormwater facility. All remaining stormwater facilities will be underground vaults buried within the roadway ROW. Table 6: Existing Habitat Conditions Within Project Footprint ;~~hg:~itaf6QfitiitiQns':; .~.~;;-?~ ~-~' ~~ .~-~.~ !~r)W~::~::~~l{i '~ Y~~~-:~~7~;f::"f~8:;:~'Il:~~: c;, • Currently Developed 6.21 Indudes sidewalks. and paved and gravel roads. Westside Lowlands Conifer -1.33 Indudes forested areas and PFOb wetlands. Hardwood Forest Agriculture. Pasture. and Mixed 5.21 Indudes all disturbed areas such as deared fields. Environs. Westside Riparian -Wetlands. 4.42 Indudes PEMc and PSSd wetlands and their buffers. Urban and Mixed Environments. 2.32 Indudes planter strips and grassy areas adjacent to buildings. Total Vegetated 13.28 Total Vegetated Area Cleared Total Project Footprint 19.49 Size of Project Footprint Note3 These acreage impacts do not include impacts from the stonnwater facility. Noteh PFO= Palustrine Forested Wetland. NoteC PEM= Palustrine Emergent Wetland. Noted PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland. Strander Boul~ard Extension Project Biological Assessment Page 21 August 2004 .. ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 6 Aerial Photograph (Year: 2002) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.5 Wetlands Overview Based on a review of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the action area, numerous wetlands occur in the vicinity of the proposed project (Figure 7). Wetlands within the project area generally fall into two categories: (1) linear palustrine wetlands characterized as ditch features along the railroad and (2) large palustrine wetlands with a forested component located along SW 27th Street. Twenty-nine wetlands were delineated in the project area. Of these, 18 wetlands may be impacted and/or have buffer impacts (Figure 8). Each of these 18 wetlands was rated using the local jurisdictio~ classification system and rated using the Ecology Rating System (1993) (Table 7). Rating and classification systems divide wetland categories based upon an analysis of their ecological condition and ability to perform wetland- related functions. Category I and Type 1 wetlands are of the highest quality, while the highest numbers indicate degraded wetlands that are small in size and/or hydrologically isolated. Wetlands, buffers, and riparian areas in the proposed project area have been degraded from past logging and agricultural activities as well as urban and industrial development. Appendix D contains a detailed description of all wetlands in the project area. Smmder Boulevard Exrension Project Biological Assessment O:IPROJEcnPIPERT0000-000310500DdvIFinal BA 082504lFinal BA (8-'5-(4).doc Page 23 August 1004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -" . , PFOC. car P5SC 2S~ pssc I PEMA . J .~ \\ PE"'C, / PE~~ ~ ~ I I ~ .... PUBHr ,~ 'PssAx y ~.-/ . r . L' .~: t . :--=1 D. City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 7 ::. PeneeI Engineering, Inc. ~~!~U~~~ofthelntmior National Wetlands Inventory Map National Wetlands Inventory ~,,~ Ci\·iL Transportation :md Surveying. 1988 Renton, Washington Quadrangle I I~---------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I II City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 8.1 R()lltA M~n I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 8.2 RrllltA M::::an I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ,~ .~ ?-I '" .0; '-' J { I " , ~ City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 8.3 D,... I .+,... Poll ru .... • I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I 8 ~ ~ I I E ;C, City of Renton Strander Boulevard Extension Figure 8.4 D(,,'IIlto ~/ku" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 7: Wetland Summary Table B PFO/PEM III Tukwila Type 2 50 26,136 H PEM IV Tukwila Type 3 25 499 I PEM IV Tukwila Type 3 25 845 J PEM IV Tukwila Type 3 25 1,393 P PFO III Tukwila Type 2 50 622 Q1R PFO/PSS/PEM II Tukwila Type 1 50-extends offsite S PEM IV Tukwila Type 3 25 6,428 T PEM III Tukwila Type 2 50 21,831 27 A PFO/PEM II Renton Category 2 50 extends offsite 27C PFO/PUB II Renton Category 2 50 extends offsite 270 PFO III Renton Category 3 25 19,674 27E PFO/PEM/POW II Renton Category 1 100 extends offsite 27F PFO/PEM II Renton Category 2 50 extends offsite 27G PFO/PEM II Renton Category 2 50 extends offsite 27H PFO/PUB II Renton Category 2 50 extends offsite 271 PFO III Renton Category 3 25 extends offsite 27 J PFO II Renton Category 2 50 extends offsite _ Indicates that the buffer width was reduced to 50 feet (See Project Definition Report, Table 7-3 [Berger/Abam Engineers 2002)). 4.5.1 Wetland Vegetation Several wetlands along both sets of railroad tracks are characterized as isolated ditch features dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) with Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus) along the edges. These wetlands were classified as palustrine emergent (PEM) following the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et aI., 1979). Other wetlands along the railroad were identified as palustrine shrub-scrub (PSS), and palustrine forested (PFO) classes. These wetlands were primarily dominated by red- osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), Pacific willow (Salix lucida ssp lasiandra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), and red alder (Alnus rubra), with Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass occurring along their edges. All wetlands located along the SW 27th Street corridor were named by including "27" as a prefix. On the south side of the street, wetlands typically have a forested edge composed of red alder, willow, and cottonwood, with an emergent component dominated by reed canarygrass or cattails (Typha latifolia) inside of its tree line. Common shrub species occurring beneath the tree canopy include red-osier dogwood, salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and willows (Salix spp.). Wetland 27D is the only wetland along SW 27th Street that does not have a forested component, as it is a wetland mitigation site with young woody plants classified as PSS. Maintained planter strips with ornamental plantings are also present throughout SW 27th Street. The uplands consist of both open grass fields and deciduous forest. The open grass fields are typically clear of shrubs, often mowed,. and dominated by Himalayan blackberry, tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), orchard grass (Dactylis gomerata), quack grass (Elymus Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment OIPROJECTIPIPERTOOOO-OO0310500DelvIFinal BA 0825041Final BA (8-25-04).doc Page 29 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I repens), and bluegrass (Poa spp.). Red alder and black cottonwood dominate forested areas, while mature big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees are scattered throughout. The shrub layer is diverse and varies considerably depending on location, but common species include beaked hazelnut (Cory/us conruta), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus). 4.5.2 Wetland Hydrology The primary sources of hydrology associated with ditch-like wetlands along the railroad corridor are precipitation and overland sheet flow or stormwater runoff from adjacent uplands primarily composed of fill material. These wetlands are considered isolated because they were likely created during construction of the railroad tracks and have no surface water connection to other wetlands or streams. Other wetlands along the railroad tracks, especially those farthest south and closest to the Green River are influenced by groundwater and potentially associated with the hyporheic zone of the river. It is likely that these wetlands had a surface water connection to the Green River during flood events prior to the construction of the West Valley Highway and Interurban Trail, both which parallel the railroad tracks and occur between the river and proposed project area. The primary source of wetland hydrology along SW 27th Street is groundwater inflow. Stormwater runoff associated with precipitation events is another primary contributor, which is typical in urban areas with extensive impervious surfaces. Stormwater drainage facilities such as catch basins along the road were observed as providing stormwater connectivity to wetlands. However, these primarily large wetlands extend quite far outside the project area and are also influenced by the presence of floodplain and groundwater input due to their low topographical position relative to the watershed. Most wetlands along SW 27th Street are within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain associated with Springbrook Creek, but floodplain influence has been reduced due to urban development and related activities. Significant floodplain modifications are primarily due to the Black River Pump Station, which prevents high flows from the Green River from backing up into the Black River and Springbrook Creek. 4.5.3 Topography The topography varies little along the proposed alignment given its location within the GreenlDuwamish River valley. The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) map that includes the proposed project area does not depict contour lines anywhere along the proposed alignment except for contour lines delineating railroad beds. Approximate elevation within the proposed project area is 20 feet above mean sea level. Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O:IPROJECT\PIPERTOOOO-000310S00DelvlFinal BA 082S041Finai BA (8-2S-04)doc Page 30 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5.0 SPECIES ANALYSIS 5.1 Puget Sound Chinook Federal Status The Puget Sound Chinook salmon is listed as a threatened species in Washington under the ESA. NOAA Fisheries is the lead regulatory agency for this listing under the ESA. Occurrence The GreenlDuwamish River basin Chinook salmon is considered a composite stock with contributions from both hatchery and natural production. The naturally reproducing component of this stock contains a mixture of both wild and hatchery Chinook. The life- cycle timing of GreenlDuwamish River Chinook salmon as described by Williams et al. (1975) is presented in Table 8. Data collected and analyzed by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe in the Duwamish River indicate young of the year (YOY) Chinook salmon smolts start entering the estuary by March 24 and are present through late August, with a peak in mid May (Warner and Fritz, 1995). An influx of hatchery ·fish occurs in late April and early May. Chinook salmon in the estuary are composed of yearlings, YOY, and fry. The presence of yearling Chinook in the estuary may be the result of hatchery practices, while the presence of fry may be the result of spring freshets. Furthermore, small yearlings captured in February, March, and April are from fish planting that occur above the Howard Hanson Dam that are typically flushed downstream when the reservoir is drained in November and December. Table 8: Life-Cycle Timing of Greenffiuwamish River Chinook Salmon Summer-Fall Chinook -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development 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 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 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 -Juvenile Rearing I I I I I I I I I I I I 1·1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ..:Juvenile Outmigration 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 Chinook salmon have been documented in Springbrook Creek and observed attempting to spawn near the SW 27th Street crossing over Springbrook Creek during the fall of 1997 (P. Schnieder pers. comm.; as reported in Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). During 1994, the earliest an adult Chinook salmon was captured at the BRPS was September 17, while the latest was October 22. A total of 14 were caught in this time period. Thirteen of these were tagged and released, while the 14th was released without being tagged. Only one of these fish was recovered in Springbrook Creek, about 4.1 miles upstream of the BRPS near 84th Avenue SE. No data for juvenile outmigration are available for Springbrook Creek because none have been captured at the BRPS, thus indicating they may not successfully spawn in this system. Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O,IPROJEcnPIPERTOOOO-OOO310500IXlvIFinal SA 0825041Final SA (8-25-04).doc Page 31 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I Spawning ground survey data for Springbrook Creek (09-0005) and Garrison Creek (09- 0022) obtained from the WDFW for 1975,1976,1977, 1979, 1982, 1984, 1985, and 1986 documented 12 salmon, one of which was a Chinook (WDFW, 2003a). This single observation was ofa dead Chinook salmon on December 11,1975, in the lower 1 mile of Garrison Creek. No other Chinook salmon were observed during these surveys, and no redds of any species were documented. Harza (1995) concluded that most, if not aB, Chinook salmon entering Springbrook Creek are fish migrating to the Green River Hatchery that strayed into the Springbrook Creek basin. They also concluded that habitat in Springbrook Creek is not well-suited for Chinook salmon and that few or no Chinook salmon rear in this system (Harza, 1995). However, adult Chinook salmon migrate upstream through the Lower Green River and outmigrating juvenile Chinook salmon rear in the Lower Green River, but no spawning habitat occurs in the action area. 5.2 Coasta/IPuget Sound Bull Trout Federal Status The bull trout is listed as a threatened species under the ESA. The USFWS is the lead regulatory agency for this species under the ESA. Critical Habitat The USFWS has proposed critical habitat for Washington's Coastal-Puget Sound population of bull trout. The Puget Sound Management Unit includes all watersheds within the Puget Sound basin and the marine near-shore areas of Puget Sound. Specific areas are those that contain spawning, rearing, foraging, or over-wintering habitat to support essential existing buB trout local populations, or movement corridors necessary for maintaining essential migratory life-history forms. The mainstem of the Lower Green River could be considered foraging habitat for anadromous buB trout. Springbrook Creek does not provide any essential habitat for buB trout and is considered unsuitable for this species due to degraded water quality and an absence of suitable habitat. Occurrence BuB trout were first documented in the GreenlDuwamish River during the mid-1800s in the lower reaches and upstream to RM 35.0 (Suckey and Copper, 1860; as reported in Kerwin, and Nelson, 2000). However, the occurrence of a reproducing popUlation of buB trout in the GreenlDuwamish River basin has not been documented, and the current status of bull trout in this basin is uncertain (WDFW, 1998). Recent surveys conducted upstream of the Howard Hanson Dam have not captured any bull trout (Watson and Toth, 1994 as reported in Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). Assuming a bull trout population was historically established in the GreenlDuwamish River basin, it appears to have been extirpated as a result of dam and water diversion construction projects during the early 1900s. No evidence of a reproducing popUlation of buB trout exists, but bull trout are occasionally captured in the GreenlDuwamish River basin. Captures tend to be of individual bull trout and have occurred in the estuary and as far upstream as RM 40.0. Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O:IPROJECTIPIPERTOOOO-OOO310500DelvIFinal BA 082504IFinal BA (8-25-04).doc Page 32 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The most recent bull trout captured in the GreenlDuwamish River was on May 24, 1994, during a beach seining event near RM 5.0 (Warner and Fritz, 1995). This adult bull trout was feeding on juvenile Chinook salmon that were outmigrating at that time. Although it is unlikely that bull trout reproduce in the GreenlDuwamish River basin, opportunistic anadromous char occasionally utilize the river during periods of juvenile salmonid outmigration when prey is most abundant. The WDFW has not documented bull trout in Springbrook Creek during their salmon spawning surveys (WDFW, 2003a). Harza (1995) did not capture any bull trout in Springbrook Creek during their electrofishing or trapping efforts neat the BRPS. Habitat conditions in Springbrook Creek are considered unfavorable for bull trout primarily due to elevated stream temperature, high percentage of fines in available gravels, and overall low elevation of its headwaters. 5.3 Bald Eagle Federal Status The bald eagle is listed as a threatened species in Washington under the ESA. The USFWS is the lead regulatory agency for this listing under the ESA. Occurrence The USFWS has reported that wintering bald eagles may occur in the project vicinity (Appendix A). The WDFW PHS data obtained for this project did not include any bald eagle nesting territories, wintering roosts, or other documented bald eagle use in the vicinity of the project area (WDFW, 2003b). However, bald eagles are known to occasionally fly over the action area and perch on larger trees, where they could potentially feed on carrion, salmonids, waterfowl, and eastern cottontail rabbits. Bald eagles have also been known to prey on great blue herons at the BRPS colony. 6.0 CONSERVATION MEASURES 6.1 Stormwater Quality and Quantity The design of stormwater detention and treatment facilities will be based on the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology, 2001), while stormwater conveyance will be in accordance to the Surface Water Design Manual (King County, 1998). All stormwater facilities will provide enhanced treatment. All stormwater facilities will consist of underground vaults buried within the ROW, except for one 50,000-square-foot detention pond near the railroad tracks. BMPs will incorporate elements of Best Management Practices Field Guide for ESA 4(d) Habitat Protection (WSDOT, 2004b). Runoff from approximately 2.0 acres of PGIS would discharge to the Green River, and approximately 7.9 acres would discharge to Springbrook Creek. No new outfalls to either the Lower Green River or Springbrook Creek will be required as existing outfalls in the action area will be utilized. The stormwater facilities would be designed to capture and treat runoff, and to mitigate for increased flows from runoff. The facilities would be designed for "enhanced treatment" as defined by Ecology (2001), which is oriented to provide a high rate of Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O:IPROJECnpIPERTOOOO·000310S00DdvIFinal BA OS2S04IFinal BA (S.2S.04).doc Page 33 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I & I I I I removal of dis,solved metals. Other treatment objectives using enhanced treatment methods, also referred to as BMPs, would be to remove sediment, petroleum products, and nutrients from stormwater. The project will treat a total of 204 percent of the total PGIS (9.2 acres) according to the "enhanced treatment" standards. With the existing treatment of 0.3 acres, a total of 9.5 acres of PGIS (out of 9.9 acres) will be treated, which includes "enhanced treatment" of the existing 5.4 acres ofPGIS currently in the project footprint. The treatment methods would consist of the following options: • Wetpools -These provide runoff treatment by allowing settling of particulates during quiescent conditions (known as sedimentation), by biological uptake, and vegetation removal; • Biofilitration -This uses vegetation in conjunction with slow and shallow-depth flow for runoff treatment. As runoff passes through the vegetation, pollutants are removed through the combination effects of filtration, infiltration, and/or settling. These effects are aided by the reduction of the velocity of stormwater as it passes through the biofilter; and • Filtration -This can be done through the use of several media including sand, perlite, zeolite, and carbon. These treatment processes would be created into treatment facilities (e.g., structural BMPs), such as wetponds, wetvaults, constructed (treatment facilities) wetlands, filter strips, biofilitration swales, sand filters, and media filters. The stormwater treatment facility BMPs would use one or more of these types of systems. Detention facilities would be provided to mitigate increased flows from runoff and the corresponding potential for stream erosion. The main element of detention design would be the development of runoff hydro graphs and sizing the storage volume. The detention sizing methodology uses a continuous simulation modeling of multiple storm events occurring in sequence. This modeling software is named Western Washington Hydrologic Model (WWHM). The WWHM is based upon the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Hydrologic Simulation Program -Fortran model, and uses long-term (43 to 50 years) precipitation data to simulate the potential impacts of sequential storms. The computational time step used in the model is one hour. The WWHM uses soil types to determine initial abstraction values and interception, and it assumes that predeveloped land conditions are forested. The detention facilities would be designed to match the developed discharge rates from 50 percent of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow. In addition, detention facilities would be designed to mitigate the developed peak discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 50-year return periods. There is an existing drainage pond located at the northeast comer of SW 27th Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW. This pond is at too high an elevation, which limits the amount of area that has runoff directed to it, and would consequently not be used. Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O:IPROJECl\PIPERTOOOO-000310500DelvIFinal BA 0825041Final BA (8-25-04).doc Page 34 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6.1.2 Impact Reduction Measures during Construction To reduce potential impacts on surface waters resulting from construCtion actIvItIes, management techniques and control facilities to be used during construction would be incorporated. These facilities would be of sufficient size, strength and durability to readily outlast the longest possible construction schedule and worst anticipated rainfall condition. Mitigation would include the prompt implementation of an SWPPP, with facilities designed and constructed to reduce flows, and capture pollutants and sediment- laden runoff prior to discharge to local surface waters. Several BMP facilities and management techniques would be implemented to mitigate the increase in flows generated from the construction site. The BMPs used in the course of construction include would vary depending on the construction site conditions, which can change over time and by season. The BMPs to be used in the course of construction include: • Provide temporary and permanent seeding to areas outside of the pavement limits; • Provide temporary mulching or plastic coverings of exposed areas and stockpile locations; • Provide temporary silt traps, or sediment trapping ponds/vaults; . • Construct temporary silt fences and/or straw wattles; • Discharge runoff through grassed/plant buffer areas; • Implement a SWPPP throughout the duration of construction, which includes maintaining and cleaning facilities, and cleaning them after significant storm events. A TESC plan will be developed and implemented before the commencement of ground disturbing activities. This plan will be developed to manage and prevent erosion and sediment from leaving the construction site or entering streams and/or wetlands. The TESC plan will utilize the BMPs outlined in the revised WSDOT HRM (WSDOT, 2004a) to achieve this goal. Erosion and sediment control BMPs to be implemented will include: compost bermlblanket, filter fence, seeding, fertilizing, mulching, and vegetation preservation. As an interim measure before the re-establishment of vegetation and during construction, filter fences will be installed where appropriate, such as at the toe of slopes and perimeter of exposed soils to minimize sediment from entering waters of the State. The filter fences will be checked periodically following storms, and will be cleaned and repaired as required to maintain proper function. For control of pollutants other than sediment (e.g., petroleum products, solvents, and waste) the contractor will develop and submit to the engineer for review and approval, an SPCC plan. This plan will address activities such as waste disposal methods and locations, control of oil, gasoline, and solvents used in the operation and maintenance of vehicles and machinery; emergency spill control and containment measures; material storage; and waste accumulation. The SPCC plan will detail how pollution from these activities will be prevented from entering waters of the State. As necessary, the contractor will be responsible to revise the plans to conform to their actual operations, Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment 0: IPROJECTlPIPERTOOOO-000310500D<lvIFinal BA 0825041Final BA (8-25-04).doc Page 35 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and unanticipated activities as construction progresses. The contractor-provided SPCC plan must be submitted and approved by the WSDOT Region before any staging area is utilized or operations are begun. 6.1.2.1 Construction Conservation and Performance Measures • A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan and Stormwater Site Plan wiIl be developed and implemented. • An SPCC plan will be developed and implemented for the project to ensure that all pollutants and products will be controlled and contained. • Construction impacts will be confined to the minimum area necessary to complete the project. • All BMPs will be installed according to Ecology and WSDOT standards and will be inspected and maintained throughout the life of the project. • No contractor staging areas will be allowed within 200 feet of any jurisdictional wetland, stream, river or drainage unless site-specific review completed by the project biologist indicates that no impacts to the sensitive resource areas will occur due to topography or other factors. • Temporary fills will be entirely removed and the site restored. • Wash water resulting from wash down of equipment or work areas will be contained for proper treatment and/or disposal, and will not be directly discharged into state waters. • There will be no discharge of oil, fuels, or chemicals to surface waters, or onto land where there is a potential for reentry into surface waters. • No cleaning solvents or chemicals used for tools or equipment cleaning will be discharged to ground or surface waters. • The contractor will regularly check fuel hoses, oil drums, oil or fuel transfer valves, fittings, etc. for leaks, and will maintain and store materials properly to prevent spills. • BMPs will be used on all project activities to control and prevent sediments from entering aquatic systems. 6.2 Pile Driving and Removal Measures • The preferred pile driving method is by the use of vibratory equipment, however, an impact driver may be used. • All new piles and other project components will be steel or another non-toxic alternative (such as untreated wood). • Excess or waste materials will not be disposed of or abandoned waterward of OHWM or allowed to enter waters of the state, as per WAC 220-110-070. Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O:IPROJECTlPIPERTOOOO-OOO310500DelvIFinal BA 0825041Final BA (8-25-04) doc Page 36 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I S I I I I • If any creosote treated material is discovered such as pile stubs, and associated soils, they will be disposed of by the contractor in a landfill which meets the liner and leachate standards of the Minimum Functional Standards, Chapter 173-304 WAC. 6.3 Wetland Mitigation The proposed project incorporated avoidance and minimization measures where practicable, while meeting the purpose and need of the project. However, 2.02 acres of unavoidable wetland impacts would result from project construction. Approximately 3.8 acres of wetland creation would be required based on Ecology mitigation ratios (Table 9). Wetland enhancement could also be used as partial compensation for wetland impacts, and would likely reduce the required amount of wetland creation as long as the project ensures no net loss of wetlands. The use of wetland enhancement for compensation should be based on the amount of functional benefit that would be provided through enhancement based on specific characteristics of the mitigation site. Table 9. Mitigation Required per Ecology Replacement Ratios Wetland mitigation ratios established in the Tukwila and Renton Municipal Codes differ slightly from Ecology ratios. The City of Renton establishes ratios per its wetland classification system then further defines ratios depending on the wetland vegetation class. The City of Tukwila Municipal Code establishes a replacement ratio of 1.5:1 independent of wetland class. However, modifications to Type 1 and 2 wetlands are subject to administrative review and approval by the City of Tukwila and more stringent mitigation ratios may be required. Required mitigation following the local jurisdiction ratios is provided in Table 10. Table 10. Mitigation Required per Local Jurisdiction Ratios . 'etiar'fcmmacls;i: ·.o"' ..•. ·v· " ... , •..• ,.~'v '",' Strander·Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment 0.012 2.006 2.022 4:1 1.5:1 0.018 1.5:1 3.000 3.009 O,IPROJECnpIPERTOOOO-OOO310500DelvIFinal BA 082504IFinal BA (8-25-04).doc Page 37 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Wetland buffer enhancement would also be required to compensate for buffer impacts. The extent of required buffer enhancement is determined by each local jurisdiction and is based on improving functional attributes of the impacted buffer. For example, the City of Renton requires that enhanced buffers are not less than 25 feet wide and that greater reductions require a variance from the sensitive areas regulations on a per-project basis. The City of Renton owns property suitable for wetland mitigation near the proposed project. These areas are being considered for inclusion in a wetland mitigation bank. Credits generated from the bank could compensate for impacts associated with the proposed project. However, mitigation bank approval can be a time consuming process compared to concurrent mitigation projects. Land located between Springbrook Creek and the GreenlDuwamish 'River under consideration for the wetland bank may be used for concurrent mitigation to compensate for impacts associated with the proposed project. The City of Renton and WSDOT are currently working to develop the prospectus required before final approval is granted. 7.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS 7.1 Salmonid Impacts 7.1.1 Direct Effects No in-water work is proposed although a new flapgate will be installed on an existing stormwater outlet in Springbrook Creek. The installation of the flapgate can be done without conducting in-water work. The action area is within the Lower Green River watershed, downstream of potential salmonid spawning habitat. Therefore, no impacts to potential spawning habitat will occur. The project footprint includes 19.49 acres, plus an addition 1.15 acres for one stormwater pond, the remaining stormwater facilities will . consist of underground vaults buried under the roadway ROW. The stormwater pond will be constructed to the south of Strander Boulevard between the railroad tracks on City of Renton land composed of upland grasses and shrubs. The 19.49-acre footprint includes 5.4 acres of existing PGIS, but the project will result in 4.5 acres of new PGIS. The implementation of BMPs and conservation measures outlined above in Section 6.0 will reduce the likelihood of water quality and hydrology impacts affecting listed salmonids during either construction or operation of the new roadway. The project will result in clearing 13.28 acres of currently undeveloped land. The 13.28 acres includes 5.21 acres of currently disturbed areas such as cleared fields, 4.42 acres of wetlands and their associated buffers, 2.32 acres of planter strips and grassy areas near builds, and 1.33 acres of forest. Included within the 13.28 acres are 2.02 acres of delineated wetlands. Wetland impacts will be mitigated through wetland replacement. Wetlands to be impacted do not provide rearing habitat or refugia for salmonids. 7.1.2 Indirect Effects Indirect effects are those effects occurring later in time, usually following project construction. The project is designed to increase passenger and freight mobility, increase safety, and reduce congestion. While the project has not been designed to specifically induce growth, it is anticipated to affect the rate, timing, and location of growth by Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O:IPROJECT\P\PERTOOOO·OOO310S00Delv\Final BA OS2S04IFinal BA (S·2S.04).doc Page 38 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I providing access to currently inaccessible areas. The project corridor passes through some undeveloped parcels; however, these areas are zoned commercial/industrial, are rapidly converting to these uses, and access could be constructed to these areas independently of the proposed action. Improved access could facilitate this conversion, and both Sound Transit and the Boeing Company have interests in undeveloped land immediately adjacent to the project route. Projects that increase the amount of new impervious surface have the potential to impact salmonids. A total of 4.5 acres of new PGIS will be created during construction. However, designing stormwater facilities to enhanced standards as specified by the Ecology (2001) manual will minimize water quality and hydrology impacts. The Conservation Measures outlined in Section 6.0 will be implemented to reduce or eliminate potential water quality and hydrology impacts to listed species by the increase in the new PGIS associated with this project. Overall, a slight improvement in water quality is expected with the addition of stormwater quality facilities that provide enhanced treatment based on Ecology (2001) standards. 7.1.3 Effects to Baseline Conditions Based on this analysis, most baseline conditions will be maintained. Minor degradation of the sediment, and chemical contamination and nutrients indicators could occur during construction if untreated runoff reaches either Springbrook Creek or the Green River, but this would be short-term and negligible considering that BMPs will be in place to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of untreated runoff reaching these waterways. There could be a change in the rate, duration, and frequency of flow discharging to the Green River and Springbrook Creek due to detention facilities being constructed. The surface hydrology impacts would vary depending on the type and location of the receiving waters. Springbrook Creek would experience minimal impacts because the water levels and subsequent flows in the creek are and would continue to be regulated by a pump station and not this project. The Green River would experience minimal impacts since most of the project area would not direct storm runoff to this river, and because of the very large flow capacity compared to any flows that might be directed from the Strander Boulevard project area. A lessening of sediment discharge into Springbrook Creek and the Green River would also occur due to the addition of sediment-capturing facilities (e.g. wetvaults or wetponds). Overall, a slight improvement in water quality is expected with the addition of stormwater quality facilities. The increase in drainage network, road density and location, and disturbance indicators will be degraded. Although these three indicators will be degraded, the use of enhanced treatment per Storm water Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology, 2001) standards on 204 percent of the project's PGIS will reduce the likelihood of associated water quality and quantity impacts adversely affecting listed salmonids. The following salmonid effects matrix has been developed to summarize potential project-related direct and indirect effects to baseline conditions (Table 11). Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O:IPROJECT\PIPERTOOOO-OO0310S00DelvIFinal BA OS2S04IFinal BA (S-ZS-04).doc Page 39 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 11: Salmonid Habitat Project Effects Matrix Conditions and Bull Trout Subpopulation Characteristics within Subpopulation Watersheds Key: Note. Temperature indicator can become not properly functioning during wann/dry periods. Note. -indicates a negligible change possible . PF = Properly Functioning FAR = Functioning At Risk NPF = Not Properly Functioning/Functioning at Unacceptable Risk ND= No Data NA = No Bull Trout or Suitable Habitat Present maintain maintain In summary, all stormwater facilities will provide enhanced treatment per Ecology (2001) standards. All stormwater facilities will consist of underground vaults buried within the ROW, except for one 50,000-square-foot detention pond near the railroad tracks in an area consisting of upland grasses and shrubs. Project BMPs will incorporate elements of Best Management Practices Field Guide for ESA 4(d) Habitat Protection (WSDOT, 2004b). Runoff from approximately 2.0 acres of PGIS would discharge to the Green River, and approximately 7.9 acres would discharge to Springbrook Creek. No in-water Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O,IPROJECT\PIPERTOOOO-OO0310500DelvlFinal BA 0825041Final BA (8-25-04).doc Page 40 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I work will occur and no new outfalls to either the Lower Green River or Springbrook Creek will be required as existing outfalls in the action area will be utilized. Wetland impacts will be fully mitigated as coordination between the City of Renton and WSDOT is ongoing to develop the prospectus required prior to final approval. 7.2 Bald Eagle No bald eagle nesting or roosting habitat will be impacted by the project High use winter foraging habitat (where regular or large concentrations of eagles occur) will not be 4 impacted by the project A low number of structurally suitable bald eagle perch trees may be removed during the project. However, due to the existing levels of disturbance, regular bald eagle use is not expected in the action area. Therefore, the loss of these trees will, at most, have a negligible effect on bald eagles. Required wetland mitigation will offset wetland impacts, potentially improving waterfowl habitat and providing additional foraging opportunities for eagles. Project-related disturbance during construction and operation of the project is not expected to affect nesting bald eagles due to the distance of existing nests from the project area. Bald eagles occasionally utilize the action area where existing levels of disturbance are relatively high. Due to existing land use, most of the project-related activities are not expected to significantly increase ambient noise or visual disturbance levels. Pile driving is expected to result in the most significant noise increase within the action area. Temporary increases in disturbance levels may result in reduced eagle foraging within the action area. However, eagle presence in the action area is uncommon. Any eagles that might be present during pile driving activities are expected to shift their foraging activities to adjacent areas with lower disturbance levels. Long- term increases in disturbance from the roadway extension will be insignificant given the existing noise levels are not expected to degrade eagle foraging areas. 7.3 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions An interrelated action is part of a larger action and depends on the larger action for its justification. An interdependent action has no utility apart from the proposed project No project-related phasing or regionally connected activities are known to be associated with this project Therefore, no interrelated or interdependent actions are known to exist. 8.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 8.1 Background The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on activities that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for the Pacific Salmon Fishery and federally managed groundfish and coastal pelagic fisheries (NOAA Fisheries, 1999; PFMC, 1999). Federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries on all activities, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. Project-related activities occur near the freshwater environment The action area Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O:IPROJECTlPIPERTOOOO-OOO310500DelvIFinal SA 0825041Final SA (8-25-04).doc Page 41 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I includes portions of Springbrook Creek and the Lower Green River, but not marine waters. Therefore, the analysis addresses the Pacific Salmon Fishery, including Chinook, coho, and pink salmon. 8.2 Description of EFH The EFH designation for the Pacific salmon fishery includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except above the impassible barriers identified by PFMC (1999). In the estuarine and marine areas, proposed designated EFH for salmon extends from nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial waters out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone offshore of Washington, Oregon, and California north of Point Conception (PFMC, 1999). 8.3 Potential Adverse Effects Potential impacts to salmonids from the proposed project are addressed in Section 7.0. The same impacts identified in the ESA analysis are anticipated to apply to the designated EFH for Pacific salmon. Potential adverse short-term and long-term impacts to water quality will be minimized by implementation of the conservation measures previously outlined and those specified in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington manual (Ecology, 2001). A total of 204 percent of the project's PGIS will be treated to the "enhanced treatment" standard. Wetlands to be impacted do not provide rearing habitat for salmonids. Wetland impacts will be fully mitigated, and no in-water work is proposed. 9.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS Review of existing literature and data, results from the field investigation indicate that neither Puget Sound Chinook salmon or bull trout are established in Springbrook Creek. Chinook salmon do use the Lower Green River for migration and rearing. Bull trout are occasionally documented in the Lower Green River, but these are foraging adults and no known bull trout population occurs in the Green River watershed. Low numbers of foraging bald eagles may occur in the action area. 9.1 Chinook Salmon The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Chinook salmon. This project may affect Chinook salmon because: • Approximately 2.02 acres of wetlands will be impacted; • Approximately 4.5 acres of new PGIS will be created; and • The Lower Green River is used for adult upstream migration, and juvenile rearing and outmigration. This project is not likely to adversely affect Chinook salmon because: Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O.\PROJECnPlPERTOOOO-OOO3\0500DclvIFinal BA 082504\Final BA (8-25-04).doc Page 42 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • No in-water work is proposed; • Work near the OHWM of Springbrook Creek is limited to the addition ofa flapgate on an existing stormwater outlet; • Suitable spawning habitat for Chinook salmon does not exist in the action area; • A self-sustaining population of Chinook salmon does not exist in Springbrook Creek; • Wetlands to be impacted do not provide salmonid habitat; and • Stormwater treatment facilities will meet Ecology (2001) "enhanced treatment" standards and treat 204 percent of the project's PGIS. 9.2 Bull Trout The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect bull trout. This project may affect bull trout because: • Approximately 2.02 acres of wetlands will be impacted; • Approximately 4.5 acres of new PGIS will be created; and • Foraging bull trout have been documented in the Lower Green River. This project is not likely to adversely affect bull trout because: • No in-water work is proposed; • Work near the OHWM of Springbrook Creek is limited to the addition ofa flapgate on an existing stormwater oupet; • Use of the Lower Green River by bull trout is extremely limited; • No known existing population has been documented in the Green River; • Bull trout do not utilize Springbrook Creek nor does suitable habitat exist; • Wetlands to be impacted do not provide salmonid habitat; and • Stormwater treatment facilities will meet Ecology (2001) "enhanced treatment" • standards and treat 204 percent of the project's PGIS. 9.3 Bald Eagle The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles. This project may affect bald eagles because: • Foraging bald eagles could potentially use the action area; and • Pile driving is proposed. This project is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles because: • No suitable nesting or roosting habitat will be impacted; O,IPROJECT\PIPERTOOOO-OO0310500Delvlfinal SA 082504IFinal SA (8-25-04).doc Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment Page 43 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I" I I • Higher quality eagle habitat than is present in the action area occurs in nearby areas outside the action area; . • No nests have been documented in the action area; and • Potential impacts to salmonids will be minimized as described above. 9.4 Essential Fish Habitat The proposed project will have no adverse affect on Pacific Salmon EFH. • No in-water work is proposed; • Work near the OHWM of Springbrook Creek is limited to the addition of a flap gate on an existing storrnwater outlet; • Wetlands to be impacted do not provide salmonid habitat; and • Storrnwater treatment facilities will meet Ecology (2001) "enhanced treatment" standards and treat 204 percent of the project's PGIS. 9.5 Bull Trout Critical Habitat The proposed project is not likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat for bull trout. Should critical habitat be designated prior to completion of the project, the project will have no effect on designated critical habitat for bull trout. • No in-water work is proposed; • Work near the OHWM of Springbrook Creek is limited to the addition of a flapgate on an existing storrnwater outlet; • Wetlands to be impacted do not provide salmonid habitat; and • Storrnwater treatment facilities will meet Ecology (2001) "enhanced treatment" standards and treat 204 percent of the project's PGIS. Strander Boulevard Extension Project Biological Assessment O:IPROJECnPIPERTOOOO·OOO310500DdvIFinai BA OS25041finai BA (S-25-04).doc Page 44 August 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10.0 REFERENCES Cooke, Sarah Spear. 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington & Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington. David Evans and Associates (DEA). 2001. Stream Survey Report for Garrison Creek and Upper Springbrook Creek Culvert Replacement Project. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation -Kent Field Office. Kent, Washington. Harza. 1995. Final Report -Comprehensive Fisheries Assessment of the Mill Creek, Garrison Creek and Springbrook Creek System. Prepared for the City of Kent, Washington. Hitchcock, c.L., and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Johnson, David and O'Neil, Thomas. (Managing Directors). 2001. Wildlife -Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. ISBN 0-87071-488-0. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon. Kerwin, John and Nelson, Tom S. (Eds.). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report, GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Department of Natural Resources. National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 1999. Federal Register, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 50 CFR Part 660. Department of Commerce, Washington D.C. National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale. National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch. Lacey, W A. Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A. Identification and Description of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts, and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Pacific Fisheries Management Council. Portland, OR. Pojar, J., and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. B.c. Ministry of Forests and Lone Pine Publishing. Redmond, Washington. U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Recovery Plan for the Golden Paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 51 pp. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998a. Recovery Plan Jor Marsh Sandwort (Arenaria paludicola) and Gambel's Watercress (Rorippa gambelii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 50 pp. + appendices. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998b. A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations oj Effect Jor Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale. Lacey, W A. Warner, Eric and Fritz, Robert. 1995. The Distribution and Growth of Green River Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in the Duwamish Estuary as a Function of Water Quality and Substrate. Prepared for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe -Fisheries Department, Auburn, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2001. Storm water Management Manual Jor Western Washington. Olympia, W A Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1993. Washington State Wetlands Rating System, Western Washington (2nd ed.). Publication #93-74. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2003a. Salmon Spawning Ground Survey Data. Email response to data request by David Evans and Associates, Inc. from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2003b. Priority Habitat and Species data Jor the Strander Boulevard Extension Project. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. Washington Salmonid Stock Inventory, Bull Trout/Dolly Varden. WDFW, Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2003. Results oJdata search for the Strander Boulevard Extension project. Letter Received July 10, 2003. Washington Natural Heritage Program. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2004a. Highway Runoff Manual, M31-16. Olympia, WA Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2004b. WSDOT Field Guide for Water Quality and Habitat Protection. Olympia, W A Williams, RW., RM. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A Catalog oj Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Vol. 2, Coastal Region. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, W A I I I I I I APPENDIX A AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE I I I I I I 1\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I rage J OJ -' LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN LISTED IN WESTERN WASHINGTON AS PREPARED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WESTERN WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised AprilS, 2004) KING COUNTY Wintering bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) occur in the county. Wintering activities occur from October 31 through March 31. There are five bald eagle communal winter night roosts located in the county. There are two bald eagle wintering concentrations located in the county along the Skykomish-Beckler- Tye Rivers and Foss River. There are 38 bald eagle nesting territories located in the county. Nesting activities occur from about January 1 through August 15. Bull trout (Salvelinus conjluentus) occur in the county. Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) may occur in the county. Gray wolves (Canis lupus) may occur in the county. Grizzly bears (Ursus arc/os = U. a. horribilis) may occur in the county. Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) occur in the county. Nesting murrelets occur from April 1 through September 15. Northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) occur in the county throughout the year. Major c,oncerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed species include: 1. 2. 3. Level of use of the project area by listed species. Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species, and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. Impacts from project activities and implementation (e.g., increased noise levels, increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat) that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance ofthe project area. Arenaria paludicola (marsh sandwort) may occur in the county. http://westernwashington.fws.gov/se/SE_ListIKING.htm 7/6/2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I rage L 01 J Castilleja levisecta (golden paintbrush) may occur in the county. Major concerns that should be addressed in a Biological Assessment of listed plant species include: 1. Distribution of taxon in project vicinity. 2. Disturbance (trampling, uprooting, collecting, etc.) of individual plants and loss of habitat. 3. Changes in hydrology where taxon is found. DESIGNATED Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl has been designated in King County. Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet has been designated in King County. PROPOSED None CANDIDATE Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica) Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) SPECIES OF CONCERN Beller's ground beetle (Agonum belleri) California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) Hatch's click beetle (Eanus hatchi) Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli) Long-:eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Northern sea otter (En hydra lutris kenyon i) Northwestern pond turtle (Emys (= Clemmys) marmorata marmorata) Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) Valley silverspot (butterfly) (Speyeria zerene bremeri) http://westernwashington.fws.gov/se/SE_ListIKING.htm 7/612004 rage j 01 j I Western toad (Bufo boreas) I Aster curtus (white-top aster) Botrychium pedunculosum (stalked moonwort) Cimicifuga elata (tall bugbane) I I I, I I I I, I I' I I 'I I I I I I' http:/ Iwesternwashington.fws.gov/se/SE ~ ListIKING .htm 7/6/2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' Sockeye Sal mOD (Oncorhynchus nerka) Chinook Salmoo (0. fshowYlscha) Coho Salmon (0. ki.mlch) Chum Salmon (0. keto) Steelhead (0. mykiss) (0. gorbllscha) Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelh~ad 10 II 12 IJ 14 15 16 ~~~?,g-----------._-------_._------ Ozcne Lake ESt; B~ker R~vcr ESY q~a?~B~~. ~ive~ ESt! Lake Wenatchee ESt; Sacramento River Wintcr·run ESt; Upper Columbia River Spring-run Estj Snake River Spring/Summer-nm ESC Snake River FalJ-nm ESt.; Puget Sound ESU ~ ____ ~ ______ :yOI W~nle"-_~_! L NOI Warranted i ---I ~._.E~\~.i~~!~g ~~~_~ _____ _ .E_~0_!:-!~~_~g ~!~~s! f~ti~.a! 1·!.£l~it~!.!?~s!C!1~!!~~ ~~0_!:!~~~g S~~~ __ _ ~S~\ _~!s.li!!g _~~~~~_ ESA:. L~~t~g _St~t~s. Cnhcai I labllnt Dc;slgnali~ _ . ___ ~~~\ !:-.i~!~g _Stat~~i...~E_ti~~! t~abit~t p~~g~~~~~n._ ~~!\ l:-i~ting_~!~~~~;_~.ri!~~.l l'I~~i~a~ D~s~g~<:,!~~~ ESA Ll~tmg St~tu~. Cn-.!.~cal I lablt,:t Dc;slgna!10n Lower Columbia River ESt; Upm::r Willamcttc River ESt..; Central Valley Spring-nm ESC California Coastal ESt) -F=========; -.---ES/~J:~~~!~g_ S!~_~; fn!~~~l !i~~Lta! ~csig~~tion 17 Central Valley Fa~l ~nd Late Fall-nm ESli 18 19 20 21 22 26 27 2N 36 37 3~ 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 51 52 ypper Kla_l)lath-~ri~itx ~ve~s ,E,Sl/, Oregon Coast ESt.; Washington Coast ESLJ Yfiddlc Columbia River soring-nm ESC Upper Columbia River summc;r/fall-nm ESt; Southc;.~ q~eg~.~ort_'~.crn. ~a}ifo~~!~. ~.~_~. Orcg~l~ C:<:>a~~ ESY Not Wan'anled -----~--------~- N!!.i.!f~'!f!.'!!'!.~ Nol Warranted Nol Warranted Nol Warranted Lower Columbia River ESli __ ,,_ .. __ ._ ... _____ .. ~L __ -'-'==""-_-'.-.-:=--_==-'':~~~~.~~~ _____ . ___ _ SO'":thcm 5;alif<:>m_ia.. ES.t.: t;QQ~[J:~lumbia. R~v~r E~(; .. _ Central California Coast ESt; -_.. _.- South Central California Coast ESt.: Snake River Basin ESt.: . . ..... Lower Columbia River ESU ----.. _ .. California Central Valley ESt) t;n~cr Willamcttc River Est; \I!iddle Columbia River ESt; Northern California Est; Oreg~n Coast ESli ~~!lth~~.~s~.~~s.hi.I!gto~ .. E~~. Nol Warranted Olvmpic Peninsula ESG Nol Warranted NOI Warranted .-----------.~, Warranted .. ~ ,:e~: ye?~ . Nol Warranted Nol Warranted Total :-1urnbcrofLi.tcd ESt;. = 26 Total Number of "Endangered" ES{is = 5 Total Number of 'Threatened" ES{is = 11 Total 'Sumba of ESt; Listings under Review -17 Total :\umbcr of ESt; Critical Habitat Designations under Review = 10 An Evolutionarily Significant Unit. or "ESli", is a distinctive group of Pacific salmon or steelhead. NOAA Fisheries considers an ESli a "species" under the Endangered Species Act. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF Natural Resources July 10, 2003 Scott Swarts David Evans and Associates Inc 415 -IISth Ave SE Bellevue W A 98005 SUBJECT: Strander Boulevard Extension, Renton (T23N R04E S25; T23N ROSE S30) DOUG SUTHERLAND Commissioner of Public Lands We've searched the Natural Heritage Information System for information on significant natural features in your project area. Currently, we have no records for rare plants or high quality native ecosystems in the vicinity of your project. The information provided by the Washington Natural Heritage Program is based solely on existing information in the database. In the absence of field inventories, we cannot state whether or not a given site contains high quality ecosystems or rare plant species; there may be significant natural features in your study area of which we are not aware. The Washington Natural Heritage Program is responsible for infonnation on the state's rare plants as well as high quality ecosystems. For information on animal species of concern, please contact Priority Habitats and Species, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia WA 98501-1091, or by phone ·(360) 902-2543. Please visit our internet website at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/nhp for more information. Lists of rare plants and their status, as well as rare plant fact sheets, are available for download from the site. Please feel free to call me at (360) 902-1667 if you have any questions, or bye-mail at sandra.moody@wadnr.gov. Sincerely, ~ 6U:i!(»-m~ Sandy Swope Moody, Environmental Review Coordinator Washington Natural Heritage Program Asset Management & Protection Division, PO Box 47014, Olympia WA 98504-7014 FAX 360-902-1789 1111 WASHINGTON 5T SE I PO BOX 47000 I OLYMPIA. WA 98504-7000 TEL: (360) 902-1000 I FAX: (360) 902-1775 I TTY: (360) 902-1125 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER 0 I I I I I I APPENDIXB PROJECT PLANS 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 J 1 ! I o o 35 + __ 0) j5 (J) . '( .. ~ .... J .. ~ ... , .......... ...... ........................ ... ........... .......... ................ -.. . . . . . .. .. . .. ... .. .... . ,' .. ..................... . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . ':i .......... .......... ... J i f " ~< j j ! ~ , -. -: : . : : : : : : ~ : : . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . : ......... : . : : : : : : : : ~ : : ....... : ... . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . - -. . -. ....................... . o ........ ............... 0 ::::::::::::::::::::::: .. ." + . -. :·:·~-:-:·:-:·:·:-:·:·:·L·~·~·~·:·~·~·~·~·i :.:":-:-:":-:-:-: ... ................................ ~~ . . : : : : : : : : : : : : : . : : . : : : : : : : : ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; : ; ; ; : : ; ~-:·:t:·~·:·:·:·:·:·~·:·~·:··· . . ... : .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . • : • : : : : : : • : . . ..... : : : • : : • : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 6i~: LENGTIi: io; : 170:00: j5 . ... . . . .. . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... : : : : : : .. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ~ : : : : : : : : : ~ . :K :;=: :42.50: : : : : :: (J) _30 ·r:c-l·~o:=~=~=·~'-::~~"·L~:~c··-~··::~:·~:·~:··~:~:·~j:·_:···_::··:~-:~:··_:··L1··~;~~ri~¥:i:~~~2~f·L:.ri:&x::·:·:··:·B:::·;··:·:··:·j-:=·-··:·:·:··:·:·-:·:··::1=··~·.~·:r·::.·o.·.!·:~:·.~·:·~.·:o:·~:·:;·:·;:·:;·:· •• ·:~·.·~:'.:':~':':~: •. ~.';'; .. ~'~.'~'~E~=§.~-~O~.8~fr; .. :.:.~:'::'jJ~ ............ .;.:~~~-~.:..;.:.. __ ~_:..._....:.:.]~. __ . __ ---Z .... :::::::::....... . ..... .... --~:g ~::T:~~:::r::: •• :: ....J ..• :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:............. . ..... :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. . :.:.0 .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . -r-~ .0> .... : .•.••.••. :........ ~ .. : ......... : .......... . ........ " . . . . . . .. .. . ......... __ ... . ..... : ......... : . .......... . ............ . . :. ~ -: ............... : . ~ . ···:.·;~~::::::::::::·:·.:.:::TT:·.:·· ~ . .: ................... : ................... : ................... ; :]~ ...... . ~ !~+==+==:9:+:0~0~::::::::::::::::::::::1~0:+~0~0:;===~~~=~. :"':"_'=' '=' '=' '=' ==~=====1=1 +=~o_· o:",:,·_·:",:,·_·~· '=' =. '=' '=' '=~~===========~':"':1':"':2"':":+~~~~;"':" .;...:. .. .=..:. .. ±..:..:..:...~ .. L· .;...:. .. .=..:. .. .=..:. .. ..:.:. L~~":':":':":':1~3:.J+~ RIGHT g I--+--+------------------I---I--I~ Perteet-------:i: ~ roc liFT .. ,' .... . ... _, .... . Cl ......... ~ ~ Engineering, Inc. R EN TON' ==,.....,:~~ ~ No. Dolo _ By App<. ~ , ....... ·SUIte 800 • Et....tt. 'fA Il82Ol • (425) 252-7100 " ... , ... , "". APPi"'"" "" ~ SCAlE CONsmUCllON NOTES: @NOTES LEGEND I~I CURB RETURN MTA, SEE SHEET CRI '0' FOR RETURN INFORIIATlON 11111-_ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTlON 11111_- 20 10 o FEET 20 CITY OF RENTON STRANOER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 3 9+00 TO 13+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE _No. RP2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ =~~~~~~'J:;~ . -. -. . . . . . . . . . .......... ~ : ~ J j L .. ;;~~ .. r;~\; ~;;t~i: ~ \ \ ...• :::::::::::!:::::::::::::::::::! ... ClIT--------,,,--CUT~ ~ . . ..... : ......... :. .. ; ..... : ... : .... : . ...................•..• : •........•.........•...... ,. .. .... .. ~ ~I-: .·coc=+e~~"~~""-d--__ l--~--mI'-~-c-dHJ-,t~---.~_<:~~~~.~~~.~.: _.: .: _.:_ .. _ ..•.. , .•..•... _. __ ~.:_.'-,-_.' _. . • • • .11: . . •.•.•... . ............. ·.i ....... ~ ~ v. . ...... :::: .. ::.::::::.: ..... : ........... , ......... ,... "' -----. ...:.:..:.~ .. ~ ..... ' .... :: .. : .. :.:: .. :.'..... , ............ : .. ::.: ~ W ... ::.:::::.:: •• :.:::: :.:::.::.'.;.·.:.~ . .:·L:: ·l:·:::::· .......... · ............ ... .... -.~.~~~~.~~~~·~.-~-'~~~~:~~cc~~~t:...:.:~:+~:. ~ ~ Z ••.•....... :::::::.: .....• :~:: .. ........... Z :J .... . ........... ::.::.:::.: ' • .-:-:g" :J ~ ........ .............. .. o:~ ..):·.·~::·:·~'.t·~~~.;~:~~·[::::· .............. :.: .. : ~ ~ .. : ...... : .. .:.:.:. ..... . .... : . . . .:':::'8: ........:J: ~ I-:.::.:.::: .. ::.::::~. . ............. , .. ~ .... ,..... ~ « , . . : .-:-:g • • •••• ; ••••••••• , ... : : • : : : : : •• : . . . . ..+ ...:. « ::!: .:~ .. ~.:. . . . . < : :~ :& : : : : : • . .. ..... , ::!: ~ . . . . : k ~ :.: ....... : .....•. : .•.•.....•....... :.: .•. :.:.................. .. ':0 .•.•.. :.: .•. :. : ......... : .•. :.~ 2':':':':':' •...............•. ---.............. :-:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.~.:.:. ~ , ............. : ......... : ....... . ! 13+00 14+00 15+00 >.w.:::::.::: ... . ..•.. tJlJ~.~_+.· ~J[i.I .••. · .•. ::-g.·~~~.:,.,,'... •••• :: i ~ ...... : ......... : .. .......... . . . . . . . .. .. . .....•....•...••.... ,.... . .... A. tP.~.. . ...... . -_. -.......-.. : ......... :.... . ......... . t~~===============+~r-------------~--------I ~r-r-r---------------------~~~~ Pertret 16+00 17+00 ""'" ~ ...... 1--2tr VwI CONSmUCDON NOTES: @NOTtS SCALE 11111-__ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUcrrON 11111_- 20 10 o FEET 20 CITY OF RENTON ~ ~ Engineering, Inc. By _. Colby , __ • SUIte 900 • -. 1J.l 88201 • (425) 252-7700 ~==~IiY"..--~ ........... 1iY ~ "",JOC1-~ STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 3 13+00 TO 17+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE -. U!!44 _ .... RP3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . . . . . . . . . . ::.:::: :JT:::::l:" ............... o ....... . ... : .. ::::::::::.::. ..... . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. ......... : ......... : .. . '.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.j.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.).:::.:.' : .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... ........................ ... o .................... . + ... "'::::::::::::':::: ~ ~in(: .·.···.·.·..+H: ........ . ~U) w Z .....J ::.:::::::::::::::::: ............ : ................... : .. . ... Wo. o ................. ......... . · . . .. ..... ..... . .. ..-. .. . .. . .................. -.......................... . . ...... . · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ......... : .. . ...................... .. ....................... ....................... . .. .. . .... . . .......... . -. . . . . . . . .. .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' .h:·H:+:H::·~·:+: .. , ....... ::, .. l::::::::: ~:::::: ... : ....... :.: .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . · ... ~ : . : : : . : : : ; : .. . ......... -. .................. . · .. : ~ :: : : : : : : : L : .. · . . . ~ : : : : : : : : ~ ~ ~ : : : o :0 + CONSTRUCDON NOTES: (1) NOTES ~ I·:···· .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ::::: ~ ::.:::.:.:.::.':' .... . ~~~~ .. ~~~~~~ ... ~.,~ ..... ~ .... ,~ .. : .. ~ .. ~ ... :~~:.,~ .... ~ ..... ~ ..... ~. ~II~ « .. . ." :::::::::::::::::. .. ":i[: ...... . _10 :::E :::.:::::::::::.:., ......... ,. :::"';'0""' · ............ .. . ....... ~.:.~ ..... -.-= ....... ,. ... .: ................... : .. . .. . . . ~O.59X. . ........ . .. · .: .: :: . . . \:~g: : . : : ...... : ......... : ....... . .......... : ......... : ......... . .......................... ........... . ..... . ... , .......... ........... .......... _5_ TOC LEFT Cl SCALE 1I1II _ ___ 11111 __ 20 10 o 20 40 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 21+00 Data ~ ==:::rE<:",,-~ ....-.. ~ 5C'I..E ..,.,. '--20" -PiO)OJ"1bn ... 22044 FEET CllY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 3 17+00 TO 21+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE _No. RP4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i ~ ~ 1 t I ~r .. S3 ... -... -." ......... ,f '; ....... (}-, .:+: ... , ......... -•... -... . __ -----cvr-------cur ; ; _--cvr flU flU cur 0··········· o + N .:: ..':::..~::.:.::-:.:::.L::.::::···'·· « :: . ..... ::::: ............. , ......... , ...... . (/) ::. .: .............. . ........................... w ..... Z.;-:-;-:-;-:::· .......... ::J :. . :~ :. .:§ ::::.:: ·· .. ·l ~.~ ... :.: ... : ..... :.:.:.:.:.:.:.~.:.:.: ............. : .. .. . . ~ : : : : : : : : : ~ ........... .. .. .... ....................... . .... ... :: ~::::::::.;.... .......... . ....... 0 .. ::::::::::::: .......... .. 0 ···.·•·•·•·•· •• · •••• ···1·······:· .... : ................... : ........ . : ... ::::::::: ::. . .... :. ::::::::i::::: ........... -... + :~::.::.:.:::.:.::.:.::.~.::+: .......... ) •. ... :.: ::::.:::.:.:.~.~.~.:.~.~.:.~.:.: : ..... , ......... 'J:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:. ~ ~ : : : ' : : : : : : : : : , : : : : : : : : : ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . ... : : : : ~ ~ ~ ~ : : : : : : : : : : : ::: : : : ::: : : : : ' . . .: .: .:: .: :: :,:. :: ~: :: .: .: ~.:. ::: :.:.:: ~(/) . .. ;::::::::: j::::::::: ~:::::::. . ..... ::::::::::::::::::. r- ......... ' ......... '... . ..... , .... :::::;:::::::: .... :::::':::::::::'::: ...... , .. :.:.:.:.::.,.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ~ . •• ·.·.i ~ .•• --: ~~C ..•... · .•.•.•.•.•.• :.it".j-~f~.:~f-I r .. ··-ijt ••••••• ; ••••••• . .......................... :.:.:.:.: ................. :....... _. . ....... :.:.~ ................... : ................... : .............. . ··,·········w ·~~H~~~~: 3 :.:<.:.:::.:::.: J: ~ .:::::::::::~ ............ « ...... :::!:~ . ..... :.:.:.:.:.:.: ............... .. I .... . .. . ....... '1-.. _ ... _ .. _ .. -7-i-~-.-+ .. .:..;. .. .:...o,. •. ~ .•. ...:..:..:..:~...:..:..:..:~...:..:..:..:.:.:..:..:..~ .. .:..:. .. .:..:..: ::..;..:: :...:..:: :-=-:,..:....:..:..:+-CL_ ~ .~~ __ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~ .. ~ .. ~.~ .. ~.~.,~~~~~~~~~~~ .. ~.~ .. ~ .. ~.~ .. ~.~ .. ~~~~~~~~~.~.~ .. ~ .. ~.~ .. ~ .. ~.~ .. ~.~.:~ .. ~.~ .. ~.~ .. ~.:~.~.~~~~.~ .. ~.~ .. ~ .. ~.~.~~ TOC~G~ iUJ --liL TOC L£FT 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 tr-r-r------------------------.-,-.--------------------~------------~ Dnnm By Data £"""!5'.:t,..,..,,,,,=--~ 0.-.."" ~ SQ\I..E ...... '''-20" - CONSTRUCTION NOTES; @Ncm5 SCAI.£ 11111 ___ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11,11 __ 20 10 o FEET 20 CIT'( OF RENTON r-r-+-------------------------+-+-~~ Perteet t--+--+--------------+--+-----I ~ Engineering, Inc_ By _. Colby , ........ SUIte 900 • -. "fA 8820! • (425) 252-'7700 .......... "" ~ "",JKl--SGiiO< STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 3 21+00 TO 25+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE No. Data 22044 _No. RP5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ l I 1 t ;:: i I b' ... f I I i i I j 1 ;! ! I I NW CORNER CONSTRUCTION NOTES: (!) NOTES CU B RETURN ELEVATIO NE CORNER 1 12 J 4 PT 6= R = STATION ON ROADWAY FL EL CURB RETURN ELEVATIONS STATION ON ROADWAY FLEL PC 114 1 2 J 4 PT T = I~: T c L- -------------- SE CORNER SW CORNER CURR RF LJRN ELEVATIONS STATION ON ROADWAY FLEL PC B RETURN ELEVATIONS STATION ON ROADWAY FL EL 1 4 12 J 4 6-T -iR _ - ............ ; ................ ; ........... ,:::: 35 H··············j!30 ~ 0 0 + ~ 10 N ~i < ~ ttjjjfjjtttt~f+fffftFFFFiffff4f~fJ~=p+F+F+FFfFffffffft==s=f+8++1S+++4;;;;~~jJjjjjjjWlWlLtJtJtjjjj1Jlll1lWWl1ttJ·~!25 ~:-::-::-::-:-:-:-:-::::::'-:c-:-:--:-:~:...:.:-7C7C7';-O~-:-:-;-:-;-C7C7;.;';-O.;-;-:-;-:-+~C7;-;';-O~-;--;-:-;.C7C7;..;';-O.;-:::7:":';--':--''''':'''':7,,,,-,",~-';'':'':..:.l:'''~:-:~~';';'~~~:-________ ~_ ::::::.:::::::::.:::: :~i ...••.•...••...•.•.•............•••• H-..•...•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•...•.•.• ....•••• .L.·.······ ... ..... ............. ...•...... . .--~--(~---~-~CCj-_C~-=;-__ ~~t-~ .. ~TC~ ii 20 ~ en w z ::J ~ I f2 < SCALE ....JL ~ .. ................. .•... ::::.:.:.:.::.:; .......... ::::::::::: ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .... .. ... :.::. . .. . . .. ;: :::::::::::: . ·.~.~L:L~.L~::.~.:::: .... :/.U:U.u.:.:.:.::L.LUL .~: 15 .. ........... . : .:::::: ::::::::::::: :::::'::::.(::::':::'~ ...... :::!:: :::::::::':::. . .... ; ........ :; ..... : ... ; .. : .. :::. ··.·::·::·:·:·:·::t·::·:·:·::.: ~::: ...... ; ..... :::: ~:: :: ... ::; :.:::::::.; ........ . 11111-__ 111"_- . . . . . . . . : : : : : : : : : : ~ : : . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . : . : : : : : : : : ~ : : : . . . . . " :......... ~ . : ~ : : : : : : ; : : . . . . . . . : . . . . . . : : : . . . . . . . . .. . : . : : : : : : : : i : : : ::. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . : . .' . . . . . . : . . . : : : : : : ~ : : : : : : : : : ~ . . . . : : : . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ~.: : : :: :": 20 10 o FEET 20 25+00 .. : ......... :::::::::::. '.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~.:.:. . .... :::::::::: ~:: ........ '.:.:.:.: :.: .. : ........... :.:.:.:.~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: :.~.:.:.:::::: : ~::::::::: ~:... ..; .... : ... '. ~:::: ..... : ............. :: ... : .... ::::: ~::::: .... : ......... : .••. : : : : : : : : • : : . . . . . . . • . .. .. . ......•.••.....••.. • • . .• . • • . . • . . • . . . . . . • . .. ....•. . ...... ....... : :'::':':':'~~'::':':':':'. .• ... ................. . . ........ :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ::~':-:-:~':':: :~ LEFT :::::::::::.. . .. ' ...... : ........ ::: .:.~: .. ::::-:~:: ...... .... ::.:: ~:''''':::~:. .. ~~.::::::::.::':' .. ......... ........ . .. ............ .......... 26+00 27+00 28+00 . ... .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... . ......•..•..•....... ~ RIGHT 29+00 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION r-+-+-------------------------~-+~~ Perteet I---+--+------------------l---+~ ~ Engineering, Inc. ...... By ..... sou CITY OF RENTON =oJ':;oa=' =1Ii'_' _ =-'-;__ STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE .--By -", 25+00 TO 29+50 .~IIi'~ADJJ.:. ....... ·ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE -By -. Colby '-• _ 900 • -.u. 'fA 9820l • (425) 252-'I'l00 40 _ .... RP1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 t 1= i b' , f i l ~ I I i ! ! CUT CUT_ SW CORNER SE CORNER CURB RE IRN E_8JA-IJNS -CURB REfITRN TfFVATIONS STAnON ON RONYWAY FLEl STAnON ON RONYWAY FLEl PC PC 1 r .. 112 2 3/4 3/4 I pj I~: I:: I~: I: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r-r-~------------------------~~~ Perteet t--I----f-------------+-+--I~ Engineering, hIe. ........ -By -. CaIIrJ A ........ Salle 900 • -.u. WA Il82Ol • (425) 252-7700 I " \ / /~ ,X / / / / " I " / , l/// / / /1 ; \ .~. ~ .. ·.·0 ::0 + • I") 30 . I") --....... « :1- .U)~. 33+00' . SCAlE CONSTRUCTION NOTES: @ NOTES 11111-__ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11111_- 20 10 o FEET 20 40 CITY OF RENTON RP2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ I I ~ f ;: ., i I b' !!> I I ~ I f I J ! ~ ~ I I ~ 0 0 + ... ... ~ I") .. I") ........ ..... ~ .... .... ~ (/) w z ::J ~ ::I: (J ~ -« ~ ~ ... ..... . 'lr~~ .. __ .-.. _-......... . .... .. -...... ~ .. ; .... , ..... " ____ --FltL ) ::::::':::::<:. -:::" .:::::.; .. ::::::::::::::,-: .... -_ .. -_ .. " . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . .. :.: ~ : : : : : . : : : . : : • : : . r::r:rr.:: : : : : . : . . . . : : : : : ~ : : : : : : : : : ~ : . . : : : . . . . : : : : . : : : . : . . . . . . . . . : .................. :.-................ : ... . .. : ...... : ... . ........... CONSTRUCTION NOTES: o NOTES : : : : : : ~ ~ : : : : : : : : ~ : : : ~ : : "'::::::::::::::::::: .. ....... __ ........................................ . :::::.::::::::::::::::::.:::::::: . .. .. : ......... : .. ... : ......... : ......... : ... . : : : : : ~ . : : : : : : : : j : : : : : : : : : ~ : : : : : ................. TOC LEfT :::':::::::::::::: . ........ . : ......... :.. . . . .... a. SCAlE .. . ............. . ........ . 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~.~.~ .. -.. ~ .. -.. --~.~ .. ~ .. -.. -:-:~.~ .. ~:-.. ~:~ .. -.. -:-.. ~.~--~----~----.~.-.. -.. --~~:~:~::~:~:~~~--.. ~ .. -.. -:-.:~ .. ~. ~~ 11111 __ 11111-__ 33+00 34+00 r-+-+--------------------------+~~.~ Perteet I--+---+----------------+--+~~ Engineering, Inc. 35+00 .... Data -By -. Colby ,_ • SIDle tIOO • Bnrett. ... , 98201 • (421\) 252-T1OO 36+00 37+00 20 10 o FEET 20 40 Drawn By Data scou: CITY OF RENTON o£oa===o; __ ::: """ •• 2D' . STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 1 ..-By -• 33+00 TO 37+00 --0; J.O.lUlY. PrO;oJ,: ........ RQADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE _ .... RP3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o o NW CORNER C"" I CURB RE JRN F STAllON ON RONJrIAY (; fl El ! .... P 114 ;; [' hj'!-i!~-""":::,C;"'''''''''''·;O"..--'---'~"l-'';'''; *; -'-, ----j' ," .. PT c,'" ". : .... ~.". cUr? ~:; ;1:' +00 f'a.. ...., a::: ... --' ~C :(' ; ~ -~. i~ J.--~ t ----~;:: r----E~"'.,. '11-,-- ~o --I .~ I 1LI~"""'---------':'-----~--------'1 --r C:; I , \ ";:';~~.0;1,,;,,/ ~~~~~~--~~~~~--~~--~~~~~~: !\: :1! __ FJ: W CORNER FJIL---'~' _~_.:c~~~\~,1,1tl~~rftf\:'-I·+I .. ·'··!'il!.liiii1iilLil"'" ! \ CURB RETURN ELEVATIONS STATION ON RONJrIAY flEl IPC 1/4 1 2 J 4 PT .. I 1:>.= T -" R"-" . ... l -"' 1 ~i ~ i .... :0 ... ····0··· :g :: ~ ..... ':<1 .A'Jl4 ::::::::0 . ·······0· .... J~].:::.:.: .. ::::::::. .'~~:G)::::: ..... . ····--0··· ~ .........•.•.•.•.•..••• : ••••••••• :................... ......•.•.• •.•.•........................ ........; !.i •.•.•.•.•. !............ .. ·· .. ···,:l·l:~~l. .......... .......... .. ........... . ....... __ . . ......... . ...... "' .......... ................... , ................... . ~.;~~~~~~ .. ... ::::~~:Q):::::::: :.~.~.~.~. ~.~.~.~.~.~.U.~.~ :.:.:.:.:.:. :.:.: ... ...... __ .. . -. . . . . . . . - . . . . -. . . . . . . . . .. . ................... . "IlL :0 ::0 + ":I ... ...:: () .. ........ ::::: I-::::: « .. .................. :.:.:.:.:.: ::!: ........ ......... . . . . . . . . . . TOC LEFT Cl ..... .............. .......... ... ....... ~~ __ ~ ____ ~ ______ ~ ____ ~ ______ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. ~.~~~~~~~~~~~~.~.~ .. ~.~ .. ~.~ .. ~.~ .. ~.~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. TOCRIQIT 37+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 t~-,---------------------.-.-r----------------~~----------~ ~~+-+-------------------------~-+~~ Perteet ~t---t-+-------------+--+--I~ Engineering, Inc. -By ..,... Ca\by i ......... SIdle 900 • -. ... 98201 • (.:!5) 252-7700 '~~N'''''' ~,~, l\..c.l'l\...)t~ Dolo ~ ==~~Iii--~ ......... .., ~ ..... '--20" CONSTRUC]ON NOTES; @NOTES SCALE 11111-__ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUcrrON 11111_-- 20 10 o FEET 20 40 CITY OF RENTON STRANOER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 37+00 TO 41+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE _ .... RP4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 25 ! J 20 I- i:: I- ii i I .. SEOlON 25, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. :~.-' '.' .. ILL __ -J,LL IILL ,ilL JILL ·.iLL ilLL ':':rru __ _ '---.. ~-:-::-:-:~:-:--~----~-'-"-"~--~----'~"----------~'-'-.-.. ~::-::-::-::-::~::-::~::~::~----~ .. -.. -.. -.~ .. -.. -.-.. -.. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~~~~~~~~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~.~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~.~.~~~~ .. . . . . . . . . : : : . . . . . . . : : : : : : ! : : : :: : : : : i : : ~ : : : ~ : : ! . : : : . . . : : : : : : : : : : : . : ' . : : : : : : .. : : : : : : : : : .. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ' : . : : . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ... . ....... ... .. .. ... . .. .. ... .. ......... ::: :: .:~ 30 o .......................... . . . . . . . . .............. .... . ::..... ..... .. . ....... .. ..... . ....... : .. : .. .: .. : ... : : ~ : . . . . .....: . . . . .':':' . . . . .. .... ........ Oll)··:.':----' o ... ..... . ............ " .......... ... . .... _.. . .. ; ......... :.... ..; ......... ;.. . + ...... ..... ... ...... .... .::.::::::: ......... ............... ...:........... +:' ...... .... :.: .. :.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.: .. ,". .. . .............. ::... .. . .. ::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.... . ..... :: :::::::::::::. ., .::::::::::.:.... :: ... : .. ::J:2:::.::i,. 25 v ..... ........... ........... .....:::::.::. ....,..........,...::.:::::.:.::~~~.~~~:\1~:t;o'~~.~.::: .. ::.:.::.:::.:::.:.::.:.:.:.:.:::.:::.: ... :.:.: ..... ........... "" ~ ....... ::::::::::::::::::::::::. . • : : : : : . :: : : : .. : : : : : : i : : : : : : : : :!: :: : : : : • : : : : .... :: : : : : : : : :: : : : .. : : . ~ : : : : . : : : . . : : .. :~.~~: : : :: : : :~:: l~;~~: : :: : i: ~~.5~: ... : : : . : . : : . : : : ;: : : : .. : . :: : : ~ : . :: : : : : : : : . : : : : ... : (I) .................................... .. ~-~----• . • • • • • • . . . . • · • •.•.• •.•.• • •.•.• •.•.•.•.•.•.•.•...•.•.. ......•.• • • • . • •••••••.•••• · •.•... • .•.••••..•.......•.•.•.•.•.••••.. ·111 ~..... . ..•.. J:! ~.JI •• ................••••• . ................... . ~ .......... ............ .............. .. .... , ....... n:. ll ...... ·'· ..... , ......... ,........ ::: ~:: ~.. .:::::::::: ...... ... .. :.::: ::::::::::::: ... ... .. ........ ;::: ::: :].&:: ::::::::::: ::::: g;i:! ::::::::: ·.::: .. ~A.:.::.:.:.:.:.::.:.::.:."'" .... .... ...... : ..... ~ ............ : ... 10 . . .. .... ... .... . . ... . ...... : ................... :.. . . . . .. . ........ : ... : -:. : . :. : ....... : ............ -..... . ........... _. . . ... . ................ : . :.:. . . . . . . . . . . :.:-:.: ........... : ..... :.:":.:.: -:. : . ~ -:. : . : .:.:.:.:":. : . ~.:.: ... . ............ : ......... :. .......... . ......... . ........... "'" . . ............. ... . .. .. . ..... ... . ... . ... . . ...... . ........ ............ . . ...................... . . . CONSTRUC]ON NOTES: 0NOTIS SCAlE 11111-__ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11111 ___ 41+00 20 10 o fEET 20 42+00 43+00 !r--.~r-------------~------------------~--~~-----------------------------,---------------------, 44+00 45+00 ~~+-------------------------~-+~~ Perteet I----+--+-------------+-+--I~ Engineering, Inc. No. Data -. '" -. Colby A"""I •• SuIte 900 • Eomott. Y.l Il82Ol • (425) 252-'7700 Dolo ..!.OLJLa =ChOCbd=....,"'~ ..!.OLJLa .....-. BY ..!.OLJLa CITY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 41+00 TO 45+50 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE _ .... RP1 1 ·1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I .SEcrION25, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. :~ .... :~~ .. ~~ rn ! ~ "'IT "d. . .t" , '" flU FlU --'-'''-''''-'' FlU---~-FlU-_____ FlU---------Flll.------FIlL • Fill fl9=- ( ... " .. " :::0 .::.::0 + .. 0> 10 ::: "<t -- ::<: :::::'::: l- ............. (/) _5_ .-:-:-:-~~-:;-:-. ...,.... . ...,.. . ...,..;.:..;..~.~.~:.;..:.:~:~:~;.:-;.::..:.; . .;.:;.~~:;.:::;.::.:.;.::.:;:~.~ . .;:.;:;':::;"::+:':';':;·:·;:;':';:;':':·~::-:-::";:~:;'::~·~·:-:-:·7-:~:~:t:""7:-:-·~·~o --'--- ...... ... ........... ........... .. , ,. "::.; ::::.. .,. . ... :..... .... ::::::::: :. .. ... :: :::ci:: ... :: Wz o· . . :0 ::: . .. .....,.'.. ::::~ ::. :::J "':'4 ~l. ..: . . . . .. .. .... ........... . .. : : : : : : ::.-.: .. :.:::.::; ~.:.: I :::.~ .... .,.... ........... .... . .... , ....... YJ "': ::: ~ .•• ••. .."" )I" 'g' ....... ............. :::::::::::::R.!'i .. <: ... .. .. .... : :: i.d ~::. . .. ::::::: .... : ........... :.... . ......... > w.. . .. .. .. ........... .................................. ......... .:.:.................... . .......... :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:y.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. :::::::!!: .. .... .......... -. _ .... . ... ... .. ......... . .. ; ......... ; .. . ......... ~ ........... : l : .... : .... : .. . ~+oo ~+OO ~+OO t,~-r-,--------------------------------,-~--r-------------------------~r-----------------~ 49+00 !r--+--r-------------------------~~~~ ar--+--r---------------------------------~~~~ !~=t==================~~~~~~~~~~ ~ No. .... _ By _. CGJhy '-• SUIte 900 • Ennott. U 88201 • (425) 252-T700 _0_ SCAL£ CONSTRUCTION NOTES: @NOn:s 1111.-__ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUcrrON 11111_- 20 10 o FEET 20 40 CITY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 45+50 TO 49+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE RP2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I z I ! b' I I I Ii / ................... -......... ~-~-~-.. ... . . . . . . . . . . . ........ : ......... : .. SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. ~~~.;~:~~~~~~~~'.-~ : ~;'-.!" . .<.c..~.;t> ., ::r·:\!:·:'1:DO 'j~ !';;,;.',,:: f-3+ ';: w,·~· ,:.~ .--.. .... ., ~ ~ ... : ......... ; .... . : ~ : : : . . . . . . : . . . . . . . : : ~ : : : : : : : : : ~ : . : : : . ';,':1::,',"; . ........ . ~ ..... .. ..... . ............. , .............. ·~~~,~=m···· ············ .... · ......... ti •.••••••••• ·: ••••••.•••••••••• :.................... ....... . .••. : .•.•.•.•.•.•.•••••••...................................•.•.........•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•..•.•...•.•.•.•.•.•.•. : .••....... ~ :1-·i.·i.·i.·i.·l. : .. ~ .. : .. : .. :.,.~. '. ~.',,:, ~ .. ~. :. : ......... : .... :E:,;,: ;-il;q!?: .. : . . ~ : :: : : : : : : : .. ............ . . . . . . . .. . . . : ......... , ........ : : . : : : : : . : : : : : : . ...... ::::: ::::::: : .. ::::: :::::::: .... ,. ., ......... ,...... .. ..... , ......... :.... ~ (I) . . ..... , ......... , .................. ,........ .......... , ...... ::~::Grode"":o-D.5OX: ........ -=-:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:..:..:.:..:.:.:.:..::.;:.;.:..._. (I) ~ t-~~-:: ~,:.i.:.-.: :~.:...-~~~:.;~.:...~-~~~~.~-:.:.::.:-::. ::.=-I~ ·~~.:.::~:.:·-.::·;,;;,;:'-c"':77:-::-~f.:7:':·7:'::7."::::T':·~·:::::-·-:-::::::::::~·~C:::::::::::::~:::.:::.:::~.::::::::::::.,.:. ... . .::.:.... .. 8 ~ ....J :::::: ...... ... ::::=:=:::=::J :::: "... ·······O....J 0··········· ········;·······1.nO···· .. ~ 5 9.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..... .:. 'I!:i :. .. .. . . :.:.:.:.:.,. :':':':':':':':':':':':':':' .. 'ct 9.: . . . . ................. ,......... ................. . ................... ~.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.~.. . . . . . '(3 I ~ ~IL_ ......•.•.•.•. ~ .. ~ .•.•. ······.:!l~··· ... ,.'.. ····L.._·················· ......... ~ ~ .: ................... : ............ . .. . . ... ...................................... : : : : : : : : ~ : : : : : : ... ~ : : : . . . ... ... ....... . ......... : ......... : ........ . TOC LHT Cl 51+00 52+00 ....... ~~~~~~~.~ .. ~.~ .. ~ .. ~.~ .. ~~~.:.; . .:... .. ~.:.; .. ~.~ .. .:.....:.~~~..:.:.;.:.....:.~~~.~:~~:::.;:.:...::~::.;::~::~.:.:....:~::.;: ~~~~..:.:.;~~~~..:.:.;~~~..:.:.;~~~~~~~~~..:.:.;~~~~..:.:.;~~~JTOC~~ 49+00 50+00 53+00 ir-~-r----------------------------~'--r------------------------r-----------------~ tr-+-~--------------------------b-+-~~ Perteet ~~~~=====================j=j=i~~~E~n=g~m=e~e~rin~g,~fu~C.~~~ ~ No. ""'" ......,... CoIhy , ........ SUIte 900 • EftnIt, 111. 88201 • (425) 252-7700 CONSTRUCTION NOTES; @NOTES SCAlE 11111-__ 300/0 REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1111'_- 20 10 o FEET 20 40 CITY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 49+00 TO 53+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE _No. RP3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ J 1 I I o o + r') Ll) 1 : ~ : : : : : : : : : ~ : : : : ... .. :.L:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.L.:.:., .. :.:.:.:.~_:.:_:.: ..... : « .~ ... :.::::;:::::: ... :.: ....... :. I-:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::':: :::::::: en ~~~~j~~~~~~~ii6~::::::::::. SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP, 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. . !:; '. .. ../ . :i., . .>..:'" ,:?-<~ .,.:;.<: .•.•. ")i, . ~nU~FnL~;FnA ---' \ ~r;;~:~1. ,;~. ."L ..•. _····" ....... .. : ......... : ......... : ... . : ......... :. - -. . . . . -. . - -. . . . -. . -. -. . --.. -... -... __ .•.... _-_ .. .... ;-, .......... . , ". .......... -.... . ................ . ....... , ......... ,.... . ........ 0 ... .. . .. :::::::::::::::::: .. :: 0 ::::::::i::::' .. .. .. ':::::::::::::. :: + .::::::::::::: .... :.::.::::::::: ......... ::::::::::::. ::::::::::::::::: --.. --.. --. :: I" ··:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:tuRVE·:iiEjijGnf:;;;:·~:20:00 ......... :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:........ . :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.': : ..................... :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Ll) ..• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~:~ !%~i~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ : : . : : : : : : : : : ; . : ; ; . ; ; .. ; ; : ; .. ; : : : : : : : : : : : : : .. : : ; : ; ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ : : : ~ ~ : ~ ~ : ~ ~ : I ~ .. ; ; : : : : ~ : : ~ : : ~ ~ : : ~ : : ~ ~ ... ::: :Q.~~::::::::::::: ::: ::::::: :~~.~~::: :::::::::::::: ::: :::::: :Ci.ci.ie~::..:$;~*::· ::::: ::::: ::::::::::::::: :::~~:i>;5()%:::::::: :::: ::::.::: en "-::-:':;::-::':::':::':-:'::i=:--:~:' .:=:.~.~.-=:,:.~~.~.~.=-.:=.~.~.~==.,..,.... ---.:-------;-------:--... ;.:-: -:-... -:-. .~ ~:-: :-:7'":-:-.-:-.-:-:~ ~·f·~::-:-:~:~:~;.:.:.·:;.:.-~·7-::.:=-:~:~:· .:~:.:.:: w ....................•..•••• • .• I •• i •••• III ••• II .• i[ .•....•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•. ~ •...•.• iIb ... _...... . ..••••..• · .•.•.•...•.•.•.•. : •• ·.II •• !.~i •• II •••• IJ •• lj............. . .•• •·•·•·•· •• I •• I!~I. ~ . . ~ : : : : : : : : : ~ : : : : . . . w Z :::::::::: .......... __ ~ :.U:.U.:.U.:.:,!.:.U.: ...... . .... .... : ......... : .. ................. _-_._.- . ~ : : : : : : : : : ~ . TOC LEfT . . CL L-____ ~~~~ ____ ~ __________ ~~~~~ .. ~ .. ~.~ .. ~.~ .. ~.~~ __ ~~~ .. ~.~ .. ~ .. ~.~ .. ~.~ .. ~·~~~~~ ____ ~~~~~ .. ~·~ .. ~ .. ~·~ .. ~·~ .. ~·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TOC~G~ 53+00 54+00 55+00 lr--r-,----------------------------------r-,--,----------------------------,--------------------, 56+00 57+00 r-r-+-------------------------+-~~ Perteet t--+--+----------------+-+--I~ Engineering, Inc. No. ""'" -By -. Ca\hy ,_. SuIte 900 • -. "A 98201 • (425) 252-7700 \;: ':~,: .:,~, ~.:;: ""'" ~ 0="':==-0 .. 0:---~ ....-.. ~ CONSTRUCJJON NOJES; @NOTES SCAlE 11111-__ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11111_- 20 10 o FEET 20 40 CITY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 53+00 TO 57+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE _No. RP4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. . :, . ..:: -" ...... ~ ~ .,. ; x······· ... -x " .. _ .. ).. ...... ~-.-. ~ .... :~ ~.----.. -- SIT s' flU F'lf' nrl ---FlU -----=-----.f/IL .. --..-"'"" .. -=--=--=--:::--....... Fl~-------FlU-------FlU--.. -_ -... -.-.. -.-.... --FlU --;------FlU-------FlU --""'''''-'-;', ~ I 1 ! I I J .......... .. -....... . . : ......... : .. ............................................... ....... __ ... ...... ,.-. o .. ......... . 0········· + .. . ...... . f'. .. ., .. ' . ::. cU!Mt: WolGI-H : ~ :i20;OO: : : w Z ::J . :',':':':':':-:':':':',':({:';;;':1;ZO:OO:':':':':-:':',':': "::::::::': :E~: :-;.0:;5:::::::: ~::::. ... :6;50;;::::: ':::::::::':::::::: Jo.SO%::: .. .. ....... . : : : : : : : ~ . . . . . : : : : ~ : . ............. . . ................... : ........ . ...................... .. : .. : ~ : :: : : : ... : ........ . .... · .... 0 ··· .............. · .. ·· .. ··.0. .:~ ::.!' "'0' : :ci : . : .. : : :;t : : ~ :r: -.. _ ...... . ........ :~ ~I .:-~~l·· ~ :: .. ::::.: « ~--.... --.:-........ -. : .. :-:.... .. : :-: ........... :.:.:.: .... ':~ ~.~ . : ::: ::-: i . : : : :~: ~ : : :~ cl.·I.~.·.:,.'.:.·.~.:.:.· : : : ........... : ................... : ... . _ ........ . .. ...... . < N'" .. : ~~ ~ j~;.:' .... n. W;<.O· .. .... .. . . .................. .. '-:",,, . . . . . . . . . . :~~~~~~~~~~~::~::~j:~::~~::::: . : ......... : ... . -....... . ............... .... 0 .... :1:····.·.· ....•..• · .. ·••··· ..... ~~ ..... :.1 ::[: :[[::1:::: ::::: :::: :::::::: :::::::: :::::j::¢~~~~~ ~~~~Li~~~~~~~ ~ .. ·itt!~:i . . . . . . .. ..•••••• .ii • • • . . • . . .. . .. ~ ~: YTTT;:·:::::::::::· .;::::::.,...... ~--tiL ···:·~·:-:·:-:·:·:·:·:·-T················-:····-······;.:.::.:-:.:.:.:.:.~-: ..... :.::-.: .... ~ .. :.:-.. : .•. • • : : • .. ........ . ........ . . . - a. tr,II-----------------------r-r~------------------~------------~ !~r_r_----------------------+_+_~ ~~~================~=t~~~==~~~~ ~ No. ""'" lit __ CaIby ,>elIDe. SuIte 900 • Eftntt. IrA 98201 • (425) 252-7700 ""'" ~ n:==n ... .:---~ ~ APPiO'Od ... CONSTRUCTION NOTES; @NOTES SCAL.E 1.11.-_ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11111 __ 20 10 o FEET 20 40 CllY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 57+00 TO 61+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE _No. RP5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION'JO,IOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 ~, W.M. CONSIRUC]ON NOTES: @NOTES . ' ::,,/ .. ""\ _ .. '\ .... __ ... \\ ~_-FlU-----:-"'7"· ::::: .::::....... : ....... ~~~:::::::::;~::::::: ..... :'::::::::: .. . -, ..... ..... ..... :::' .... : ...... :::::::::::: ...... :::::::: .. : ........ . . .. .......... 30 ............... . ...... , .... :::::,::::: ............. :.:.: ... . o ..... .:.:~.:.:.:.:.:.:.~: .. ::: ... .. .. 0···········.. . .. ::,::::::::., ............... ::.... .. + .. ....... ......_ ..... :.::::::::::::~::::::::.:: .... o. flti------FILL J :: ~ ~~;""r. ~~~-;~~j-~,i~@-!l",,~~~~7~f_~·~H}-~~.· •. ~oi.··.}lU? ! w ..... , ................... , .......... :::.: ...... ::.: ........ . ........ . .5 Z : ~::. .. :;0:::':: ......... "':: ... ::: ::~:::. :::::: ::::.... . .. [ 15::J ..": ...~~:::: ::::::: ....:::~:~~: ..::::::::: ..... . a-I •.• ~ ~.~.:.: ::.:r:.::.:.: •.•.• : •.•.•. ~ .• ::.: . .~: ••. ~ •.•. : •.•. :::g ~: ..... '.:.. . ..: .. :.~.: .. :.: ..... . ~' ~ .... ':'::'ii~:::: .. : ......... ,........ ... ::::::::::::::';";:11:::: .. .......... .. .. . f c( :::::::::::... >, ........ : •••••••• :':::::.. . .. :::: ..... ; .... :::~;j::.....·.l:.::::::l::::: •• ~~.: ... :.:.:.:.:.: ... :.::.. ................... ............. . ...... : ...... , ..... : ... ,.. .:: ... :: ... ~::.:::: ..... . -r •.••.... :. .~:::::::::: ••. ":::::::::. ,-.......•. ..::::~~::~ -.. :: .. . . . . . . . .. .... .. .. .. ,- flU 1 m .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ................. :.. ..~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ... : ........... : ....... :..... • ............... , ................... : ............................... . . . . -. . . . . . .. ......::.:::::.: ~ . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . : -. . -. . . . . : . ... ............ ........... .............. . .... . ........... ".. . ....... : ......... : ......... : .......... I ... . ...... :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::. .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . : .. : . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ::::::: ~ : : : : : : : : : ~ ..... 61+00 62+00 63+00 ....... ; ......... :. 64+00 ... ..... eVT---cvr~ :::::30 ~~'.r-..: +: ;:;;~.:~25 .~.:.:.·.§J20 ............ :::::::: w:: ..... ::::~:::: z:: . .. : . : : : : :: : : .. :.::1.~.:~.~~:!15 :::::::::::::.::~~::~ ~:~ . .. : .....•..•. :.: ..•.•.•.•. :.:.:.:.:.: ..... :.: .•.•. :.).: .•.•. :.~ .... 10 ........ :C;L;: ~ SCAlE ,.,.,--'1",_-: : : : : : : : : : : : . : : : : .: .:i99.. ~tGHT 20 10 o 20 65+00 FEET 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION trlll----------------------.-~r-----------------~------------~ ! ..... Ill' .... """-E CllY OF RENTON _t--t--t-----------------If-+--I ~.4ooa ~~~111_::: -,..... STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 _No. RP6 !~~~=============~~=~~~~~~~~~~~~ "'0 ~111 ~~ ~+OOro6~~ ~~~~~ .... ~ ____________ ~~=.-=o~ __________ -L211l'~-=·L-_~~m-___ ·~ __ ~ __ ·_~ ___ u_~ __ ~.(~~)~ __ -noo_L ________________ ~ ____________ L-________ ~~~~II1~~~~~~~~~G~-~~R~O~A~D~W~A~Y~P~L~A~N~A~N~D~P~R~O~F~IL=E~~-L~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ·1 I I I 1 I 1 ~:.: ..... SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. ~.--.......... -... ~.:, , 0 •• 1 so .'>, CVT------CVT------CUf---___ CUf-_____ CUf--_ ~'" :g :~ i~" ::: ~j :~r,~. T~~,,~, ~~F~++#~;;~";':':';~~.:.:1~~b~~~~~~~~~';':':':'~;;~~~~#~~;:;~~§~±1wZ' ,:: [ :....-. .. ......... . ::0 :: _::: . _......... ... . 'J ' , ' : : : : : : : : : : ~ : ' , , , . , ,0 "',', , , , , , . , , , , ,: :::i::: 15 "" '''' '" ::0 :::::,,,, ,,,,," ,,"""'" -:±,. ,.,'" +:,::,:,:,:<.~>:,:«:.::,:: " ," ",.,," ,:,~:,:~:, """,,,',:,:,::,:,:,:,: !~ •. .. ..•... .•. .;;,u: ••. ::::.,." Hi! ....! " ":'::':':'::':':":':':":':'''''''''''''':':':':':':':Y':'~.:.:.:.:':':.f:':.:.::.:"." ':::, " •• :,'.'". ,:, " .. "" .. :".;.:"""." .... : ..... ":.:" .... '" " .... .. " ........ -....... .. ... .-. .. ... . ....... -.. " ........ -.. ........ .. ..... 67+00 ._-_ .... -. .......... ............ 69+00 ""'" .lQQ&l. ""QOOdOid=-":"'-.lQQ&l. .......... II)' .l.OL.1la CONsmucnON NOlES: ill NOTES SCAlE 11111-__ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11111_- 20 10 o FEET 20 40 CITY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 65+50 TO 69+50 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE _No. RP7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. J.---CtJr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CUT------CtJr . . . . . . . -. . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . :".:<' "., Cur ........ -.. ·_··:;F ·¥-~~:'·-Cfti,,·~··---~:~:=~';·~n . ' r.-fd. :~~f.';'R : & c;:p .. : ......... ; .... . .. : ........ ':. . "' ...... .. . ........ . . .... ............ . ......... . .-........ . . : ~ : : : : : : : : : ~ : : : : : : : : : ~ : : : : : : . ..... '" ..... :.: .... :.: ... :.:.:.: ".: ................... :.::. _. _ .... -. ..................... ··:0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. ........ . __ ._-_ ................ _--..................... ...................... . ................................ . Lg . : : : : : : : : : : : : i : : : : :: : : T : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... ...... . :.~±: : .. ' : ... : . . . ...... : : : : : : .' : : : : : : : : : .' : : : : : .. .....':::::::::... ..... . . : :: : :: : : : : : VI .:::::::::::::::::::: .... . . :.:U> .. :.:.:.: •. :.:.:.:.:.::.::.~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:+:.:.:. . ... ·:·:·:CO~:t:EN(;lli·:';':·:150,do·:· ... :.~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.'.:.: .... . . . . . : : : : : : : : , : : : : K: :=i : 8&52: : : : : ' : . . ............... . : . ..cc :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::: \:::: :E*: :-+O~32: :::: ~ : ........ :.:::::::: ~:::::::::;:: ~: :.~ .. : '.::.:. :.: ., .: :. :. :. : : : :: ~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ::: :: : : : : : ~ : : : : . X: : : : .. : . : : : : : : : : ' ... : : : ...• : .. : : ..... ~ . : : : : : : : : i : : : : : : : : : ' ......... , .. tiFT ....• : .......•. :. . .....•........... :: ~::::::::: ~::. :, ...•• :~.: .•.•....• ·: ..•.•.•. : .•• 1 ••••••••• ::.---]-. F ..••. -.••. -..••. -.,.;:> .•. :.: .••. ;. -~-----~! tC~-=r! r---.~~e·~'r--~-~-~ ~--~ •.••••..•.•... .... : . . . . .......................: ... u.~.:.u.:.:.~.:.¥~ . .-.. ~.:.-.:.: : : : · : : . ..... : ... :.:.: . :. : ....... : ................... ~ .: ... : .:.:.: ....... : .. ... 70+00 ........ . .. .. ... .......... 71+00 72+00 :::: .......... ···········:0 ............ ::::::::::. + . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .......... : I") ··;·:.:Y+.:·I·:·:Y·:·~·:·:·~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: .:: : , ......... : ......... : .. : .... : I- ::~:::::::::~:::::::::~::::::::: (f) . ~~~~~.~.~~~£¢~ .. ~~~~~": ~ :: .....J .:.::~ ::./..: ; : : .. : : : : . : :: : : ~:.: G . : ..... : :::~:::::::: :~:::: .. :: ~ . .. ::::~:::::: ... ' ...... :: ~ . .. ~.:. -....... :.:. :.:.~ ... : -:. :.. ... . ..... ' ............... . ... ........... 73+00 !r--r--r----------------------------------,--,--,-----------------------------.r--------------------, fr-r-r------------------------+-4~~ Perteet ~ ~ Engineering, Inc. -. "" -. Colby A __ • Salle 900 • -. WA 98201 • (425) 252-TI'OO SCAlE CONSTRUCDON NOTES: @Nons 11111 ___ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11111_- 20 10 o FEET 20 CllY OF RENTON STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 69+50 TO 73+00 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE _ .... RPB I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Qn-------------arr---------===~ :::::: ::: L::::::·: ~ . ........... ................. . . . . . . . . . .. -......... .......... . ........ -. ............ ...... ... SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. ,.;!': . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :·.:.:U.UL'.: : : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : -.. . . . . . . . . . -: .. : .:. ~. :.:.: . : . :. :. :. :. : . ~ . :.: . : . : .: ... :::::::::::::::::: ........ ........ -... ............ ::1:::::::::1:::::' :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.L:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~.:.:.:.:_: .... : . ......... : ......... : .... . ......... : ......... : ......... : .. '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . ..... _-_ .................. . .......... . ...... . . . . . . . . . . - ........ :.......... . .......... . ....... : ................... : .. . .: ......... : ......... : : ......... : ......... : . . . . . . . ~ : : : : : : : : : ~ : : : : : : : : . : .......... : ................... ; . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . ......... : ................... : ........... . : ...... _ .. : ... . K' ~: 5&.02: : .. -: ~ . : : : : : : : : l : : : : : : . . . : : g ~ : ~;;;:·9;45::·:'::·:T:·:·:·:·:':'::·:T:·:·:·:':':·::~ : . ~ . .•• ·jIEL·· · .. L .•.• ~ ~it,l.-· ..... ... ::~:::::::::L::::::: : ..... . . . ~ : . : : : : : : : ~ . : : : . . . . . . . . . """"'" .............. : ................... : ....................... . .: ......... : ... . .. ; ......... : .. . .... ......... ;: ................... : ......... _ ......... ; ... . ::::~: .... : ... : ......... :.: ... . .. : ~ : : : : : : : : : ~ . 76+00 ~;~N;' r\. L _~ ". "" J ~ , _5_ _0_ .'. TOC LEFT Cl cONsmUCDON NOTES: ill NOTES SCAlE IIII1 _ ___ 30% REVIEW CHECK PRINT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11'1'-__ 20 10 o FEET 20 CITY OF RENTON STRANOER BLVD EXTENSION -STAGE 2 73+00 TO E.O.P ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE _No. RP9 I I I I I I APPENDIX C EXPANDED MATRIX OF PATHWAYS AND INDICATORS 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 APPENDIX C: EXPANDED MATRlX OF PATHWAYS AND INDICATORS Existing stream and watershed conditions were quantified by using watershed and habitat parameters as defined by the "Matrix of Pathways and Indicators" developed by NOAA Fisheries. The "Matrix of Pathways and Indicators" summarizes important parameters for six major pathways including water quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel condition and dynamics, flow/hydrology, and watershed conditions. These six major pathways are further broken down into a total of 18 "indicators." As an example, the water. quality pathway is composed of three indicators: temperature, sediment/turbidity, and chemical contamination/nutrients. The indicator conditions are classified as either: "properly functioning," "at risk," or "not properly functioning." Criteria for each condition is defined by a range or goal based on the· best available scientific data available, but criteria are not absolute, and may be adjusted for unique watersheds (NOAA Fisheries, 1996). The USFWS utilizes two additional pathways in the matrix of pathways and indictors to specifically address bull trout including subpopulation characteristics and integration of species and habitat conditions (USFWS, 1998b). The subpopulation characteristic pathway is composed of four indictors including sUbpopulation size, growth and survival, life history diversity and isolation, and persistence and genetic integrity. The integration of species and habitat conditions pathway is a summary integration diagnostic. Water Quality The NOAA Fisheries (1996) considers temperature, sediment, and chemical contamination/nutrients in their Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators criteria. Temperature Water temperature is a key factor controlling the ability of salmonids to survive. It will also influence species composition in that some species such as bull trout require exceptionally colder water to successfully reproduce. Ecology reported that temperatures from 73 to 77°F are lethal to salmon and steelhead trout while temperatures above 52°F will create genetic abnormalities or mortality to salmonid eggs (Ecology, 2000). Several studies have suggested bull trout are uncommon in streams and rivers where water temperatures exceed 59°F for an extended time period (King County, 2000). The NOAA Fisheries (1996) considers 50 to 57°F or less to be properly functioning. At risk temperatures depend on time of year or life cycle (spawning or migration and rearing). Water temperature is considered at risk for spawning adults when between 57 to 60°F, and for migration and rearing when 57 to 64°F. Stream temperatures higher than 60°F during spawning and higher than 64°F during migration and rearing are considered not properly functioning. / I Lower Green River: Kerwin and Nelson (2000) rated overall water quality in the lower Green River as fair. A review of the Ecology 1998 303( d) list indicates the Green River had excursions beyond the criterion at numerous locations. Furthermore, Ecology reported stream temperature near Tukwila ranged from a low of 4L4°F in January and a _____ .\lighoL.QL2°f in S~pt~mp~I during wateryear 199}(Ecology,~1999). __ Based on--the available data, the overal1 temperature indicator in lower Green River is considered at risk (varies yearly and by life cycle). Springbrook Creek: Degrade~ water quality in Springbrook Creek likely creates a barrier to fish migration and may be responsible for the death of numerous salmonids found in Springbrook Creek. Between September 17 and October 22, 1994, water temperature at the BRPS reached a high of 68.4°F and 67.1°F in Mill Creek (Harza, 1995). Dissolve oxygen (DO) levels during this time period averaged 4.5 mil1igrams per liter (mg/L) and ranged from 0.9 to 10.lmg/L. These conditions are most detrimental to Chinook salmon because Chinook return earlier than coho salmon. However, the potentially lethal water temperatures and DO levels would impact rearing juvenile 'coho salmon and steelhead, cutthroat, and rainbow trout since they rear in freshwater for at least 1 year. Based on the available data the water temperature indicator for Springbrook Creek is not properly functioning. Sediment The focus of most stream substrate assessments is to determine the percentage of fines in potential salmonid spawning habitat. The percent fines is then used to infer the quality of spawning habitat because too many fines can degrade in-stream habitat and adversely impact salmonid spawning success by reducing the egg-to-fry ratio. Streams in urbanized watersheds "tend" to have a larger percentage of smaller particles (May, 1996). Percent fines is used for assessing both spawning and incubation habitat. However, the maximum size for fines depends on whether the field data is collected from the stream . surface (less than 0.24 inch diameter) or from within the substrate (less than 0.03 inch diameter). Surface sediments with: ~20 percent fines and low turbidity is considered properly functioning in most watersheds, 12 to 20 percent fines and moderate turbidity is considered at risk, and greater than 20 percent fines and high turbidity is considered not properly functioning. Lower Green River: Kerwin and Nelson (2000) rated overall streambed sediment in the lower Green River as poor. A poor rating indicates that the fines «0.85 mm in spawning gravel) is > 17 percent. Therefore, the sediment indicator is at risk. Springbrook Creek: Silt and sand are the dominant substrate type of all stream reaches located in the floodplain, while gravel is the dominant substrate type in the foothills (DEA, 2001). However, some small pockets of gravel exist but tend to be highly embedded arid intermixed with a very high percentage of fines. The results of Wolman pebble counts conducted in Upper Springbrook Creek and Garrison Creek where gravel was the dominant substrate type indicated that fines « 0.24 inch) ranged from 29 to 39 percent in riffles (DEA, 2001). Based on this data the sediment indicator is not properly functioning. 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 Chemical Contamination/Nutrients The NOAA Fisheries (1996) reports that for the chemical contamination/nutrients indicator, a properly functioning stream has low levels of chemical contamination from agricultural, industrial, and other sources, no excess nutrients, and no CW A 303( d) designated reaches. An at risk stream has moderate levels of chemical contamination from agricultural, industrial, and. other sources, some excess nutrients, and one CW A 303(d) designated reach. A not properly functioning stream contains high levels of chemical contamination, high levels of excess nutrients, and more than one 303(d) designated reach. Lower Green River: Kerwin and Nelson (2000) rated overall water quality in the lower Green River as fair. However, based on a review of the Ecology 1998(d) list the Green River has been listed at multiple locations for mercury, fecal coliform, chromium, and temperature. Based on multiple 303(d) listings the chemical contamination/nutrients indictor for the Green River is not properly functioning. Springbrook Creek: Water quality is severely degraded III the lower reaches of Springbrook Creek (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000; Harza, 1995). Springbrook Creek is on the Ecology 1998 303( d) list for violations of temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, metals (chromium, mercury, zinc, copper, and cadmium), and sediment bioassy (Ecology, 2000a). Furthermore, Springbrook Creek contains an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund cleanup site associated with Western Processing located on Mill Creek between RM 1.0 and 1.5. This site has been cleaned up (Ecology, 2002). Generally speaking, water quality tends to be worst during the low-flow period and generally improves after the fall rains increase stream velocity and "flush" the system. In summary, "Mill and Springbrook creeks are the most heavily urbanized of the tributaries evaluated in this report and exhibit the most degraded water quality conditions" (King County, 2001). Based on the available data, the chemical contamination/nutrients indicator is not properly functioning in this stream. Habitat Access The habitat access pathway includes the physical barriers indicator. Physical Barriers The NOAA Fisheries (1996) states that a properly functioning stream with man-made barriers allows upstream and downstream fish passage during all flows. All at risk stream with man-made barriers does not allow upstream and/or downstream passage at base/low flow. A not properly functioning stream with man-made barriers does not allow upstream and/or downstream fish passage during a wide range of flows. Lower Green River: The mainstem of the lower Green River doe not contain man-made barriers. Kerwin and Nelson (2000) reported access as good in the lower Green River. Although numbers barriers exist within the watershed including the mainstem of the upper Green River, salmonids can migrate upstream and downstream during al~ flows within the lower Green River. Therefore, the physical barriers indictor for the mainstem -of the 10wefGteen-River is properly funCtioning.-.-'--~ -~ ----.. - Springbrook Creek: Numerous barriers to upstream fish migration exist within Springbrook Creek. The most significant barrier is on the Black River approximately 1,000 feet upstream of its confluence with the Green River. The primary purpose of the BRPS is to block floodwater from the Green River from backing up into the Black . River/Springbrook Creek floodplain during flood events (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). The BRPS is composed of six 48-inch-diameter culverts fitted withflapgates. A fish ladder and fishway chute is used for upstream passage, while an airlift pump is used for downstream passage. The upstream passage facility is typical1y in operation from mid- September thro~gh the end of January., Although this facility does al10w for the upstream migration of adult salmonids during the operational window, velocities are at the upper limit of sustained swimming speeds for juvenile salmonids and therefore likely blocking access upstream by juvenile salmonids (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). Downstream migration is also contingent upon operation in that the downstream airlift pumps are only operated from early April to mid-June for approximately 8 hours per day and adult salmonids that enter the Black River and Springbrook Creek cannot leave the system (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). Numerous other barriers within the Springbrook Creek system include culverts, braided channels, vegetation, weirs, and water quality. Some are only barriers during peak high or low-flow events; other barriers block both adult and juvenile migration regardless of flow; and other barriers only block juveniles. Table Cl outlines some of the known barriers to fish passage as presented by Kerwin and Nelson (2000). The barriers listed below are not meant to be an al1-inclusive list. Some of these barriers may have been fixed, while other undocumented barriers may exist. Table Cl: Springbrook Creek Fish Passage Barriers 09-0005 09-0005 09-0024 09-0015 Lower Reaches 09-0015 Earthworks Park Detention Pond 09-0022 M.F. Ganison Creek Braided channel Between 2121h & 218th 09-0023 N.F. Garrison Creek Culvert 2121h Based on this data, the physical barrier indicator IS not properly functioning In Springbrook Creek. 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 Habitat Elements Pools and riffles are the basic components of typical stream habitat. The quantity and quality of these basic components help define the overa)) habitat composition of a stream. They are also key parameters that help support both resident and anadromous populations of salmonids as we)) as other aquatic species that depend on a "healthy" stream. Substrate NOAA Fisheries uses both embeddedness . and substrate composition as indicators for substrate quality. The percent embeddedness is obtained visua))y and is extremely sUbjective. NOAA Fisheries criteria for properly functioning is a dominance of gravel or cobble (interstitial spaces· clear) and embeddedness less than 20 percent. Substrate is considered at risk when gravel and cobble are subdominant or if dominant, embeddedness is between 20 and 30 percent. Substrate is considered not properly functioning if bedrock, sand, silt or sma)) gravel are dominant, or if gravel and cobble are dominant and embeddedness is greater than 30 percent. Lower Green River: No embeddedness data was available for inclusion in this analysis. Kerwin and Nelson (2000) rated overa)) streambed sediment in the lower Green River as poor. A poor rating is warranted when fines «0.85 mm in spawning gravel) are > 17 percent (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). This indicates that embeddedness may be relatively high. Therefore, the substrate indicator is considered at risk (possibly not properly functioning). Springbrook Creek: Silt and sand are the dominant substrate type of a)) stream reaches located in the floodplain, while gravel is the dominant substrate type in the foothills (DEA, 2001). However, some sma)) pockets of gravel exist but tend to be highly embedded and intermixed with a very high percentage of fines. The results of Wolman pebble counts conducted in Upper Springbrook Creek and Garrison Creek where gravel was the dominant substrate type indicated that fines « 0.24 inch) ranged from 29 to 39 percent in riffles (DEA, 2001). Based on this data the substrate indicator is not properly functioning. . Large Woody Debris Large woody debris (L WD) is a critical component of stream habitat because it creates pools, structure, and habitat diversity. Large coniferous trees provide the best habitat due to their resistance to rotting, increased likelihood of staying stationary during high flows, and ability to create and maintain pool habitat as water velocity is redirected around them. The NOAA Fisheries recommends that streams should have a minimum of 80 pieces of L WD per mile that are at least 50 feet long with a diameter of at least 24 inches to be properly functioning. A stream is considered at risk if it currently meets the properly functioning criteria but lacks potential future recruitment from adjacent riparian areas to maintain the standard. A stream is considered not properly functioning if it does not meet the properly functioning criteria and lacks recruitment potentia1. Lower Green River: Data on historic or existing L WD in the lower Green River is not available (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). However, based on casual observations L WD is not likely to meet the properly functioning criteria and recruitment potential is basically __ non"existenL ,Therefore, .the LWD indicator is considered not properly functioning .. Springbrook Creek: L WD is basically nonexistent in the low-lying areas of Springbrook Creek west of SR 167 and is present but sparse in the forested foothills to the east of SR 167. The limited amount ofLWP documented in Upper Springbrook Creek and Garrison Creek were composed of deciduous species and primarily in the sma)) size category (DEA, 2001) as defined by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) stream survey protocol standards (USFS, 2001). Due to the lack of mature conifer trees along the remnant riparian corridor, the availability of future L WD recruitment from riparian trees is nonexistent within the floodplain and limited in the foothills. Therefore, the L WD indicator is not properly funCtioning. Pool Frequency The NOAA Fisheries (1996) uses channel width to develop a desired pool frequency (number of pools/mile). A stream is considered properly functioning if it meets the desired pool frequency and the L WD standard for properly functioning is also met (NOAA Fisheries, 1996). A stream is considered at risk if it meets the desired pool frequency but L WD recruitment is inadequate to maintain pools overtime. A stream is considered to be not properly functioning if it does not meet pool frequency standards. Lower Green River: Data on pool frequency in the lower Green River was not available for inclusion in thi~ analysis. Due to the lack of L WD and altered hydrology the best possible rating for pool frequency is probably at risk, but it could be not properly functioning. Therefore, the pool frequency indicator was not rated. Springbrook Creek: Based on the results of a stream habitat assessment conducted by Harza (1995), the Springbrook Creek subbasin is composed of approximately 83 percent· low-gradient glides, 13 percent riffles, < 1 percent pools, and < 1 percent step/run habitat types. DEA conducted stream habitat surveys along Upper Springbrook Creek (09- 0020), Garrison Creek (09-0022), and a short section of the mainstem of Springbrook Creek (09-0005) where it parallels SR 167 (DEA, 2001). Based on the survey results, it was determined that glide habitat dominates all reaches west of SR 167, while riffle habitat dominates all reaches in the foothills to the east of SR 167. Therefore, the pool frequency indicator is not properly functioning. Pool Quality Although the number of pools is very important, another important factor is the residual depth, which is defined as the maximum depth minus tailout depth. The premise of residual depth is that deeper pools provide more cover, are more stable, and can be used b:y larger salmonids such as Chinook. Shallow pools provide less cover, can be rapidly filled by sediment, and do not typically provide high quality refugia for salmonids. The NOAA Fisheries (1996) considers that pool quality is properly functioning when streams contain pools greater tJ:1an 3.3 feet deep with good cover and cqol water, and minor reduction of pool volume by fine sediment. Pool quality is at risk when few pools greater than 3.3 feet are 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 present or have inadequate cover/temperature and only a moderate reduction in pool volume by fine sediment. Pool quality is not properly functioning when no pools are greater than 3.3 feet deep and have inadequate cover/temperature, and there is a major reduction of pool volwne by fine sediment. Lower Green River: Data on pool depth in the lower Green River was not obtained for the lower Green River. Based on influence of redu~ed and altered flows from diversions, increase in sediment loading, and lack of L WD and cover, pool quality has likely been negatively impacted. Therefore, the pool quality indicator is considered at risk (some pools over 3.3 feet likely e?,ist). Springbrook Creek: Pools, when present, tended to be relatively shallow and lacked habitat complexitY. Therefore, the pool quality indicator is not properly functioning. Off-Channel Habitat/Refugia The availability of "adequate" off-channel habitat and refugia are indicators of a stream's ability to provide a safe haven for primarily juvenile fish during high flow events. These are generally areas of lower stream velocity that can be accessed during flood events, but also include low energy areas during normal stream flows such as backwater areas with cover, ponds, and oxbows. Lower Green River: The lower Green River contains little to no off-channel habitat (Malcom, 1999 as reported in Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). Therefore, the off-channel habitat/refugia indicator is not properly functioning. Springbrook Creek: Springbrook Creek is generally channelized and entrenched, and off-channel habitat is scarce. Due to channelization, lack of LWD, and extensive development with the Springbrook Creek basin, the off-channel habitatlrefugia indictor is not properly functioning. Channel Condition and Dynamics The channel condition and dynamics pathway includes three primary indicators assessed by NOAA Fisheries. These include: (1) width/depth ratio, (2) streambank condition, and (3) floodplain connectivity. Additional parameters not included in the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators developed by the NOAA Fisheries (1996) that also provide insight into channel conditions and dynamics of a stream include: channel sinuosity and percent armoring. Although no specific percentages have been defined by the federal agencies for these last two indicators, they provide insight into the degree anthropogenic influences have been placed upon a stream. Width/Depth Ratio The width/depth ratio concept relies on the premise that a stream channel will incise when banks are armored and the hydrologic characteristics are altered due to anthropogenic influences. This channel down-cutting is created as high-flows that would normally spill-out into and over the adjacent stream banks and side-channels are forced to stay within the defined channel by the presence of armoring (typically large riprap). The _._ ~. __ ~. __ . ~_ :hydroIQgi~; imp<l~l~.Qf l!r\)"~i~i'!tioJl Jyp-jCJIJly~iQ~It.<Ill9!orAe~pen a stream channel when -• -". _ •• -. ,'" .-..... ~ •• --.-.-~ -" '>'-" -_. ~ .... ~ • the banks are not armored, but streamside development will often have the opposite effect (May et aI., 1997). The NOAA Fisheries (1996) states that a properly functioning stream has a width/depth ratio of less than 10, an at risk stream has a ratio between 10 to 12, and the ratio for a not properly functioning stream is greater than 12. Lower Green River: Data on the width/depth ratio of the lower Green River were not available for inclusion in this report. However, based on the extensive bank armoring and altered hydrology, the width/depth ratio indicator is considered at risk or not properly functioning, but was not rated. S.pringbrook Creek: Data on the width/depth ratio of Springbrook Creek were not available for inclusion in this report. Therefore, this indicator was not rated. Streambank Condition Stream bank condition refers to the percentage of the bank that is stable and the percentage that is actively eroding. Th~ NOAA Fisheries (1996) defines a properly functioning streambank as being greater than 90 percent stable with less than 10 percent actively eroding, 80 to 90 percent stable when at risk, and less than 80 percent stable when not properly functioning. Lower Green River: The lower Green River is lined with levees, dikes, and revetments along both banks. Therefore, the percent stable banks was not rated. This indictor may not be applicable since armored banks are very stable and typica11y do not actively erode. Springbrook Creek: Springbrook Creek is channelized and entrenched, and no existing data on bank stability was obtained. Therefore, the percent stable banks was not rated. This indictor may not be applicable since banks dominated by reed canarygrass are very stable and typically do not actively erode. Floodplain (:onnectivity The floodplain indicator as defined by the NOAA Fisheries (1996) includes hydrologic linkage between adjacent off-channel areas, wetlands, and riparian vegetation and succession. This indicator does not specify quantifiable measurements, but relies on SUbjective inferences of frequently linked, reduced linkage, and severe reduction in linkage. Lower Green River: Due to The diversion of the White River, construction of the Howard Hanson Dam, and construction of levees and revetments have reduced the area subject to frequent inundation (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). Based on the extensive manipulation of the lower Green River, the floodplain indicator is not properly functioning. 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 Springbrook Creek: Springbrook Creek has been extensively channelized and rerouted, while adjacent wetlands have been filled and fragmented. Therefore, the floodplain . connectivity indicator is not properly functioning. Flow/Hydrology .. The flow/hydrology pathway contains two indicators: change in peak/base flow and increase in drainage network. Increased urbanizatio~ results in increased flood frequency and streamflow variability (May et al., 1997). The result is that flow levels change frequently and extreme flow events occur more often. This condition is exasperated by an increase in the drainage network. Elements of the drainage network include ditches, road crossings, and stormwater outfalls. The overall result is that rainwater reaches the stream channel faster then what would occur naturally. Peak/Base Flow The NOAA Fisheries (I996) Matrix of DiagnosticslPathways and Indicators utilizes watershed hydrographsto document changes in peak/base flow. A properly functioning stream's hydrograph would indicate peak, base, and flow timing is comparable to a similar undisturbed watershed. An at risk stream shows some evidence of change. A not properly functioning stream's hydrograph indicates pronounced change in peak, base, and flow timing. Lower Green River: The hydrology of the lower Green River has been significantly altered due to the diversion of the White River in 1906, diversion of the CedarlBlack River in 1913, construction of Tacoma Water's Headworks Diversion Dam in 1911, and construction of Howard Hanson Dam in 1962. These events in conjunction with forest practices, residenti,al and commercial development, loss of floodplains and associated wetlands, and extensive bank armoring have resulted in a pronounced change In hydrology. Therefore, the peak/base flow indicator is not properly functioning. Springbrook Creek: Springbrook Creek has an annual flow of about 40 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Hydrographs indicate that Springbrook Creek responds quickly to storm events, which results in rapid increases in flow volume after each event. The rapid rise and fall in a hydro graph is indicative of streams located in a basin with a large amount of impervious surface. An increase in new impervious surface within a watershed has been shown to have a direct correlation with a reduction in salmonid abundance and habitat quality (May, 1996). Extensive channelization and urbanization have further altered stream flow hydrology. Therefore, the peak/base flow indicator is not properly functioning. Increase in Drainage Network The NOAA Fisheries (1996) Matrix of DiagnosticslPathways and Indicators utilizes an increase in drainage network to document change. A properly functioning stream will have zero or minimum increase in drainage network due to roads. An at risk stream will have a moderate increase in drainage density due to roads. A not properly functioning stream will have a significant increase in the drainage network due to roads. Lower Green River: The roadway and drainage network along the lower Green River is .~ __ ~.: ... :._ .. extensive .. _ Therefore,:the .increase. in drainage netw.ork indicator :is_ n.ol..:pr:operly. . ___ .. functioning. Springbrook Creek: The roadway and drainage network along Springbrook Creek is extensive. Therefore, the increase in drainage network indicator is not properly functioning. Watershed Conditions The watershed conditions pathway is gauged by three indicators: road density' and location, disturbance history; and riparian reserves. Road Density and Location NOAA Fisheries has quantified parameters to rank the degree of road density and location within their Matrix of DiagnosticslPathways and Indicators. Based on their criteria, a properly functioning watershed contains less than 2 mi/mi2 ~f roads and no vaHey bottom roads. An at risk watershed contains 2 to 3 mi/mi2 of roads with some vaHey bottom roads. A not properly functioning watershed contains greater than 3 mi/mi2 and many vaHey bottom roads. Lower Green River: The exact road density in the lower Green River watershed is uncertain, but numerous va]]ey bottom roads exist. Due to the extensive amount of development and urbanization that has occurred in the action area, the road density and location indicator is not properly functioning. Springbrook Creek: The exact road density in the Springbrook Creek watershed is uncertain, b.ut numerous vaHey bottom roads exist. . Due to the extensive amount of development and urbanization that has occurred in the action area, the road density and location indicator is not properly functioning. ' Disturbance History NOAA Fisheries (1996) defines a properly functioning watershed as containing less than 15 percent equivalent clear-cut acres (ECA) within the entire watershed with no concentration of disturbance in unstable or potentially unstable areas, and/or refugia, and/or riparian areas. An at risk watershed also contains less than 15 percent ECA within the watershed, but disturbance is concentrated in unstable or potentiaHy unstable areas, and/or refugia, and/or riparian areas. A not properly functioning watershed contains greater than 15 percent ECA and disturbance is concentrated in unstable or potentially unstable areas, and/or refugia, and/or riparian areas. Lower Green River: Disturbance within this watershed has been extensive and continuous. Refugia and riparian habitat indicators are both limiting fadors within and along the lower Green River. Only narrow riparian and often absent corridors occur along the lower Green River. Therefore, the disturbance history indictor is no! properly functioning. 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 Springbrook Creek: Disturbance within this watershed has been extensive and continuous. Refugia and riparian habitat indicators are both limiting factors within and along Springbrook Creek. Mature coniferous riparian habitat is absent in the action area. Only small sections of Springbrook Creek contain diverse riparian habitat. Therefore, the disturbance history indictor is not properly functioning. Riparian Reserve An "intact" riparian reserve buffers the stream from outside elements. The NOAA Fisheries (1996) indicator for riparian reserves includes several factors that must be assessed in order to determine its existing state. These factors include adequate shade, L WD recruitment, habitat protection, connectivity, and percent similarity of riparian vegetation to the potential natural community/composition. The functionality of the , riparian reserve decreases as loss and fragmentation increase, and as the percent similarity of the existing riparian vegetation to the potential natural community/composition drops from greater than 50 percent (properly functioning), to 25 to 50 percent (at risk), and finally less than 25 percent (not properly functioning). The percent "intact" can also be quantified in that greater than 80 percent is considered properly functioning, 70 to 80 percent is considered at risk, and less than 70 percent is considered not properly functioning. Lower Green River: Kerwin and Nelson (2000) rated riparian habitat as poor along the lower Green River. Almost 50 percent of the riparian zone is composed of forbs and grasses, while 97 percent has poor L WD recruitment potential and microclimate conditions (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). Furthermore, Kerwin and Nelson (2000) reported 33 percent of the potential area within 300 feet of the river is paved. Therefore, the riparian reserve indicator for the lower Green River is not properly functioning. Springbrook Creek: The condition of the riparian corridor ranges from bare banks to remnant fragments of coniferous forest (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus) and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) are typically the dominant species along the stream corridor. Other species that are sporadically abundant and/or present include red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), cattails (Typha latifolia), and several species ofwillow (Salix spp.). The condition of the riparian habitat improves in the foothills to the east of SR 167, where stream reaches flow through forested ravines. Within the forested ravines, red alder and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) become prevalent and are intermixed with black cottonwood, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and western red-cedar (Thuja plicata). Therefore, the riparian reserve indicator for Springbrook Creek is not properly functioning. Bull Trout Subpopulation Characteristics The USFWS bull trout subpopulation characteristics pathway is composed of four indictors (USFWS, 1998b). These include sUbpopulation size, growth and survival, life history diversity and isolation, and persistence and genetic integrity. Subpopulation Size The -USFWS considers-the suopopulation size indicator-to De fUnctioning 'appropiiately- when it consists of more than several thousand individuals or has the local habitat capacity to do so, and all life stages are evenly represented. This indicator is functioning at risk when the adult component numbers less than 500 but greater than 50 individuals, and functioning at unacceptable risk when less than 50 are present. Lower Green River: Very few bull trout have been documented in the lower Green River and no known population exists. Therefore, the sUbpopulation indictor is functioning at unacceptable risk. Springbrook Creek: Bull trout have never been documented in Springbrook Creek nor does suitable spawning or rearing habitat exist. Therefore, the subpopulation indicator is functioning at unacceptable risk. Growth and Survival The USFWS considers the growth and survival indicator to be functioning appropriately when it is resilient, increasing or stable,.with at least 10 plus years of data to support this conclusion. This indicator is functioning at risk when not resilient, reduced growth and survival has occurred, and recovery is unlikely within one generation (5 years) but this reduction should not be a long-term trend. A subpopulation will be considered at risk under this indicator until enough data (10 + years) is available to determine if a trend is apparent. This indicator is functioning at unacceptable risk if the sUbpopulation is in rapid decline or at low abundance and unlikely to improve in 5 to 10 years based on 5 or more years of data. Lower Green River: The status of bull trout in the lower Green River is uncertain and it is unlikely a subpopulation still exists. Since there is not enough data to determine a trend, the growth and survival indicator is functioning at unacceptable risk. Springbrook Creek: Bull trout have never been documented in Springbrook Creek nor does suitable spawning or rearing habitat exist. Therefore, the growth and survival indicator is functioning at unacceptable risk. Life History Diversity and Isolation The USFWS considers the life history diversity and isolation indicator to be functioning appropnately when the migratory form is present and the subpopulation is close to other groups with good to excellent habitat. Furthermore, interconnection is good and mixing of sUbpopulation groups is likely to occur when functioning appropriately. This indictor is functioning at risk when the migratory form is present but the sUbpopulation is not close to other groups or separated by habitat disruption. This indicator is considered functioning at unacceptable risk if the migratory form is absent, or the subpopulation is isolated and unlikely to number more that 2,000 fish. Lower Green River: Anadromous bull trout are occasionally captured in the lower Green River, but these are believed to be opportunistic feeders focusing on outmigrating 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 salmonids and not part of a local population. Therefore, the life history diversity and isolation indicator is functioning at unacceptable risk. Springbrook Creek: Bull trout are not present nor is the available habitat suitable for spawning or rearing. Therefore, the life history diversity and isolation indicator is functioning at unacceptable risk. Persistence and Genetic Integrity The USFWS considers the persistence and genetic integrity indictor to be functioning appropriately when connectivity is high among at least five sUbpopulations 'with several thousand individuals in each, low risk of extinction, and low to nonexistent interaction with introduced species. This indicator is functioning at risk when connectivity is partially fragmented, one or two of the subpopulations produce most of the fish, and the probability of hybridization is imminent although few cases have been documented. This indicator is functioning at unacceptable risk when little to no connectivity remains between small subpopulations, and hybridization is likely to occur and has been documented. Lower Green River: The probability of hybridization is low, connectivity has been fragmented and no known stock exists within the Green River watershed (although historically they likely occurred in this watershed). Therefore, the persistence and genetic integrity indictor is functioning at unacceptable risk. Springbrook Creek: Bull trout have never been documented in Springbrook Creek nor does suitable spawning or rearing habitat exist. Therefore, the persistence and genetic integrity indicator is functioning at unacceptable risk. Integration of Species and Habitat Conditions The USFWS includes integration of species and habitat conditions in their matrix of diagnostics/pathways and indicators (USFWS, 1998). This pathway is functioning appropriately when habitat quality is pristine and connectivity is high, the migratory form is present, disturbance is low, and the subpopulation is resilient and stable. It is functioning at risk when habitat has been degraded from its pristine state and will not recover for at least five years, survival or growth has been reduced and fragmented, but this reduction does not represent a long-term trend. It is functioning at unacceptable risk when the subpopulation is clearly declining and will not improve within two generations (5 to 10 years), little to no connectivity remains, and survival and recruitment respond sharply to normal environmental events. Lower Green River: Data on the abundance and distribution of bull trout in the lower Green River is not available due in part to the extremely low number captured. Therefore, since habitat conditions are degraded, the integration of species and habitat conditions is likely functioning at unacceptable risk. Springbrook Creek: Bu]] trout have never been documented in Springbrook Creek nor ---does suitable spawning or rearing habitat exist. . Therefore, the integration of species and habitat indicator is functioning at unacceptable risk. --.-~----.. 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 APPENDIXD WETLAND DESCRIPTIONS 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 APPENDIX D: Wetland Descriptions Wetlands A, H, I, J, P, and S Wetlands A, H, I, J, P, and S are characterized as ditch features along the railroad tracks. Each of these wetlands is dorninated by reed canarygrass, with Himalayan blackberry along the edges. One exception is Wetland P, which is predominantly forested with a young stand of cottonwood and Pacific willow. The wetlands are hydrologically isolated and are driven by. precipitation and surface water runoff from the railroad and adjacent areas of fill. These isolated wetlands do not appear to fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, the Corps of Engineers has the ultimate authority in making Section 404 jurisdictional determinations. No other wetlands within the proposed alignment were determined to be isolated. Saturation was observed 10 inches and 12 inches below the soil surface in Wetlands I and J, respectively. Direct observations of wetland hydrology were otherwise lacking at each wetland during the field visit, which occurred during the dry season. However, the presence of oxidized rhizospheres, drainage patterns, water-stained leaves, and the low topographical position of the ditch features provided evidence that these wetlands are saturated during the wet portion of the growing season. Low-chroma (1 or 2) soil matrix colors and distinct redoximorphic features were present directly underlying the A-horizon in soil test-pits at each wetland data plot. Functions provided by these wetlands are limited to nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal and low levels of flood flow alteration. All of these wetlands were rated as Category IV following Ecology's rating system "because they are isolated and almost entirely covered in reed canarygrass. However, Wetland P is a Category III because of its forested component and species composition. WetlandB Wetland B is located between the UPRR track and the Interurban Trail. A portion of the wetland is dominated by reed canarygrass and climbing nightshade (Solanum dulcamara). However, the majority of the wetland is forested with predominant species including Pacific willow, cottonwood, and red~osier dogwood. This wetland is farther south than others near the proposed action footprint and is closer to the Green River. Soils and hydrology indicate that a hydrologic connection was once present through a surface water connection to the river despite the presence of a constructed berm, roadway, and trail between the two resources. Drainage patterns and water-stained leaves confirmed wetland hydrology, while low-chroma soils with distinct redoximorphic features in the B-horizon of the soil test-pit confirmed the presence of hydric soils. Functions provided by this wetland include flood flow alteration, nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal, and habitat for birds and mammals. Wetland B is a Category III wetland following Ecology's rating system because of its size, hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands, and relatively high plant species and structural diversity but relatively low habitat value. Wetlands Qtpd}l ___ ._ Wetlands Q and R are located between the BNSF and UPRR tracks. The two wetlands are connected and were evaluated as the same wetland for classification and buffer-width assignment. However, the portion constituting Wetland R contains PEM and PSS classes and is evidently a wetland mitigation site based on the large amount of newly installed trees and shrubs; The portion constituting Wetland Q is characterized by its mature forested component dominated by cottonwood, Pacific willow, and red-osier dogwood. Excavated ditch features dominated by -reed canarygrass along the railroad tracks comprise the edges of Wetland Q. Principal functions include nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal, as well as habitat for _ amphibians, mammals, and birds. Wetland QIR is a Category II wetland following Ecology's rating system because of its size, hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands, relatively high plant species diversity and habitat value, and multiple wetland classes. Despite the presence of a mature forest, the extent of invasive grasses precluded the wetland's ability to qualify as Category I. Wetland T Wetland T is a linear ditch feature located along the west edge of the BNSF railroad tracks. The shape, location, and concrete outlet structure indicate that the wetland was likely developed as part of a stormwater management facility. Standing water was present throughout the wetland, as well as a diverse number of emergent obligate wetland plants. Principal wetland functions include nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal; flood flow alteration; and amphibian habitat. ; Wetland T is a Category III wetland following Ecology's rating system because it is not isolated and has relatively high plant species diversity but relatively low habitat value. Wetland27A Wetland 27A is located at the southwest comer of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 27th Street and extends off site. The wetland is forested primarily along the perimeter by willows. However, reed canarygrass and cattails are the predominant species inside the tree line. Drainage patterns and oxidized rhizospheres provided evidence of wetland hydrology, while low-chroma matrix color and redoximorphic features within 12 inches of the soil surface confirmed the presence of hydric soils. Wetland 27 A functions include nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal; habitat for mammals and birds; and low levels of flood flow alteration. It is a Category II wetland following Ecology's rating system because of its hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands and relatively high scores for habitat value. Wetland 27C Wetland 27C is forested with an open water component. The wetland is connected to Wetland 27B, a wetland mitigation site located outside of the proposed project area. Dominant species include cottonwood, Pacific willow, Douglas spiraea, Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), and reed canarygrass. Free water at 4 inches and soil matrix color with a chroma of 1 between 3 and 16 inches below the soil surface confirmed the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Principal functions and values of Wetland 27C include nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal; habitat for amphibians, 1 ____ I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mammals, and birds; and educational value. It is a Category II wetland because of its hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands and relatively high scores for habitat value. Wetland 27D Wetland 27D is located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 27th Street. The wetland was likely part of a larger wetland system that is now separated by an earthen berm to the east and south, and by the adjacent roads to the west and north. The wetland is forested by red alder and willow, but its habitat value is limited by the lack of structural and species diversity as well as its small size. The principal functions of this Category III wetland following Ecology's rating system include nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal. Wetlands 27E, 27F, and 27G Wetlands 27E, 27F, and 27G are located on the south side ofSW 27th Street and extend a great distance offsite. While each of these wetlands is hydrologically contiguous with Springbrook Creek, Wetlands 27E and 27F comprise one wetland system west of the creek and Wetland 27G is east of the creek. A wetland restoration area is located between Wetlands 27E and 27F where an old roadbed was removed. Both of these wetlands have forested and emergent components. Based on review of aerial photographs, it appears that offsite portions of this wetland system contain scrub-shrub, open water, and aquati~ bed habitat. Red alder and willow characterize the forested portions of these wetlands. However, large areas are dominated by reed canarygrass. Installed plantings are present near Springbrook Creek, and cattail is predominant near the intersection of Lind Avenue and SW 27th Street. The high groundwater table and adjacent creek provide hydrology to the wetland system. Hydric soils were determined by low-chroma matrix colors with distinct redoximorphic features in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile. Principal functions and values of Wetlands 27E, 27F, and 27G include flood flow alteration; production and export of organic matter; nutrient, toxicant, and sediment removal; habitat for amphibians, mammals, and birds; and educational value. These wetlands are rated as Category II following Ecology's rating system because of their hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands and relatively high scores for habitat value. Despite the presence of a mature forest, the extent of invasive grasses precluded these wetlands from qualifying as Category I. This evaluation relied on the extrapolation of observations made within the action area, aerial photographs, and other available data because large portions of these wetlands are located outside of the action area. Wetland 27H Wetland 27H is associated with a reservoir and is characterized as open water with a forested fringe. The wetland extends outside the action area. However, red alder, Pacific willow, and red-osier dogwood dominate the portion in the action area. Oxidized rhizospheres and water-stained leaves indicated the presence of wetland hydrology, while the presence of low-chroma matrix colors and distinct redoximorphic features between 2 and 16 inches below the soil surface confirmed the presence of hydric soils. Principal _ fypctiQmum~t ",?lu<::~ of Wetland 27H include habitat for amphibians, birds, and mammals and education/scientific ~alue~ .,. --~ < -. -• --.. •• -. -.--_. '~~-'.. -.. • • Wetland 27H is a Category III wetland following Ecology's rating system because of its size, hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands, relatively high plant species and structural diversity, and high habitat value. Despite the presence of a mature forest, the extent of invasive grasses precluded the wetland's ability to qualify as Category I. This evaluation relied on the extrapolation of observations made within the project action area, . aerial photographs, and other available data because large portions of the wetland are located outside of the action area. Wetland 271 Wetland 271 is located at the northwest comer of the intersection of Lind Avenue and SW 27th Street. The wetland is surrounded by roads and industrial development and appears to collect stormwater runoff from adjacent areas. Cottonwood, Pacific willow, red alder, and red-osier dogwood are predominant in this forested wetland. The presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology are indicated by a soil matrix chroma of 2 with distinct redoximorphic features between 2 and 16 inches and observation of free water at 10 inches below the soil surface. Principal functions of this wetland include nutrient and toxicant removal (due to the likely sources of these pollutants) and the ab~lity of the wetland to collect runoff. Wetland 271 is a Category III wetland following Ecology's rating system because of its hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands, and relatively high plant species and structural diversity but relatively low habitat value. Wetland 27J Wetland 27J is a forested wetland located on the north side ofSW 27th Street adjacent to the east bank of Springbrook Creek. Dominant species of this forested wetland include cottonwood, Pacific willow, red-osier dogwood, thimbleberry, and reed canarygrass. Oxidized rhizospheres and water-stained leaves indicated the presence of wetland hydrology, while the presence of low-chroma matrix colors and distinct redoximorphic features between 2 and 16 inches below the soil surface confirmed the presence of hydric soils. Principal functions and values of Wetland 27J include flood flow alteration; production and export of organic matter; habitat for amphibians, mammals, and birds; and educational value. Fragmentation caused by urban and industrial development have reduced the size and habitat connectivity associated with this wetland. However, structural and species diversity of the plant community within Wetland 27J provides important functions to fish and wildlife habitat. Wetland 27J is a Category II wetland following Ecology's rating system because of its hydrologic connectivity to other wetlands and relatively high scores for habitat value. Despite the presence of a mature forest, the extent of invasive grasses precluded the wetland's ability to qualify as Category I. This evaluation relied on the extrapolation of observations made within the action area, aerial photographs, and other available data because large portions of the wetland are located outside of the project area. ~ -~ --... ~~ ---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 APPENDIXE LISTED SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS I I. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIXE LISTED SPECIES HABITA T REQUIREMENTS Puget Sound Chinook Habitat Requirements Migrating adult Chinook salmon seek cover in deep pools, logjams, and undercut banks, until ready to spawn. They require a steady supply of clean, cool, well-oxygenated water and clean gravel for successful spawning. Because of their large body size, Chinook tend to use deeper water and larger gravel than other salmon. The female digs a redd in areas with moderate to high velocities in water approximately 1 foot deep (Reiser and Bjornn, 1979). Depending on water temperature, incubation takes between 90 to 150 days, with fry emergence occurring in March and April. Chinook spend between 2 and 6 years in the saltwater environment before returning to their natal streams. Factors influencing the survival of all juvenile salmonids include the availability of suitable habitat, prey, and refuge from predators and floods. Habitat complexity in the form of pools and riffles, with interspersed downed woody debris of varying size classes is additionally important for the instream survival of both adult and juvenile salmonids. Estuaries provide important feeding/rearing habitat and moderates physiological stress during parr-smolt transition to the marine environment. Chinook salmon runs are designated on the basis of adult migration timing. Early, spring-run Chinook salmon enter freshwater less mature than fall Chinook salmon, migrate far upstream, and spawn in the late summer and early fall (Myers et aI., 1998). Fall Chinook enter freshwater at an advanced state of maturity, move rapidly to their spawning areas, and spawn withiri a few days or weeks (Meehan, 1991). Summer-run fish exhibit intermediate characteristics of fall and spring Chinook. Juvenile use of freshwater can vary significantly depending on life history type (ocean- type or stream-type). Ocean-type Chinook migrate to sea relatively quickly after emergence from the gravel. Stream-type Chinook rear in freshwater for a year or more and require additional habitat characteristics. GreenlDuwamish River Chinook salmon are of the ocean type (Wamer and Fritz, 1995). In WRIA 9, summer/fall Chinook salmon make up the predominance of the run (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). Spring Chinook salmon were historically present in the GreenlDuwamish River but likely became extirpated due to the rerouting of the White and Cedar rivers, and construction ofthe Tacoma Diversion and Howard Hanson dams. Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout Habitat Requirements The bull trout is a member of the char family that inhabits cool lakes and streams in western North America. Bull trout have several different life history strategies including resident, fluvial, adfluvial, or anadromous. Resident populations live entirely in headwaters of streams. These resident headwater populations tend to be isolated remnants of once more mobile populations and as such are more prone to extinction. Fluvial and adfluvial populations are typically associated with large river and lake systems. Anadromous popUlations are very mobile, use marine waters for part of their adult life, and are more dependent on estuarine habitats for survival. In the marine , environment, distribution of bull trout is often associated with baitfish (surf smelt and hemiigfand baitfish spawnillibe-aches. -----~ .... -.----.-----------.-.-~--. Bull trout are opportunistic feeders at all life stages, feeding on both insects and smaller fish. Adults are primarily piscivorous but will also consume eggs, insects, snails, and leeches. Juvenile bull trout consume primarily macroinvertebrates. Adults typically spawn in fall between October and November, and juveniles hatch in winter, emerge from the gravel substrate in spring, and remain in these tributary streams for 1 to 3 years before migrating back toward lakes, large rivers, or the ocean. In the Puget Sound region, the downstream limit of successful spawning always occurs upstream of the winter snow line (WDFW,1999). Water temperatures rising above a "7-day average" maximum of 46°F is reported to limit spawning and rearing success for this species (USFWS, 1998b; WDFW, 1998). Bull trout are particularly sensitive to sedimentation because of their relatively long incubation and development phase (Fraley and Shepard, 1989). Bald Eagle Habitat Requirements Bald eagle nesting parameters in the Pacific Northwest include proximity to water with an adequate food source, large trees with sturdy branching at sufficient height for nesting, and stand heterogeneity both vertically and horizontally (Grubb, 1976}.Nest tree structure is more important than tree species, and nest trees are typically among the largest in the stand and provide an unobstructed view of· an associated water body (USFWS, 1986). Critical nesting activities generally fall between January 1 and August 31 (USFWS, 1986). In Western Washington, the nesting season is from January 1 through August 15. Some adults may stay on their nesting territories throughout the year. Nest territories have an average radius of 1.6 miles in Western Washington. Nesting activities may commence as . early as late January with nest establishment, pair bonding, and egg incubation. Hatching and fledging occur from April through August. Nesting territories are considered occupied by the WDFW until they have been observed to be unoccupied for at least five consecutive years. Wintering bald eagles concentrate in areas where food is abundant and disturbance is minimal (Rodrick and Milner, 1991). Because eagles often depend on dead or weakened prey, spawned salmon are often an important food source for wintering eagles. Rivers, streams, and large lakes with spawning salmon and/or waterfowl concentrations are primary feeding areas for wintering bald eagles. Eagles typically perch near their food source during the day and prefer the tallest trees, which afford the best views. Deciduous and dead coniferous trees near the feeding area are preferred for diurnal bald eagle perching (Stalmaster and Newman, 1979). Evening roosts are generally established near the feeding area but may occur inland as well. Wintering activities generally occur between mid-November and mid-March (USFWS, 1986). I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I