The URL can be used to link to this page

15-101380 (2)� From: - - Leila Willoughby -Oakes Sent: Wednesday, ednesda�Aoh/lS'2DlSS�2PK4 To: ,Nick �o ''Kelly � - en; Rob _ ber ' ';' 7omOBr�n' ' ^ `- Third Party Co.suwmnzResponse-Arco Project -Good Afternoon Nick and Kelly, After` ourthird-partystandards, the peer review fee is comparable to that for other properties of this size/character and previous Additionally, certain assumptions have been made based on off -site studies older than five years. These are no onger valid as site conditions have changed. The submitted I report relies on a visual reconnaissance included in a 199-q wetland report with a 2001 addendum conducted for a property to the North. The visual reconnaissance occurred within 100 feet from the subject property's northern property line and no data samples were taken on the subject property. _ Also adding to the 'cost is .the factt properties to the west and north contain wetlands. A physical investigation of existing buffers are necessary, as identified by our third Party consultant and the applicant's submitted wetland report. No land surface modification may take place and no structure or improvement may be located within a regulated wetland buffer. Parks will provide permission for consultants to access and delineate buffers on adjacent public properties - the Brooklake Community Center and West Hylebos Park. In order to reduce the cost^ ^- ~ sheets. We could then amend the scope "~third party review, biologistcould Pr~ "=required oa nddata �e/d Opportunity to utilizeo�� ~� - work _for third party review natethat task. a�moffered the _ party consultant, inwhich ca / ' wherein /sprepared enbre|ybvthe third - seyou�nyhave1�'payforone ' ' We recognize that critical ..~~^= is �r� ed. �'__~~s�°w�= �^ impacted ~ '��wq/ �amoe��m*��d|area��' ' with development ` ^ / Please advise onhow your client would like to proceed.Feel free tocontact myself ofIsaac [on|en,Planning Manager 2S3-83S-2643\ifyou have further questions. - Leila W-Oakes L. Willoughby -Oakes | Associate Planner ~ - ' 333Z5a~Ave. S. Federal WayvVA9DUU3 253-835-2644 ahbm-oakesocitLoffederallw� ^ Please consider the environment before printing this email A '- tooVe��8��od�hmnecm8su�onn�'v�tsmm /miKbeout ofthe mff�eƒ�/nm&Ymndm�Ap�/2n��'Tuesdu�Apr02��responding ' , /From: Nick Wecker [mailto:NWecker(-&barq-hausen-COMI Hi Leila, ng we already hired a wetland consultant who completed This estimate of work ($6,700) seems extremely high consideri with a determination. Based on the cost provided by a lot of the investigating work at the site and provided a report Lindau Associates, our client is very hesitant to proceed. Are all of the seven listed items under the scope of services t has already been prepared? Please let me know is there are any necessary considering an updated wetland repor alternative options we can pursue. Thank you _--`-. ' ,°,^.. ..e___ Assistant Planner BaruhausenConsulting Engineers, Inc. / _ 1QJ1572""Ave S ' Kent, WA 98032 Phone: N2S\2S1-6222 _ ailto: Leila All pyc From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes [M__@ W. .11a.0111 Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 12:08 PM To: Nick Wecker Subject: Third Party Consultant Response ~ � Greetings Nick, _ Attached is a letter from the City of Federal Way regarding the above -mentioned request for third -party review. 2 The signed original, with all enclosures, is being mailed to you and the property owner Mr. Birk. AM= Lelia Willoughby -Oakes I Associate Planner ge artment Of Communit Develo ment 3382� 81�Ave. S. Federal Way, WA 98003 253-835-2644 k"Iff Please consider the environment before printing this email A KI Leila Willloughby-Oakes From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 12:28 PM To: Ann Dower Subject: RE: Drainage Reports and As -built Drawings, Proposed ARCO mixed use site at 356th and Pacific Hwy, BCE #16777 Hi Ann, Due to staffing, a wetland consultant on our roster will not be available to meet next week. Per Isaac a wetland delineation/investigation report is required for the subject property. The City process is as follows: after the applicant submits a wetland delineation and investigation report the department initiates the process of creating a contract with the next biologist on our roster for a peer review of the wetlandreport. While establishing the peer review scope of work a site visit can certainly be added, at an additional cost in the contract. I can attend and document concerns, if the questions posed to SWM are not clarified by email. However, any concerns provided in meeting must be included and documented in the wetland report for the biologist peer reviewer to evaluate. I am unavailable Tuesday from 8-12:30. The applicant may also submit the final wetland before any formal application as an Administrative Decision or "AD" file to initiate a peer review. Isaac will assign the third party review coordination to a planner. Cheers, Leila From: Ann Dower Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:45 AM To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes Subject: FW: Drainage Reports and As -built Drawings, Proposed ARCO mixed use site at 356th and Pacific Hwy, BCE # 16777 Hi Leila Please see the email string below. I'm not sure where the "city's wetland consultant" figures into this — we don't hire consultants until a project application and plans are submitted, and the developer pays for theconsultant's time. But I assume you will want to beat the meeting he wants to schedule, along with anyone else you need to bring. A meeting onsite at this point in the project is atypical . I will send you an appointment as soon as I have the go-ahead from SWM. -Ann From. Pete Bailey [rnailto° baile barghausen com] Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:07 AM To: Ann Dower; Paul Heller Cc: knsin hbhotrnil.com; Scott Spooner; Dan Goalwin; Nick Wecker Subject: RE: Drainage Reports and As -built Drawings, Proposed ARCO mixed use site at 356th and Pacific Hwy, BCE # 16777 Ann/Paul, We have visited the site and found another source for the shallow pond in the middle of the site. At the pre-app the sump pump at the northwest corner of the site was discussed and if I remember correctly, the pump was recently shut 1 off. In addition to the sump pump, there is a 15" storm drain pipe coming from Pac highway that conveys runoff onto the site at the northeast corner. Paul- Please check if the city has as-builts for the existing storm system on Pac highway. On the survey it shows a 15" pipe that drains onto the site at the northeast corner, see below: xn,cr� OF WILDING Y YE — —— CMNUNK FENCE ~" "� �„ IT Y HYDRW DITCH .� P a' { X 4n OE s 11XM Ww II � I m �7 RIGHT TURNs E 1 1 • 14 e ` (2) I (� ST g % *low - n car gI * 4sa e ur 0 FOUND MONUMENT IN CASE 4' I.P. Wj7ACK 0.45' DEEP (DECEMBER 2014) R r 8- PVC LE S-201-24- F STD GRATE T-1 CIB STD GRATE 1 ManURENWIMMINNIA i! 4 w AND EXCEPT T} WOOFRDED UND AND 91040511 AND EXCEPT 7 In order to expedite the coordination on this issue, we would like to setup a meeting at the site to discuss this in further detail with city staff and the city's wetland consultant. We propose meeting next Monday or Tuesday (March 91h or 10th) late morning or early afternoon. Please let us know if this is possible. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Pete From: Paul Heller jmailto:P ul.l-iel[g cityoffederalwa : om] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 11:41 AM To: Pete Bailey Cc: Jeff Weddle; Nick Wecker Subject: RE: Drainage Reports and As -built Drawings, Proposed ARCO mixed use site at 356th and Pacific Hwy, BCE # 16777 2 If '--\ 40 Working on it Pete .... hope to have some info for you soon. The development musthave been recent as|have noinfo in my "asbuilt" section, so I'm checking with Development Services since plans are usually held there for a few months before finally making it to me. Paul Heller, E.I.T. Surface Water Management Technician City of F�*feya/ Way, Public Works 333258tbAve. South Federal Way, WA 98003 253-835-2754 Office; 253-835-2709 Fax IC From: Pete Bailey Sent: Saturday, February 0\20lb1:]/Rq To: Paul Heller Cc: ]effWeddle; WickVVecker Subject: Drainage Reports and As -built Drawings, Proposed ARCO mixed use site at 356th and Pacific Hwy, BCE #16777 As we discussed earlier this week, please send the drainage reports and storm drain as -built drawings for the proposed ARCO mixed use site in Federal Way. The site is located at the Northwest Corner of the intersection of 356 thand Pacific Highway, APN: 292104-9127-07. The address is 35505 Pacific Highway South. Please include any previous wetland reports ormaps aswell. Thanks. 8arghausenConsulting Engineers, Inc. 1831572ndAve South Kent, WA 98032 ~:/42Sl251-6332 �'"Ibft%�dtat3'Y ,E ,� - j �^ x ^ i 2021049047 �. " 202ta49059 2D7104g115 2a 7049948 351®9 35100 r1w' R At '�ueir.'u CE 1,"Federal Way .; ,� " "„"e ,t' 1351 ?5453 CE 292.1049053 Zonin g Map 98 392irr4-SO4Q �r„uu •,.�,�"'�' 35204 . GyIlk ,0770 ,, s4 R,4 rercg _ .gyp 292104-9046CE 1wrWT 35204 CE af,2•rp General Legend: Federal Way Zoning Desginations S, rt'« ..i 292t049048 29710d 9ti95 35200 Ld s ��e '.� Buildings ®Federal Way Zoning Boundary 4�nlr3F, bnie+' Hardware '4"9d 904 City Limits ` BC Community Business _. SYear 45rellllearf Zone 'I` 1.543 PAA Boundary BN Neighborhood Business ^ . }•eat beJcflhead Zcne T^ ,, � Parcels CE Commercial Enterprise ;Sections MLX042MZWt4 2n21049156 _^ 35210 L ' :'�' SEPA Planned Action Area Boundary Streets cc City Center Core CF City Center Frame + 29210490D2 Office Zones:. sY ' 1200 Subdivisions Sensitive Areas Legend: CP-1 Corporate Park-1 � 292tua9049 eprf ea t 0 �F 1 000' Ea I N t B ffer OP Office Park 29210491217 af„4rr '_. ,'tk2104 9e as u art Office Park-1 C 353a76 6 ;, 1 Year Wellhead Protection Zone Op-2 Office Park-2 5 Year Wellhead Protection Zone gp.3 Office Park-3 10 Year Wellhead Protection Zane OP-4 Office Park-4 .100 Year Floodplains PC Professional Office GE :292 s " .. . Erosion Hazard Area AAprtpd• cr&fiLr'dttrttfa1ZA . 35400 ' Federal Way Shoreline Management Plan RM1000 1 unit/1 600 Sq: Feet 292104,91)77 King County Shoreline Management Plan RM2400 1 unitl2 400 Sq, Feet 2921049o10 �' '' - 2" } "'�' '� 35225 1 81 RM36001 unIU3600 Sq, Feet 850 - : "°�' Federal Way Stream Classification Points � � �•„ :Lakes .. q,47edv^5fde�ri�� 'arfe��° 7 ows 1 1049o0's oaekl$tliweadZ Major Landslide Hazard Areas RSB„0 1 uniU5,000 Sq_ Feet 292 m k 3545a ' � R67.2 1 unitt7,200 Sq, Feet * 2'Sa9o45127''" ''U Streams 05 ? r Wetlands 1998 City Survey) R59,6 1 unitf9,600 Sq. Feet 7 ( tY Y) RS15.0 1 uniU15,000 Sq, Feet 110 Si4417c5R Property Legend: RS35.0 1 unitt35,000 Sq- Feet 292104-9090 n 292104 903� a %4s4 ! : City of Federal Way SWIM Properties SE 1 unitl5 acres 1215 Ct 1o4•Y =: City, County and State Park Properties Governed by Development Agreement " ttt7 City of Federal Way Properties King County Zoning Designations: t 10E King County Properties I ing County Zoning Boundary T :' " T Landmarks f1u1 T '. Multi -Family Properties Agricultural 1 UniV10Acres M 292104-909s ® Z 4 Ix1ti`a'School Pro Properties 35600 3321a 1Sg P �A4�f �vn>�„��,,�xe� �2 Community Business Tracts/Private Open Space Neighborhood Business b Please Note THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS MAP IS TO b 297-104-9039 IDENTIFY ZONING DESIGNATIONS.. In the event of any Office 4mconsieumay, between this map and the ordinance Residential Zones 292109052 : 955 105 9 a9210„BOSS establishing the current zoning, the ordinance shall prevail.. Residential, 1 Unit/Acre - 292104-9092 ,r 35615 K"'°"t'• This map is a compilation of information from many different Residential, 4 Units/Acre 292104-9105 sources, all of varying accuracy, Location of map features is 9a55 NOT9uaranteed.. Not all structures are displayed Subdivision Residential, 6 Units/Acre 2921049D19 1: 29244Ut�5l� 5 boundaries are approximate, and are included for reference Residential, 8 Units/Acre 520 3900 292104-9095 only.. t495 1 Residential, 12 Units/Acre 0 79e101�r24 Wetlands were indentified in a 1998 City of Federal Way r; .I t; Residential, 18 Units/Acre s 35000 292104-9064 survey, and are labeled with Pheir id numoer and rating.. r Residential, 24 Units/Acre bbb35717 , Many streams were classified in .2003 City survey, and a are labeled with their id and rating, The exact loco6on of Residential, 48 Units/Acre CE some classification points has not been verified. While 1 c ) these paints do not appear an the map, their id number Special Development Requirements 2929049051 3590 '.2929u4 99C•; and rating are displayed for reference. Critical Area Note. (Some maps in this series display King County 104 9 36703 information is provided for illustrative purposes ONLY; zoning. This information is subject to change at any time.. �. actual boundaries are subject to field verification. Users are strongly encouraged to verify this information ADDITIONAL SENSITIVE AREAS MAY EXIST. with King County. 2E2104-90R .0 0 P 35910 a Crosspointe x21a s Alam swr 000 0 2921W-9105 z 2104 9nsz isms City of Federal Way City of Federal Way SE vw;p,.r ru 2921049060 292104-9091 292104 908992104.9072 292104-9071 292104-9a7E92104 304-907U 1300 292104-9ii53 d!7 ,s. Regional Zoning Atlas c 33325 Sth Ave S 1300 1300 1306 Quarter Section Detai Series: PO Box 9713 2921049036 Q01S I 1329 1400 1414 1429 a' 35919 iAaya 514 trap 98 Federal Way, WA 98063 co RS350 2921049+:+� 2s21a>~gOso s'. NE29-29-04 (253)635-7000 gi sas sse}T NE quarter of Kroll Map 744 www cityoffederalway.com ` 292404-.u020 35935 �� 359TH ST S 359THST t-� # 2921bd- � r°=' eaPrlsf j�) Seale: • ! 2921tF4-Hia2 yi 15905 '#. -0DU9 : Church ""tiiSOd .al I�'F "N D j (` RS 359a7 a5 p1 gf t 0 50 100 200 300 400 500Feet 2921044 905s : ,. ' r'S21949136 292104-9034 ' '9&Yi So ce: City of Federal Way, Lakehaven Utility District, King County ur ty 32214,113 1301 13P 1319 -0020 - - -0050 g. 'ei_ �• r c%� 95912 €l )3S39S. -0030 •1 35916 : 1 (y I +r'T`rwli Map Date: July, 2007x 'rib RrcvaO I 4��0 RSWO _ -004U 7 ^, 35995 35916 , 23 1tr49115 35526 (: CITY OF �5•kiPo34,+�nub^4xN�aa�N:'s,Mw.b.*ro� - 26 F +^ v 12 214119Federal .„ 2821049% 19n 4f.. Way 36111 �f}40 s - MAA l09: w,'.'_..�..;_..............:::...�...�.,�..,...-_..-...........m•m „ ---�..�.".�mm-m-s-� �-�---^^••••��-�-m----- W,,..m".s,„,�.,,,e^-.-.. i ...e.,.-.-.-.- ...... ........_r-_.-..._.....��..�. ^..-.._,ee...e......�� -...�. ..,.;....-....� -.«r.. _r _ ..-..W_._._..... .�_... w._�..�. _,-.:�..�,..®.,..,..m ...«�......„.,.......,m ....<,..�..a This map is a graphical representation only:. The City of Pectoral Way makes no warranty as fo its accurac,.. IN 98 - NE 29-21-04 - NE quarter of Kroll 744 CITY of Federal Way WETLAND CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM] Date: April 6, 2015 City: City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Steve Quarterman Landau Associates 130 2nd Avenue S Edmonds, WA 98020 Project: Arco Facility. and Commercial Development— Wetland Delineation & Identification Parcel # 292104 9127 File No.: 15-101380-00-AD Project Agent: Nick Wecker, Assistant Planner Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72d Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Project Proponent: Balbir Birk Birk Enterprises 18215 72 d Avenue South Kent, WA 98030 ff'roject Planner: Leila Willoughby -Oakes, Associate Planner leiia.wi lou ib 253-835-2644 Project Background: The applicant proposes to construct an Arco gas station, fast food restaurant with drive-thru, carwash, and a truck stop with retail/track parking on 4.95 acres. To the City's knowledge the applicant has not purchased the property. A pre -application review was conducted in early 2015. Prior to submitting formal land use applications (Process 111-Project Review and Environmental Review); review of the wetland reconnaissance memorandum is requested to determine project feasibility and any required wetland mitigation plans. The proposal exceeds SEPA thresholds due to the capacity of proposed underground gas and diesel tanks, and proposed number of parking stalls. The subject property is located within a 10-year well -head protection zone. The ironiJ VvWlojical Critical Area Assessment reDort determined b 4 staff 'ii submittal. The site is adjacent to the publicly owned lands, the Brooklake Communitgi Center and in close -,yroxitnitA to the West IL-alebos Wetlands Park, anI contains a closed depression. Documents Provided: * Critical Areas Reconnaissance, prepared by Wetlands and Wildlife - Environmental Consulting (report date: March 20, 2015) Task Scope: 1. Review the wetland reconnaissance memorandum for consistency with the requirements of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Division V, 'Critical Areas, Cespecially: a. Chapter 19.145, 'Enviromnent and Critical Areas in General', b. Chapter 19.150, 'Critical Areas Administration', c. Chapter 19.155, 'General Site Design Requirements;' and d. Chapter 19.175, 'Regulated Wetlands'. 2. Conduct site visit onsite and offsite (to evaluate improvement impacts to offsite wetla.nd buffers within 200 feet of the closest subject propertyl line). The Parks Department will provide written permission for the third -party wetland consultant and the proponent's consultant to access the public lands. 3. Provide written response to findings, recommendations, and request additional information from applicant as needed. 4. Per FVVRC 19.175.010, provide comments determining if the subject property is firnctionally related to another wetland that meets the criteria of a regulated wetland, the West Hylebos to the north. 5. Conduct onsite soil sampling test pits as needed. 6. Review of resubmitted/corrected documents as needed. 7. Project management as necessary if additional land use review is required. Task Cost: Not to exceed $ without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. F.T4T-TIT"=I- Consultant Date City of Federal Way Staff Date Applicant Date I Per FWRC 19.05.190 'Subject Property'is defined as, the entire lot or parcel, or series of lots or parcels, on which a development, activity, or use exists or will occur, or on which any activity or condition subject to development regulations exists or will occur. =111 http://intranet/GIS/GeneralAtlas/bldgaddJadl95.htm 3/23/2015 . , $y+ Y' ; City of Federal Way Wetland Inventory Field For Wetland Number ;;;?, 1/4 Se n/Rg�✓" = + ST � `� C/,• r,', y /,JPS�' �;�,P s :'°�f`,srn,As 4 Location (r crust-ret Team Members Aest Date Field Check: Base Map 3'�q �.. �' Windshield Access ite A / Site Not Accessed FIELD DATA Dominant S % total WL Tl//I,ry l d�� c Notable Wildlife Features 11 Snags: 's Z 6" � z 12" li � z 24" Heights: ®0 Inlet present:Q ; widths flow° / Outlet present ; width -flow-G None Observed None Observed Water Sources ) west 1V Wa,, C, - reL culvert: (diam) sheet flow floodplain seeps Human Disturbances: I s ' S0ti0 Buffer Conditions: c 6-0 �>�.� bu ffer �s vQres Q A stil�� OFFICE DATA NRCS Soil Unit: , : �® L Rating Approximate Size: 500 tos 2,500 sq.ft 1 acre, s 2 acre Z2,500 sf, s 1/2 acre 2-.2_acre,s 5 acre Z 1/2 acre, S 1 acre .5a cre . - I I 14081t "Zim PREPARED FOR: Mr. Ken Singh 9AMN'41MI&I-i'm I 27-oram. U92 ELSE L--11111 PREPARED BY: Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. 7721-153rd Street SE (425) 337-6450 Sim= AR 2 0 2015 )F FEDERAL WAY CDs E RECEIVED CrTY OF FEDERAL WAY March 20, 2015 CDS r 2 3 5 6 7 1 The parcel is located at 35505 Pacific Highway South (tax parcel #292104-9127). The property is located within the incorporated city of Federal Way, Washington. The site is currently undeveloped, primarily comprised of a forested canopy and shrub understory. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. was retained to conduct a detailed evaluation of the subject property in relation to the City of Federal Way's Revised Code (FWRC) outlined in Title 19, Division V (Critical Areas) of the City's Zoning and Development Code. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. conducted two separate site visits to the subject property, with one visit occurring on February 12, 2015 and one visit occurring on March 10, 2015. The purpose of conducting the Critical Areas reconnaissance visits on the property was to determine if any regulated Critical Areas are located on the property, pursuant to ecological professional industry standards and City of Federal Way requirements. Specifically, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. was retained to determine if any wetlands, streams, or associated protective buffer areas regulated by the FWRC exist on the property. In addition to assessing the subject site, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. also visually assessed the surrounding properties within approximately 200 feet of the subject property to the extent feasible without accessing adjacent properties due to a lack of legal access, per City requirements. Please review the RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION section of this report for further information. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS TO CONDUCT THIS CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION The following provides a brief overview of my experience and credentials to conduct the detailed evaluations on the subject property. I am the Founder, Owner, and Principal Wetland and Wildlife Ecologist of Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. I attended the University of Montana where I graduated cum laude with a degree in Wildlife Biology. As of 2015, 1 have 14 years of direct experience as a professional Biologist/Ecologist in western Washington and 18 years of overall experience completing natural resource assessments among many different ecosystems across the western United States. I have worked as a professional BiologistlEcologist for federal, state, and county environmental agencies, as well as several private environmental consulting firms with specialties in wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes, and wildlife habitat. In my 18 years of experience, I have specialized in review of proposed land use and building development permit applications as they pertain to Critical Areas (wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes, and habitats of protected fish and wildlife species). Much of that experience came as a Senior Reviewing Ecologist for King County DDES and a Regulatory Biologist for Snohomish County PDS. I am listed on several Preferred / Qualified Consultant Rosters throughout western Washington. I am highly experienced with the required U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State wetland delineation methods. In addition to the wetland delineation certification, I am trained by the Washington Department of Ecology and have 10 years of experience in the use of the required Wetland Rating Form for western Washington (since its inception). I am trained by the Washington Department of Ecology to determine Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) locations for rivers, streams, and lakes. In addition to my expertise related to wetlands and streams, I have many years of experience conducting surveys of special -status wildlife species in the western U.S. I received certifications from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for terrestrial wildlife habitat assessments and surveys of special -status wildlife species. Over the past 18 years, I have conducted literally over 1,400 biological / ecological assessments in different Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. March 20, 2015 Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report Incorporated City of Federal Way (Tax Parcel #292104-9127) Page 1 capacities on properties with many habitat types and zoning designations, from small, urban properties (0.25 acres) to large, rural properties (up to 2,000 acres in size). I have been selected by several local city jurisdictions to provide on -call 3rd-party environmental reviews of proposed development projects for compliance with local Critical Areas Ordinances and the FEMA Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation document. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. used the methodologies described in Determining the Qrdina Hi h Water Mark on Streams in Washington State (Washington Department of Ecology Publication #08-006-001, April 2008) to make a determination regarding any potential regulated streams, lakes, or rivers on the subject site. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. also used the routine methodologies described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and. Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication 96-94, March 1997) to make a determination regarding the presence of any regulated wetlands. In addition, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. evaluated the site using the U.S. Army Corpsof'Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual produced in 1987 and the U.S. Ce s of Engineers Regional Su lenient to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation anual. Westem Mountains Valleys, and Coast Region produced in May 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the `Regional Supplement'). The Regional Supplement is designed for concurrent use with the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and all subsequent versions. The Regional Supplement provides technical guidance and procedures for identifying and delineating wetlands that may be subject to regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Where differences in the two documents occur, this Regional Supplement takes precedence over the Corps Manual for applications in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. According to the federal and state methodologies described above, identification of wetlands is based on a three -factor approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and presence or evidence of persistent hydrology. Except where noted in the manuals, the three -factor approach discussed above requires positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology to make a determination that an area is a regulated wetland. Using the aforementioned manuals, the site characteristics for making a wetland determination include the following: 1.)Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present/percent cover); 2.) Examination for the presence of hydric soils in areas where hydrophytic vegetation is present; and 3. Examination to determine if adequate hydrology exists for sufficient durations during the early part of the growing season in the same locations as the previous two steps. Per industry standards, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. examined the entire subject site. Per industry standards and City requirements, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. also assessed the nearby properties adjacent to the subject property's boundaries, to the maximum extent possible without entering adjacent private properties. While a detailed assessment of Critical Areas on adjacent private properties was not possible due to lack of legal access, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. conducted a review of all readily available information to assess the presence of off -site Critical Areas in close proximity to the subject site. The evaluation of adjacent properties is necessary to determine if any regulated Critical Areas exist off -site which would cause Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. March 20, 2015 Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report Incorporated City of Federal Way (Tax Parcel #292104-9127) Page 2 associated protective buffers to extend onto the property and potentially affect a future development proposal on the subject property. In addition to on -site field reviews, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. examined aerial photographs and topographical data (elevation contours) on King County's iMAP system. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), SalmonScape fish distribution maps produced by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), StreamNet fish distribution maps produced by Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, and Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) maps produced by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) were also evaluated as part of our consultation and evaluation of the subject property. t �- Based on our detailed on -site reconnaissance and research of all readily available online materials, it is the professional opinion of Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. that the subject property does not contain any regulated wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitats of importance, or associated protective buffer areas. During our on -site evaluations, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. observed an area among the north -central portion of the subject property which is located in a topographic depression. This area contained approximately 12 inches of standing water at the time of our investigations in February and March. However, based on several factors described below in this report, it is our professional opinion that the conditions of this area were unintentionally created after the storage facility and associated infrastructure were built on the property immediately north of the subject property. As part of our detailed evaluation of the subject property, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. examined the Revised Wetland Addendum associated with the Western Pacific Property (north of the subject property) which was prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc. and dated January 23, 2001. The 2001 Revised Wetland Addendum was prepared for the development of the storage facility to the north (Western Pacific Property). The 2001 Revised Wetland Addendum states that the Army Corps of Engineers attended an on -site meeting for that property in 1993 and agreed with the findings of the original wetland delineation. The 2001 Revised Wetland Addendum also states that the City's 3rd-party review consultant (Sheldon & Associates, Inc.) conducted on -site assessments of the property to the north of the subject property and areas within close proximity of that property. Based on the revision requirements provided in October of 2000 by Sheldon & Associates, Inc., the 2001 Revised Wetland Addendum was submitted to the City for additional review. In this 2001 Revised Wetland Addendum dated January 23, 2001, Raedeke Associates, Inc. observed and discussed the subject topographically low area. The top portion of page 7 of the 2001 Revised Wetland Addendum describes the vegetation among the topographically low area as including big - leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). The conclusion regarding this area was that the low area did not appear to meet wetland parameters, in part because of the dominance of vegetation which is rated Facultative Upland (FacU) and in part due to the bright soil conditions along that property's southern border. Of the five vegetation species listed in the 2001 report as being present in this topographically low area, only one of the five species (black cottonwood) has a wetland indicator status of Facultative or wetter, resulting in only 20% of the Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. March 20, 2015 Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report Incorporated City of Federal Way (Tax Parcel #292104-9127) Page 3 species mentioned meeting the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. Per the federal and state wetland delineation manuals, a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation is required (>50% of dominant species) in order to meet the vegetative wetland parameter of a given area. Based on this information, the 2001 Revised Wetland Addendum clearly states that this area does not meet wetland parameters as related to hydrophytic vegetation. The Army Corps of Engineers and Sheldon & Associates, Inc. also conducted wetland assessments on the property to the north of the subject property and did not require the area in question to be considered a wetland. The City of Federal Way eventually approved the storage facility project in part based on the wetland evaluations by the professional wetland ecologists, thereby agreeing with the project proponents that no regulated wetlands or streams existed south of the proposed storage unit property (on the current subject property). During our site visit on March 10, 2015, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. collected representative data related to the existing vegetation among the area in question, using the Army Corps of Engineers methodologies outlined on the Wetland Determination Data Form for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Using these methodologies, only 2 out of the 5 dominant species (40%) have a wetland indicator status of Facultative (Fac) or wetter (hydrophytic vegetation). The federal and state wetland delineation manuals require >50% of the dominant species to be rated as Facultative or wetter to make a positive wetland determination when applying the dominance test. Therefore, the existing vegetation among the area in question does not contain a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation. Due to the marginal nature of this area and obvious hydrology, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. also evaluated the existing vegetation using the prevalence index test per the current wetland determination methodologies. Using the prevalence test, a positive hydrophytic vegetation indicator is achieved if the resulting score is less than or equal to 3.0. For this specific area, based on actual data taken among the area in question, the prevalence index is 3.37. Therefore, the vegetation among the area in question does not meet a positive wetland determination based on the dominance test OR the prevalence index. , As previously stated in this document, the three -parameter approach to wetland determinations requires positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology to make a determination that an area is a regulated wetland. In this case, hydrophytic vegetation is not currently present and was not present during all of the previous evaluations by other professional wetland ecologists. Based on the information gathered and reviewed for this project, it is apparent that no regulated wetlands are located on the subject property, and that all areas which may currently display certain wetland characteristics (soils and hydrology) were unintentionally created by the construction of the storage facility to the north of the subject property. The wetland report(s) which was submitted to the City of Federal Way in 2001 (and subsequently approved by the City of Federal Way) provides strong evidence that this area was examined as part of the review associated with the storage facility project. As clearly stated in that report which was approved by the City of Federal Way, no regulated wetlands were located in close proximity to that property's southern property line. Please view the top three (3) paragraphs on Page 7 of the Revised Wetland Addendum associated with the Western Pacific Property (north of the subject property) prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc. and dated January 23, 2001. As previously stated, the area in question was approved by the City of Federal Way as not being a regulated wetland based on multiple previous evaluations by professional wetland ecologists. The development of the storage facility and the amount of impervious surfaces approved on the property to the Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. March 20, 2015 Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report Incorporated City of Federal Way (Tax Parcel #292104-9127) Page 4 north of the subject property has significantly altered the local hydrological regime. The retention of hydrology has apparently significantly increased on -site in the topographic low point, creating ponding. Based on all available information, it is highly likely that the extent of impervious surfaces and significant amount of fill associated with the storage unit property caused an interruption in the natural historical stormwater and groundwater regime, ultimately resulting in a significant amount of water collecting in this topographically low point among the north -central portion of the property. In short, it is in our professional opinion that the non -regulated area which currently displays some wetland characteristics was unintentionally created due to its landscape position in relation to the storage facility property which was constructed in either late 2005 or early 2006 (based on review of Google Earth dated aerial photographs). While no regulated wetlands or streams were located on the project site, there are known regulated wetlands and streams located to the northwest and southeast of the subject parcel. The off -site wetland to the northwest is part of the West Hylebos State Park, approximately 313 feet from the subject property at its closest point. Another large wetland complex is mapped as being located to the southeast of the subject site. This wetland system is approximately 350 feet from the subject property at its closest point. Per the FWRC section 19.175, the largest wetland buffer is 200 feet. Therefore, the standard protective buffers from the nearest known off -site wetlands would not extend on -site even if the wetlands required the largest protective buffers to be applied. West Hylebos Creek, a fish -bearing stream, is located within the West Hylebos State Park wetland system previously mentioned. According to the FWRC section 19.165, the largest stream buffer is 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Therefore, the stream buffer from West Hylebos Creek will not extend on -site. In addition, a tributary to West Hylebos Creek flows through the Hylebos wetland system located southeast of the subject parcel. The stream buffer from the tributary will not extend on -site since it is greater than 350 feet from the nearest property line. SUMMARY OF CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION It is the professional opinion of Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. that no regulated wetlands, streams, or associated buffers are located on the subject property. This determination is a result of our detailed on -site evaluations, review of the previously approved wetland reports associated with the property to the north of the subject property, review of the City of Federal Way's current Critical Areas Regulations, and review of several publicly available map systems and online resources. The extent of development (significant amount of fill and impervious surfaces) associated with the storage unit property to the north of the subject property likely caused an interruption in the natural historical stormwater and/or groundwater regimes, ultimately resulting in a significant amount of water collecting in a topographically low point among the north -central portion of the property. However, multiple professional wetland ecologists conducted wetland evaluations on the property to the storage unit property and also examined areas within close proximity to the storage unit property prior to the storage units and associated infrastructure being constructed. Those wetland professionals included employees from Raedeke Associates, Inc. who conducted multiple different site visits, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the City's own 3rd-party review wetland consultant (Sheldon & Associates, Inc.). None of those professional wetland ecologists stated that a wetland existed in close proximity to the storage unit property's southern property boundary, and that is where the topographically low area is located. In fact, the 2001 Revised Wetland Addendum from Raedeke Associates, Inc. specifically discusses the area in question and concluded that the area did not meet wetland parameters. Furthermore, the City of Federal Way approved the permits associated with the storage unit facility Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. March 20, 2015 Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report Incorporated City of Federal Way (Tax Parcel #292104-9127) Page 5 development on that parcel, thereby agreeing with the determinations of multiple professional wetland ecologists that no wetlands were located in close proximity off -site to the south of that property where the storage units were ultimately constructed. Based on the information discussed above and discussed previously in this report, it is apparent that no regulated wetlands are located on the subject property, and that the area observed in the north -central portion of the subject property which currently displays some wetland characteristics was unintentionally created by the construction of the storage facility and associated infrastructure to the north of the subject property. Based on our determination that no regulated wetlands, streams, or buffers are located on the project site, it is our professional opinion that no adverse environmental impacts will occur to any such regulated Critical Areas or associated protective buffer areas as a result of any future project activity on the subject parcel. This Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report is supplied to Mr. Ken Singh as a means of determining whether any wetlands, streams, or associated buffers regulated by the Federal Way Revised Code exist on the site or within close proximity of the site which would affect any future proposed activities on the site. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the regulations currently in effect. Please note that Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. did not have legal access to traverse adjacent private properties in order to determine the extent, location, and classification of any Critical Areas on adjacent properties. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by professional ecologists in the Puget Sound region. No other representation or warranty is made concerning our professional evaluations or this report. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. If such conditions arise, the information contained in this report may change based upon those conditions. Please note that Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. did not provide detailed analysis of other permitting requirements not discussed in this report (structural, drainage, geotechnical, other engineering requirements, etc.). The laws applicable to Critical Areas are subject to varying interpretations. While Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. upheld professional industry standards when completing this review, the information included in this report does not guarantee agreement or approval by any federal, state, and/or local permitting agencies. Therefore, no work shall commence until permits have been obtained from all applicable agencies. Similarly, I recommend obtaining agreement and/or approval of the information contained in this report by the City of Federal Way and any other applicable agency prior to purchasing the subject property for the purpose of any future development on the parcel. If any questions arise regarding this review, please contact me directly at (425) 337-6450. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Scott Spooner Owner / Principal Wetland & Wildlife Ecologist Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. March 20, 2015 Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report Incorporated City of Federal Way (Tax Parcel #292104-9127) Page 6 Cowardin, et al, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Dee water Habitats of the United States... U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. December 1979. Environmental Laboratory. (1987). "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y- 87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Federal Way Revised Code.. Title 19, Division V, Chapters 19.165 (Streams) and 19.175 (Wetlands). City of Federal Way, Washington. King County iMAP: Interactive Mapping Tool. Administered by the King County GIS Center. htt .11 kin coon , ovio erations/ is/Ma s/iMAP.as x. Website viewed for project on March 16, 2015. Olson, P. and E. Stockdale. 2010. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State. Second Review Draft. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program, Lacey, WA. Ecology Publication # 08-06-001. PHS on the Web. Web -based interactive map administered by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. htt ://ydfw.wa: ov/mao inQ hs . Website last visited for this project on March 16, 2015. SalmonScape. Interactive Mapping website administered by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. htt ://wdfw.wa. v/ma in /dlmonsca elindex.html. Website last visited for this project on March 16,201 StreamNet. Fish Data for the Northwest. Administered by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. bttg://www.streamnet. . Website last visited on March 16, 2015. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2010). 'Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0)," ERDCIEL TR-10-3, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper. htt ;//107. 0.228.18/Wetlands/Wetl n sMa er.html#. Washington State Wetlands -,Identification and Delineation Manual, Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. March 1997. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. March 20, 2015 Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report Incorporated City of Federal Way (Tax Parcel #292104-9127) Page 7 CITY OF All ", WETLAND CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM City: City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Steve Quarterman Landau Associates Inc. 130 2nd Avenue S Edmonds, WA 98020 Project: Arco Facility and Commercial Development— Wetland Delineation & Identification Parcel # 292104 9127 File No.: 15-101380-00-AD UMMM-M Project Proponent: Nick Wecker, Assistant Planner 18215 72d Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Balbir Birk Birk Enterprises 18215 72d Avenue South Kent, WA 98030 Project Planner: Leila Willoughby -Oakes, Associate Planner leila.willblughb�r-oak.eg@gitYoff�dor4twav�tom, 253-835-2644 Project Background: The applicant proposes to construct an Arco gas station, fast food restaurant with drive-thru, carwash, and a track stop with retail/track parking on 4.95 acres. To the City's knowledge the applicant has not purchased the property. A pre -application review was conducted in early 2015. Prior to submitting formal land use applications (Process III -Project Review and Environmental Review); review of the wetland reconnaissance memorandum is requested to determine projectTeasibility and any required wetland mitigation plans. The proposal exceeds SEPA thresholds due to the capacity of proposed underground gas and diesel tanks, and proposed number of parking stalls. The subject property is located within a 1 0-year well -head protection zone. The wi) i I es a _ij cal Critical Area Assessment reDort determined staff _jjj, rig,oir Hydrolk,mW -IKQ) Note wommintlegilm-14LIJIM 10MAE7 MI M submittal. The site is adjacent to the publicly owned lands, the Brooklake Co T-ar�d contains a closed depression. Documents Provided: * Critical Areas Reconnaissance, prepared by Wetlands and Wildlife - Environmental Consulting (report date: March 20, 2015) Task Scope: 1. Review the wetland reconnaissance memorandum for consistency with the requirements of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Division V, 'Critical Areas, Cespecially: a. Chapter 19.145, 'Environment and Critical Areas in General', b. Chapter 19.150, 'Critical Areas Administration', c. Chapter 19.155, 'General Site Design Requirements;' and d. Chapter 19.175, 'Regulated Wetlands'. 2., Conduct site visit onsite and offsite (to evaluate improvement impacts to offsite wetland buffers within 200 feet of the closest subject propertyl line). The Parks Department will provide written permission for the third -party welland consultani and the proponent's consultant to access the public lands. 3. Provide written response to findings, recommendations, and request additional information from applicant as needed. 4. Per FWRC 19.175.010, provide comments determining if the subject property is functionally related to another wetland that meets the criteria of a regulated wetland, the West Hylebos to the north. 5. Conduct onsite soil sampling test pits as needed. 6. Review of resubmitted/corrected documents as needed. 7. Project management as necessary if additional land use review is required. Task Cost: Not to exceed $ without a prior written, amendment to this Task Authorization. WE= City of Federal Way Staff Date Applicant Date I Per FITRC-1145.190 'Subject Property'is defined as, the entire lot or parcel, or series of lots or parcels, on which a development, activity, or use exists or will occur, or on which any activity or condition subject to development regulations exists or will occur. CITY OF Rmderal My, ul-mom Steve Quarterman Landau Associates Inc. 130 2d Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffe era a. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor RIE: File #15-101436-00-AD; REQUEST FOR THIRD PARTY WETLAND RECONNAISsANcE REVIEW Arco Facility and Commercial Development —35505 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way Please find the enclosed task authorization form and critical area report/memorandum and supporting documents for a third party review of the 'Critical Areas Wetland Reconnaissance Report' for Tax Parcel Number 292104-9127. Planning and Development Services staff conducted site visits on January 29, 2015 and March 23, 2015. City staff request a third -party review pursuant to the agreed terms of the on- st on pa e 2 call contract. Please review the sco e of work on the task authorization form, enter the task co,,W I I WWRI 61W U WAYM 0, 1uestions regarding this task. �17 444.0 Leila Willoughby -Oakes Associate Planner enc: Task Authorization Form Wetland Reconnaissance Memorandum/Report (Prepared by Wetlands and Wildlife March 20,2015) Revised Wetland Addendum (Prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc. January 23, 2001) Lakehaven Utility District Memorandum to Applicant incl. Site Visit Photos Staff Site Visit Photos (January 29, 2015) 15-101380-00-AD Doc. I.D. 68917 LANDAU ASSOCIAT April 9, 2015 City of Federal Way Community and Economic Development 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Attn: Leila Willoughby -Oakes, Associate Planner RE: THIRD PARTY REVIEW WETLANDS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT ARCO FACILITY AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT — 35505 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Willoughby -Oakes: This proposal provides a suggested scope and budget to provide third party review services to the City of Federal Way (City) for the above -referenced project. This proposal is in response to your request dated April 6, 2015 and is based on a brief review of the information provided with your request and our experience on similar projects. BACKGROUND The City has received partial application for construction of an Arco gas station and commercial development on the property located at 35505 Pacific Highway South. A Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report prepared by Wetlands and Wildlife -Environmental Consulting (report date: March 20, 2015) has been provided to the City documenting wetland/waterway conditions on the property. To the City's knowledge the applicant has not purchased the property. A pre -application review was conducted in early 2015. Prior to submitting formal land use applications (Process III -Project Review and Environmental Review); review of the wetland reconnaissance memorandum is requested to determine project feasibility and any required wetland mitigation plans. SCOPE OF SERVICES Landau Associates will provide the following specific services: 1. Review the Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report for consistency with the requirements of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Division V, 'Critical Areas, 'especially: a. Chapter 19.145, 'Environment and Critical Areas in General', b. Chapter 19.150, 'Critical Areas Administration', c. Chapter 19.155, 'General Site Design Requirements;' and ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 - Tacoma, WA 98402 - (253) 926-2493 - fax (253) 926-2531 - www.landouinc.com EDMONDS (CORPORATE) - SEATTLE - TACOMA - TRICITIES - SPOKANE - PORTLAND d. Chapter 19.175, 'Regulated Wetlands'. �-, a N M la=, I a's M. - all .,I � Pi I IN U-1 M1111 I I I I I I WAVIVIN Ugm K*J a I I Ew" Logrg-1 W-11 I &I I Gkim a Situ @I W I IVA 3. Provide written response to findings, recommendations, and request additional information from applicant as needed. 4. Per FWRC 19.175.010, provide comments determining if the subject property is ftinctionally related to another wetland that meets the criteria of a regulated wetland, the West Hylebos to the north. 5. Conduct onsite soil sampling test pits as needed. 6. Review of resubmitted/corrected documents as needed. 7. Project management as necessary if additional land use review is required. • Written response to Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report will be provided in memorandum format. • Review of resubmitted/corrected documents is limited to one iteration of revisions, as necessary, to the original Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report. • The City will coordinate necessary access permissions to onsite and offsite properties. • Onsite soil sampling test pits will be excavated by hand consistent with standard wetland delineation practices. • Onsite soil sampling test pits, if necessary, are for purposes of comparison with conditions noted in the Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report. Soils test pits will be completed during the site visit for purposes of evaluating proposed improvement impacts to offsite wetland buffers within 200 feet of the closest subject property line. • Review comments associated with resubmitted/corrected documents will be provided in memorandum format. DELIVERABLES 0 An electronic (Adobe PDF) copy of the draft and final Third Party Review memorandum. ESTIMATED FEE We provide our services on a time -and -expenses basis in accordance with our existin�yy professional services agreement with the City for Third Party Wetland/Stream Review and Evaluation (signed August 1, 2013). The estimated fee for the scope of services is $6,700. 4/9/15 XAC Fedm] Way\2015-04 Arco 3rdftrtyRe ie V-AIPWIAI PacHwYARCOPm.dom LANDAU AssOCIATES 2 If project requirements change or unforeseen conditions are encountered that require services beyond the scope outlined above, we will bring these to your attention and seek approval for modification to the scope of services and budget, as appropriate. We will not exceed the total estimated fee for our services • prior authorization from the City. If the above scope and budget are acceptable, please 1= We appreciate the opportunity to is with the City • Federal Way on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions about our proposed scope of services and budget for this project. Steven J. Quarterman Associate Ecologist 4/9/15 XAC Federal Way\2015-04—irdPartyRevim\LAIpm\IAI PacHwyARCOPro.docx 3 Leila WilloughoytOakes From: Jessica Stone <jstune@|ondauinc.conn> Sent: Wednesday, April Ol.20l59:53APW To: SteveDuarterman Cc: Leila Willoughby -Oakes Subject; RE: Report Scanned-35G0SPacific Hwy S(392lO49I37) Attachments: 2015032509I157.pdf,20150325091135.pdf Good Morning Steve, The City ofFederal Way isrequesting awetland report peer review for adevelopment site, and uvehave provided this service to the City before. Unfortunately the applicant is Barghausen Consulting Engineering, and they are active clients of mine. Although I am not working with them on this project, we would like to avoid any perceived conflict ofinterest; therefore we would like to bring you in for the review. I have cc'd Lelia with the City of Federal way and included the wetland report. This is a very sensitive site adjacent to the Hy|eboswetland complex. Edand | can set the project uponour end. Please let nmeknow ifyou have any questions, thanks! Jessica Stone wSenior Scientist Landau Associates, Inc. 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515, Tacoma, WA 98402 direct (253) ou4-4or7+main pon;ooa-24ea Landau Associates is proudly carbon -neutral through our sustainable practices and financial support of U.S.-based carbon -reduction projects. NOTICE:' This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes maili6:t�6ila.Witloubhhbby�-Q�Odt�6ft�6deLaIWAV�COM] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:18 AM To: Jessica Stone Hi Jessica, Here is the report and covering letter. I will forward a scan of the site plan after our call! Leila Leila | Associate Planner Department of Communi1y_qgyg!ggMenLt 333258 th Ave. S. Federal Way, WA980U CITY OF ,.z wal WaY ..... . ...... Fede Birk Enterprises Balbir Birk jut, th w 1"yffm 0 Ins oft SWincerell Leila Willoughby -Oakes Associate Planner J!'A j k3l I CRY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www,cilyoffederalwaycom Jim Ferrell, Mayor ♦ • ♦ cc: Nick Wecker, Assistant Planner, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc- 18215 72"® Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Emailed: NWecker@barghausen.com File 15-101380-AD encWetlands Consultant Authorization Form Landau Consultant Fee Determination Summary City of Federal Way Invoice REVISED WETLAND ADDENDUM �,�t�wo 10 cq )`J January 2, 2001 RECEIVED JAN 2 0 -2009 FEDERALCITY OF Logan Federal Way Inc. Report To: c/o Mr. Cory Martin Pacific West Development P.O. Box 860 Renton, Washington 98057 Revised Wetland Addendum for the Title: Western Pal fie Property, Federal Way, Washington Project Number: 90046-001 RAEDEK-EOC TB, IC Prepared By: 5711 Northeast rd Street Seattle, Washington 9811 26 25-8122 Ianuary 23, 2001 Date: roe %-/ `-- RAEQEKE ASSOCIATES, INC r_ -7q R n Ir,rth®r 1Ct fiifCl tit,, wattle, WA 98115 (206) 525-8122 Principals: Kenneth J. Raedeke, Ph.D. Certified Senior Zcologist, BSA Dorothy A. Milligan Raedeke, M.S. Wildlife Biologist Project Manager Richard W. Lundquist, M.S. Wildlife Biologist Current Project Personnel: Dawn Garcia, B.S. Wildlife and Wetland Biologist Kristin M. Fredericks, M.S. Fisheries Biologist Amy Payne, B.S. Soil Scientist .Claude McKenzie, B.A. 'Landscape Architect Lisa C. Danielski, B.A. Technical / Administrative Assistant RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC 4)�r(-� qt -qPnftle. WA 98115 (206) 525-8122 I; 'I1 a 1.1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE This report documents the results of our recent and cup Thent icelu 1nveosesti ations 9 of the WesternFacific Property inFifs re have been ederal substantialchangesin the delineated investigation was to determine bound of the Hylebos 1 wetland boundary since theU.S.was delineatedCorps of Engineers Vic. (1993) d approved by Raedeke Associates, boundary to assess wetland ( OE). 'e also investigated off. site areas along the property ropa The results were futures that could extend buffers or se 1p999) Eased on the review presented in an addendum. report (Raedeke Associates, Inc. of the site and,1999 summary document, the reviewer for the city of The Federal Way, Associate Inc. (2000), requested additional information: 1) a survey the standard d Sheldon & As lebos 18 wetland, 2) a depiction of modified northeast boundary of the Hy a delineation of the 1Iyle®s 18 west 200 foot buffer on existing condition maps, 3)Of the wetland boundary that extends west off site, to determinet e tocation wetland off standard the 200-foot buffer, d 4) additional info...:ation regarding north to make a rating and buffer determination. The purpose of this report is to provide the requestedinformation ation i conducted addition to the investigations results of our 1999 investigation. Raedeke Associates, , November 14 and of the Western Pacific property July 8 d Sepeber site visits, we collected general December 14, 2000, and January 5, 2001. During the descriptions of vegetation, soil, and hydrologic, conditions requested. document 1Q present field and extend the flagged bound of I�ylebos 18 a on d Tables 11-15 provide additional observations of the data Born our 1999 investigati off-site wetland to the northeast. 1.2 STuDy AREA The Western Pacific Property► approximately 17.2 acres in size, is located in the Rangection 29Township 21 North, 4 northwest quarter of the northeast quartet of Se s e lies, es,west of pacify Highway South East, W.M., in Federal Way, Washington. The (Highway 99), between South 35 th Street and South 352nd rethe sout(f extend d). partially cleared, undeveloped land borders the property d light commercial land land borders most of the northern and western portions of e site, Western pacific property Revised Wetland Addendum Janua'y 23, 2001 Raedeke Associates, Inc. IN I borders the property in the northeast and the southwest portions of the study area (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993). 2.0 METHODS 2.1 DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGIES Wetlands and streams are protected by federal law as well as by state and local regulations. Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) generally prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into the nation's waters, including wetlands, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE 1997). The COE makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the definition of a wetland, and thus, if it is under their jurisdiction, and whether any permits are required for any proposed alterations, The COE wetland definition was used to determine if any portions of the study area could be classified as wetland. A wetland is defined as an area "inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (Federal Register 1986:41251). We based our investigation upon the guidelines of the COE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), as revised in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual published by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE 1997). The WDOE wetland manual is required by state law for all local jurisdictions (including King County), is consistent with the 1987 COE wetland delineation manual with respect to wetland identification and delineation, and incorporates subsequent amendments and clarifications provided by the COE (1991 a, 1991b, 1992, 1994). Generally, as outlined in the 1987 wetland delineation manual, wetlands are distinguished by three diagnostic characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation (wetland plants), hydric soil (Wetland soil), and wetland hydrology. We used the Braun-Blanquet cover -abundance scale and plotless sampling methodology to describe homogenous plant "cover types" in representative areas of both wetland and uplands (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenburg 1974). The locations of additional wetland flags placed on the site in our current studies have been surveyed by Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. and plotted on an existing conditions map (Figure 1). n Western Pacific Property — Revised Weiland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc. January 23, 1001 I - �' • 1 _1 + +_ - • as •• 1 + + • + • comments,•- conr -r . - r- • �- - •- 111+ 1 11i to delineate the wetland boundaxy further off -site from the west property bounda7, —ancT— investigate the off -site wetland to the northeast, as they may affect the development of the Western Pacific property. Western Pacific Property — Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc. January 23, 2001 El 3.1 ON -SITE WETLAND (HYLEBos 18 As determined from our previous investigations, the on -site wetland extends off -site to the west and north as part of the larger Hylebos 18 wetland, which encompassed 2.14 acres on the property. Based on the revised delineation (Figure 1) the on site wetland area now totals 2.27 acres. _Drained hydric or transitional soils continue in a topographic low trough to the southern boundary. This southerly topographic low was excluded from the wetland boundary based on hydrologic observations in early spring of 1990 and 1993 in a series of soil logs (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993), and this determination was confirmed by COE staff in 1993. Prior to our 1999 field surveys, the approximate location of the previously confirmed wetland boundary was re -staked in the field by Pathmann Surveying. Based on our review of current field conditions, the current on -site wetland boundary in general appears to be consistent with the previously approved wetland boundary. The wetland boundary as delineated by Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff and surveyed by Goldsmith Associates, Inc. for our 1993 report still accurately reflects the wetland boundary, except at the northeast end near the north property line (Figure 1). The majority of the wetland boundary is defined by a distinct topographic break at the base of upland slopes corresponding with a change in soil characteristics and subtle changes in vegetation, as described in our 1993 report (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993). We examined areas on either side of the boundary of 'the south -easternmost lobe of the on -site wetland to describe the current conditions and compare them with previous observations. One area was described within the south end of the wetland finger near Soil Log 17, where the vegetation was dominated by an overstory of red alder, with scattered western red cedar, and a dense tall shrub layer of trine maple, with herbaceous cover consisting of false -lily -of -the -valley, scattered skunk cabbage, water parsley, and horsetail (Table 2, Plot E). The soil profile for this area was generally consistent with that described previously for Soil Log 17, with a dark organic -rich surface horizon to 9 inches, over a sandy layer to 15 inches, and a heavier silt loam layer below 15 inches. The profile was moist throughout during our July 1999 visit, with saturation at about 15 inches. Based on our previous investigations, this area was considered to have wetland hydrology and included within the wetland. This area was similar in some ways to the area described just south of the wetland finger (outside the wetland boundary) near previous Soil Logs 11 and 12. The vegetation consisted of an overstory of red alder and vine maple, with an herbaceous layer Western Pacific Property — Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc. January 23, 2001 dominated by false -lily -of -the -valley and bedstraw, including a few widely scattered skunk cabbage (Table 3, Plot D). Thus, the vegetation was similar, but lacked two of the herbaceous wetland plants found in Plot E to the north, and the skunk cabbage here were smaller and more widely scattered, which was noted during our previous investigations (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993). The soil profile for this area was similar to Soil Log 11, with a black organic -rich surface to a depth of 12 inches, over medium sand to a depth of 24 inches, over a silty clay loam layer with mottles. No water table was encountered, although the soil was saturated below 22 inches, Based on our early spring observations in 1990 and 1993 (Soil Logs 11 and 12), this area lacked wetland hydrology and was excluded from the wetland boundary. Our current observations are consistent with this determination, as the upper profile was drier than within the wetland, and saturation was found at a deeper depth (22 inches). At the northeast end of the wetland on site, approaching the north property line, we found an area where the wetland line needed adjustment. A minor topographic rise approximately 30 to 50 feet east of the previous survey line appears to more accurately correspond to the current wetland boundary. We marked the revised wetland boundary, and the flags have been surveyed by Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates (Figure 1). Red alder, western hemlock, and western red cedar form the canopy over vine maple, red elderberry and salmonberry. Lady -fern, horsetail, skunk cabbage and wood-fem comprise the herbaceous community in this area (Table 4, Plot Al). The area just upslope of this topographic break had similar vegetation, except that skunk cabbage and horsetails dropped out t and were replaced by sword-fem (Table 5, Plot A2). The surface soil was dry and bright (I OYR 3/2 at 16 inches) over a silty clay loam. Based on the topographic rise and change in soil and vegetation, this upslope area lacked sufficient characteristics to be considered wetland. The wetland line appears to continue off -site in a northerly direction. The wide topographic low sampled extensively in spring of 1990 and 1993 continues south to the southern property boundary (Figure 1). This area appears to remain similar to what it was during the previous investigations. Tn most areas, the vegetation was A similar to that described near the south end of the wetland (Table 3, Plot D), with a deciduous to mixed overstory, dense tall shrub layer (mainly vine maple), and scattered herbaceous layer. An area described within the south end of this trough near the south property boundary. (old Soil Log 1) consisted of an overstory of red alder and Oregon ash, a tall shrub layer of salmoriberry with lesser cover of western crabapple, and scattered herbaceous cover mainly consisting of false lily -of -the -valley and a few skunk cabbage (Table 6, Plot C2). Western Pacific Property — Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc. January 23, 2001 2 The soil in this area consisted of a dark brown surface horizon with subsoil that included a light brown to yellowish layer of ash or diatomaceous earth, similar to the profile described at Soil Log 3 from the 1993 report. The soil profile was dry during our September 1999 visit, in contrast to other areas observed within the wetland boundary on the same day. This is consistent with the early spring 1990 observations in this general vicinity (Soil Logs 1,,2, 3 and 4). Although the area has hydrophytic vegetation, our current observationsremain consistent with the earlier determination by our staff and the COE that this area lacks wetland hydrology. s the Western Pacific Property. 3.2.1 South and West Perimeter Along the western property line, we re -flagged the wetland boundary as it continued off - site in a southwesterly direction. In November 2000, we continued our delineation of the flag line using the same pink and black diagonally striped flagging as was used for the previous delineation. Our delineation extension continued off -site in a southwesterly direction for approximately 300 feet until we terminated it near a fenceline at the south end of the state park property (Figure 1). We established our last wetland delineation flag (35S) within the West Hylebos state park, approximately 130 feet west of the Western Pacific property line. The wetland line appears to continue to the west. The property south of the state park (at the end of the flagline) is light industrial cleared land with gravel parking and several trailers. The wetland boundary tends to follow a topographic break as was observed in our previous investigations (Raedeke Associates)Inc. 1993). Fine maple and sal onbe rry with lady4ern, false 'lily-o the -valley and skunk cabbage grow °under a canopy of red alder, western red cedar and western hemlock (Table 7, Plot B1). The soil in this area was moist to saturated at the surface during our September 1999, and November and December 2000 field visits. The wetland soils are very similar to what was described as Soil Log 19 in the 1993 delineation (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993). In the adjoining upland (upslope from Plot B1), red alder, western hemlock, and western red cedar trees provide overstory cover for salmonberry, vine maple, Indian plum, Pacific blackberry, and sword -fern (Table 8, Plot B2). This may be a transitional vegetative community, but the soil is similar to the upland soil described as Soil Log 21 in 1993 (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993). Western Pacific Property — Devised wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc. January 23, 2001 4 7 An outlet to an 18-inch culvert (under Pacific Highway South) is located just south of the southeast corner of the property and coincides with the head of a ditch that extends westerly along the southern property boundary. Water, when present, flows from the outlet through the ditch for a short distance and then may flow diffusely, in a westerly direction into a topographical low south of the site (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993). The ditch drains to a topographic low dominated by a vegetative community consisting of big -leaf maple and black cottonwood trees with common snowberry, Himalayan blackberry bracken-fem understory. This vegetative community is not indicative of wetland conditions (Table 9, Plot CI). Although we did not sample within the off -site topographic low area, the soil along the property boundary in this location is relatively bright (chroma above 3) with a sandy texture and was dry during our September 1999 site visit. Based on these observations, the low area does not appear to contain a wetland area within 100 feet of the 'iVestern Pacific Property boundary. No wetland areas were found along the remainder of the southern boundary within at least 100 feet of the property. An area described near the southwest comer was representative: vegetation was dominated by red alder, a variety of tall shr u-bs including salmonberry, vine maple, red elderberry, and Indian plum, d a patchy herbaceouslayer' of stinging nettle and bracken- and sword -ferns (Table 10, Plot 3). Soils were similar t upland (Everett/Alderwood) soils described elsewhere on the site. 3.2.2 Northeast Off -site Wetland Based on our reconnaissance of the northern property boundary, only one wetland feature was observed along the boundary between the east end of Hylebos 18 and Pacific Highway South. Our preliminary observations in 1999 indicated that the area was very small and just off site. Based on their review of the site in 2000 for the City of Federal Way, Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (2000) staff concurred that a wetland feature was present, and requested additional information to determine the approximate size, rating, distance from the property boundary, and whether it was connected to Hylebos 18.. This was to determine whether any buffer would be required on this wetland that would extend onto the Western Pacific property. We obtained permission from the neighboring property owner to conduct a reconnaissance of the wetland to make these determinations, but not to delineate the boundaries or have them surveyed. Thus, we did not conduct a formal delineation or mark the off -site boundaries or sample plot locations with plastic flagging. Based upon further investigation in November and December 2000, the south boundary of the wetland appears to extend to the north boundary of the Western Pacific property, about 25 feet east of a concrete monument along the property line (Figure 1). The wetland is an isolated depressional feature bounded on the east by a topographic break and fill from an old dirt road and the Western Pacific Property — Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc. January 23, 2001 fillslopes of a developed area further east. to surface drainage features were evident, as the area is bounded by upland soils and vegetation communities to the north, west, and south. There is no evident hydrologic connection between this wetland and Hylebos 18.. The areas to the west and northwest consist of alder forest, with an understory of salmonberry, red elderberry, Indian plum, and ferns, with non-hydric, sandy soils (Tables 11-14). The wetland g04 had been ickaredand logged since our 1999 field investigations. r • � � � r r • - • r � r r • • • r •r • '^. -r r r The soils in the main southern end of the wetland are a black organic muck (10YR 2/1) over gray (2.5 4/2) and light olive brown (2.Y5./4) fine sandy loams with mottles (Table 15). The soils were saturated at the surface from 0-3 inches and became drier with depth during our November and December 2000 field visits. The north end had mottled subsoil at varying depths, but no saturation was observed (Table 14). • r r r, - - r r�. � • •,. •• r 1 • • r • .r • •r- rr •_ .•r-. -r r . r . • 1 - • • r r • r ® ♦ • >�r• • • • r . r • r• �• • M r •_ n r • • r •� _ r - rl . - - • .. rr s • � • rclass, the off -site• r; ral way meet - • Category- • r r - • - • _r. rrr Environmentally Ordinance. if it is smaller11 square Western Pac fic Property — Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc. evi-....- d January 23, 2001 Ell feet, no buffer is required. if it is greater than 2,500 square feet, it would be -rated as a Category M wetland, which typically requires a buffer of 25 feet. Thus, at most, a 25- foot buffer may be required for this wetland along the north boundary of the Western Pacific property. Western Pacific Property — Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc. January 23. 2001 10 Based on our July and September 1999 observations, the wetland boundary as delineated during previous investigations and confirmed by the U.S. Army COE in 1993 has not changed significantly. Except at the northeast end near the northern property boundary, the wetland boundary is consistent with the confirmed boundary as depicted on the topographic survey map prepared for our 1993 report. At the northeast end, the current wetland line to extends further east than the previous line (Figure 1). The revised line has now been surveyed, and the on -site wetland totals 2.27 acres. Although our field observation occurred during the summer of 1999, the wide topographic low that extends south from the delineated wetland edge appears to be in condition similar to that observed during previous studies. Our current observations are consistent with the previous determination to exclude this area the approved wetland boundary. Basedon a reconnaissance by visual observation only along the property boundaries, we searched for potential wetlands within at least 100 feet of the property in response to a request firom the City of Federal Way. Except for a small offsite wetland depression along the north property line near the northeast comer (Figure 1), no additional areas that could meet the definition of wetland were observed along the perimeter of the site. The wetland line along the west property boundary extends to the southwest beyond the property. M � �'.. � - 1. - f • •' - • •. _ Western Pacific Property -Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke,4ssociates, inc. January 23, 2001 F We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Logan Federal Way, Inc. and acific West Development, L.L.C.. No other person or agency may rely upon the containedout-pemiis-qio-n-&-nml'h-em— The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. With regard to wetlands, the final determination of their boundaries for regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various resource agencies that regulate development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such agency determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this letter should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any construction activities. We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and was prepared substantially in accordance with then -current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this letter represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponents and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Western Pacific #roperty — Revised Wedand Addendum Ra4deke Associates, Inc. January 23, 2001 M Cooke, S. MI. A field gqi&,to common wetland plaift ofWegern Washington and Notthwestem Oregon. � Sea�ftle Audubon Society, Seattle, WWiirigton. EnvironmenW Laborato987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Teclinkal R�port "i.1' us Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, TMississi i. 1. 00 pp. ipp Federal Way, City of 1999. Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Ordinance No. 99-353, Adopted November 16, 1999. Federal R4ster� 198�& 40 CM parts 1104hW40 M- Regulatofy� programs of Corps oftn9jilters; final rule. V4!iimO-51,N6.219,pp.4120&44260,U. GOY&Wndat P� Offke, Washing0k AC. S Hickman, 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Univ. of Cal. Press, 1400 pp. Hitchcock, C., and A. Cronquist. Washington Press, Seattle, 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of Washington. 730 pp. King County. 199 1. Sensitive Axea� M40 Folio. King County Wetlands *yeritory. king County• DiVikon:Paft Planning and AOSO=es Dept, March, 1991. Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenburg, 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 547 pp. Poiar, J�, And A.Mic�ftfton. 19 PlAhtsoftheP 'fjcNb 94� rthwest Coast, Washington, Otegbn� Brit4h Columbia, and Alaska. B.C, Ministry ofVorests; B.C. Forest Service; Research Pograxji Raedeke Associates, Ind. 1993. W6tlond Msessment of the Western Puific Property, Fedora Way, W44iiigtoft. May 3, 10port to International Equity "A), Lid., Rentm WA39 PP. Sheldon & Associates Inc. 2000. Federal Way Business Center, Review of Wetland Assessment. October 24, 2000 memorandum to Jim Harris, City Planner, City of Federal Way. 3 pp. Wesiern Pacific Property — Revised Welland Addendum Raedeke Associates, fnc. January 23, 2001 UK, Western Pacific Property — Revised Wetland Addendum January 23, 2001 Raedeke Associates, Inc. IN Table I. Scientific and common names of plants with assigned Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) (Reed 1988, 1993). Scientific names froin Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976), Pojar and MacKinnon (1994), Hiclanan (1993), and Cooke (1997). Scientific Namel Common Name WISI, 2 TREES Acer circinalum vine maple FAC- Acer macrophyllwn Big -leaf maple FACU Alnus rubra Red alder FAC Populus balsamifiera Black cottonwood FAC Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC Tsuga heterophylla Western hemlock FACU- SHRUBS Acer circinatum Vine maple FAC- Cornus sericea Red -osier dogwood FACW Malusfitsca Western crabapple FACW Oemleria cerasiforinis Indian plum FACU Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry FACU Rubus spectabilis Salmoriberry ' RAC+ Rubus ursinus Pacific blackberry FACU Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry FACU Ilex aquifolium English holly UPL Lonicera involucrata Black twin -berry FAC+ HERBS Athyriumfilix-fernhia Lady -fern FAC Dryopteris expansa Wood -fern FACW Horsetail FACW" Equisewn spp. T OBL Lysichi.ton americanum Skunk cabbage Western Pacific Property — Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc. January 23, 2001 V Table 1. Continued. Maianthernum dilatalum 'Polystichum munitum Pteridium aquilinton False lily -of -the -valley Sword -fern Bracken -fern FAC FACU FACU 1 = The following codes are used: a = Genera with species having a narrow range of WIS ratings that were averaged and were then included in our vegetation plot calculations. Genera with species having a, wide range of WIS ratings, not included in our vegetation plot calculations. WIS ratings with a minus symbol are considered "drier," while the plus symbol indicates 11wetter" species. Plants not identified to species are shown with the WIS range for the species common to this region. Western Pacific Property — Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc. January 23, 2001 Table 2. Field survey a..,a SE of wetland lobe, Plot E, (near So`�,pg 17). VEGETATION Cover over WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific Name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees Alnus nibra 4 62.5 3.0 187.5 A cer circinatum 3 37.5 3.3 124.9 Thuja plicata 1 2.5 3.0 7.5 Shrubs Malanthernum dilatatum 4 62.5 3.0 187.5 Equisetum spp. 1 2.5 2.0 5.0 Lysichiton americanum 1 2.5 1.0 2.5 Oenanthe sarmentosa 1 2.5 1.0 Z$ SUMS 172.5 517.4 Weighted Mean Index: % of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation index of 3.0 or less: .......... (1987 methodology): Yes VegNotes ................................................................................................................. HabitatFeatures .... . ......... ....... .......... . .......... .................... . . (snags, logs, etc.) . .. . ........................ .. ... . .. `�ielcl Date: 718/99 Observers: ri, me Project Number: 99046-001 Table 2. Continued. SOIL Field observations confirm mapped type? C3 yes W No Soil pit number F . .................... ........ On hydric list? 11 Yes [3 No Map Unit (S86es/Ph3se) -5-eattlet"Al;t . .. . ................................ Hydric inclusion? 13 yes a No Map Symbol Mottle Color Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, (moist) Texture Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast organic 0-9 black (i0YR 211) sand 9-15 gray (10YR 511) 15+ grayish brown (10YR present silt loam S;19) Soil Profile TeCy.. ................. .... Notes: ...... I ....... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): — Aquid Moisture Regime Concretions Histos0I High organic Surface (sandy soils) Histic Epipedon — Reducing Conditions Streaking (sandy soils) 7, Gley/Low Chroma Sulfidic Odor — organic Hydric Soil Criteria Met? :<: yes — No . .... .......... .. . ......... Rationale ..... .......... Field Date: 718/99 HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (gauge or well): Field Observations: .......... Depth of pit I.Q7 ....................... ....... I .............. --.- ...... . ........ Depth to saturation -15.........................I............. •••• Notes (inletioutlet, etc.): NIA Depth to free wateriwater table ............... ornmey'Ary'Mokat; ... .. Inundation depth ,— -- ....... ---- ...... Other indicators: -- ....... .. . . ..... ........ Wetland Hydrology? 7 Yes —No . . . ..... Rationale: MQ.IS.UCIJ, CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? Yes = No Classification a Y-ywpt Field Date-, 7/8/99 Observers-. rl, me Project Number, 99046-001 Table I Continued. SOIL Field observations confirm mapped type? 13Yes No Soil pit number D ................... Map Unit (Series/Phase) On hydric list? E3 yes Z No loam, 6-15°�® Map Symbol ...... ...... Hydric inclusion? M yes (3 No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contmst (moist) Texture 0-12 black (10YR 21I) sandy loam 12-24 gray OYR 5/1) sandy loam 24+ grayish brown (JOYR present silt loam 5/2) Soil ProfileilCi(..",.,13i110/.IOw.htIIs.pfil..silJk til 10g8( 0t 1' Notes: mpo.r.L .......... ; ........... ... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol — Aquic Moisture Regime = Concretions Histic Epipedon — Reducing Conditions High Organic Surface (sandy soils) Suffidic Odor Z. Gley/Low Chrorna = Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? Rationale Z Yes - No =Mr HYDROLOGY Field Date: 7/8199 Field Observations: Depthof pit 24:t . ................................................... ........ Depth to saturation 22, ... — ............ .. ......... Notes (inietioutlet, etc,)". Depth to free water/water table ...... Q11 -*JZJn1ty..mP`;kk.gw.Vy.q•............. k ............. N/A ................................................ -1-11-1-111-11- ............. Inundation depth Other indicators: ....... Wetland Hydrology? Rationale: CLASSIFICATION - Yes Z No Wetland Criteria Met? - yes Z. No ..... . ....... Classification Field Date: 7/8/99 Observers: ri, me Project Number: 99046-001 Table 4. Field survt, data, Plot Al, (inside wetland edge nea. uorthexn property boundary). Cover .e Product Class IndexIndex Midpoint and Value MidpointScientific Name Trees Weighted Mean Index: ....., .... < ,. % of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation index of 3.0 or less, , pgQ,Q„,,,...„ (1987 methodology): No Veg Notes v�g�tatian.ion.Sidec�d.hY.drophY.$i..und.�r..::prQbl�m.ar..mthaolQ�Y.e.�aed..an............... hx�ric.pail+.eV►.an��..af..hXdr.QJ.a9Y...................................................................................................................... HabitatFeatures ................ .........--.............. ,..., ..: (snags, logs, etc.) .... .................. ..... .......... Field r .. r. .. Project Number:l [t 'Fable 4. Continued. SOIL Soil pit number A1......... _... Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes No w. Map Unit (Series/Phase) aeatttgmua.....•.... On hydric list? g Yes p No Map Symbol Sk ,......... .,.,.....,b . _....._...._.._ Hydric inclusion? ❑Yes ® No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, - - _ Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture 0-8 black (10YR 2/1) silt loam silty clay loam 8+ Soil Profile - ;:.p19a l i ,Ctq l7 , t )) «9C dCtym ay -aG0;: .Y Notes: Hydric Soil Indicators (check): - Histosol Aquic Moisture Regime Concretions - Histic Epipedon = Reducing Conditions = High organic Surface (sandy soils) Sulfidic Odor Z Gley/Low Chroma _ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? Eyes No Rationale HYDROLOGY Field Date: 9/15/99 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit IA ..... .....,. �., Depth to saturation NIA ............................................ Notes (inlet/outlst, etc.): Depth to free water/water table NIA ............:.. kf1.e.yefY_ g) t................................................ . ............................... depth .•....,.. Inundation de NIA ....................:...................... Other indicators: ........ ., .,,.. _ _.... Wetland Hydrology? Z. Yes —No CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? Z Yes ` No Classification Field Date: 9/15/99 " Observers: rl, ap Project Number: 99046-001 Table 5. Field sur data, Plot A2, (upland near noboundary). VEGETATION Cover —0over WIS PFoduct of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific Name Value Midpoint Value IS Value Trees Aft s rubre 3 37.5 3.0 112.5 Thuia plicata 1 2.5 3.0 7.5 Shrubs —A—cer clrcinatum (s) 4 62.5 3.3 208.1 Weighted Mean Index: ...............1.3............... % of dominant species with a WIS index of 3.0 or less: VegNotes , .......... ............. ........ .... . . ..... Hydrophytic vegetation (1987 methodology): Njo HabitatFeatures ..... - ....... . ....... ......... ......... --- ..... . ....... (snags, logs, etc.) .... . ..... ...... ........ ........ ..... --- ..... Field Date: 9/15/99 Observers- d, ap Project Number: 99046-001 Table 5. Continued. SOIL Field observations confirm mapped type? E3 yes g No Soil pit number on hydric list? c3 yes w No Mal Unit (SeriesiPhase) loam, Hydric inclusion? 13 yes g No map Symbol EWIC—.. . ..... Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture Mo Soil Profile Notes: Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol — Aquic Moisture Regime — Concretions Histic Epipedon — Reducing Conditions — High organic Surface (sandy soils) Sulfidic Odor E. Gley/Low Chroma Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? = yes :K No Rationale ........... .. .............. HYDROLOGY Field Date: 9115/99 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit . ...... ......... - ... 1--.- ... I ... .. . ......... . . ..... . .... Depth to saturation NIA ............................................ Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): Depth to free water/water table NIA ................ 3.0-prarlheAry ........................................................................................ Inundation depth NA; .............................................. ....... . Other indicators: ......... .. . ........ Wetland Hydrology? —Yes Zx: No Rationale: .......... CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? .7-,yes ZNo Classification .... ......... .. . ..... . ......... — ....... . . ...... ..... ...... Field Date: 9115199 observers: rl, ap Project Number: 99046-001 Table 6. Field survey data for topographic low, Plot C2, (center of southern property boundary near Soil Pit 1 (1993 rept.). Mver WIS Product of VEGETATION Cover Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific Name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Rubus spectabifis 4 62.5 166.9 Malus fusc I a (S) 2 15.0 2.0 30.0 Herbs Maianthemurn dilatatum 2 15,0 3.0 45,0 .6 7 S 1.0 2.5 Weighted Mean Index: ............. ZL- . ........ % of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation index of 3,0 or less: ... I ....... ....... (1987 methodology): Yes VegNotes .......... ...... . ...... - .. . . ...... ..... --- ...... ................ ........... ...... -- ... ..... -.1- ... .... --._ .......... . .. HabitatFeatures .............. ---- ... . ........ ...... . . . -- ..... .. . ....... *"* ........ (snags, logs, etc.) .... .. -- ........ .......... - ... ...... -- .......... - ...... ....... 1eld Date: 9/15/99 Observers: d, ap Project Number: 99046-0(r- -rable 6. Continued. .............. SOIL Field observations confirm mapped type? E3 Yes 2 No Soil pit number ............... . ....... Map Unit (Series/Phase) On hydric list? 11 Yes E3 No Map Symbol Hydric inclusion? [3 Yes IS No, Profile* Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture A. ..� q Soil Profile .h fj=n Notes: ..... . . -- ...... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol - Aquic Moisture Regime Concretions Histic Epipedon - Reducing Conditions High Organic Surface (sandy soils) Sulfidic Odor Z Gley/Low Chrome Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? ,v ,.,yes - No Rationale......................................... ; ........................................................................................ ......... .......... --- ...... --- ........ ..... .............. HYDROLOGY Field Date: 9/15/99 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit ?agezaamial%10.1.4 ............................ ....... —.— ........... ........ Depth to saturation ....... .. Notes (inlettoutlet, etc.): Depth to free water/water table ....................... . ......... Inundationdepth -- .............. ..... ..... ....... * ..... . . ........ .......... Otherindicators: .. .......... ....... -- ........ ......... - .......... . --w.- . ....... -'-* ...... Wetland Hydrology? Yes S, No Rationale: ...... .... ... . ........ . -- ........ ....... . .. ........ CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? --!, yes S No classification.......................................................................................................... .. ......... ........ . ....... --l— ....... Fie I ld Date. 9115/99 Observers: M, ap Project Number: 99046-001 Table 7. Field sury lata for wetland extension, Plot B I, (G ite, west of western property boundary). milli • Mver =WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Scientific; Name A M5 3.0 187.5 -n fifix-femina 3 37.5 3.0 112. 45.0 on ameticanum 2 15.0 1.0 15.0 Weighted Mean Index: ........... —2.5 .............. % of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation index of 3.0 or less: . .......... U1.35 ........... (1987 methodology): Yes VegNotes ......... . ...... . ....... ....... ...... ............ ....... .......... . . ....... .......... .. . ............... . ...... . Habitat Features ....... ........... ...... (snags, logs, etc.) ........ ...... . ......... * .......... —'— .......... ........ Field Date: 9/15/99 • d, ap Project Number: 99046-001 Table 7. Continued. Soil pit number J3.1 .................. Field observations confirm mapped type? g yes C3 No Map Unit (Series/Phase) S.eA1AA.r0JJr* . ..... . ...................... . ........... . On hydric list? g Yes C3 No Map Symbol $X_ . ..... Hydric inclusion? [3 Yes g No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) size, Contrast (moist) Texture Soil Profile Notes: Hydric Soil Indicators (check): — Concretions Histosol ,z. Aquic Moisture Regime — Histic Epipedon Reducing Conditions — High Organic Surface (sandy soils) Sulf1dic Odor Z Gley/Low Chroma :: Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? .7. Yes No Rationale In% _m . q bw HYDROLOGY Field Date: 9/15/99 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit =91er-5AMPIAL0.01y ........................... ...... Depth to saturation ..................................................... Notes (inlettoutlet, etc.): Depth to free water/water table ....................... ................................ Inundation depth ...... Other indicators: ..... .. ....... .......... . .... Wetland Hydrology? :K Yes — No Rationale: .......... CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? Z..Yes —No Clasisification ..... . ....... '_'_' ...... ............ .......... ........ Field Date: 9115/99 Observers: ri, ap Project Number: 99046-001 Table 8. Field survey data for wetland extension, Plot B2, (upland west of weste property boundary). VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific Name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Weiss Aln rubra 4 62.5 3.0 187.5 Shrubs Rubus spectabills 5 87.5 2.7 233.6 Acer circinatum (A) 2 15.0 3.3 50.0 Oemlefia cerasiformis 1 2.5 4.0 10.0 Rubus ursinus 1 2.5 4.0 10 .0 Herbs ftystichum munitum 1 2.5 4.0 10.0 SUMS 177.5 519.4 Weighted Mean Index: ... . . ....... 2.9 . . .... % of dominant species with a WIS HydrophYtic vegetation index of 3.0 or less: ............ 00.57 ..... . .... (1987 methodology): Yes VegNotes .......................... ....... -- ....... - ... ..... . ...... ......... ...... . . - .......... -"- ... I ... ....... HabitatFeatures ........... ....... . . ..... ............. - ........ ......... (snags, logs, etc.) . ............................... _- ...... . ..... .... -- .............. ......... --.- ....... Field Date: 9115/99 Observers: rl, ap Project Number: 99046-001 Table S. Continued. SOIL confirm mapped type? a Yes [3 No SAL'nit number J3Z ....... . ........ Field observations co Map Unit (Series/Phase) On hydric list? E3 Yes a No loam, 6-15% Map Symbol ...... Hydric inclusion? E3 Yes g No Profile: Matrix Color mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture ------- - Soil Profile --- Notes: withaux.m t1LDS........................................................................................................................................................ Hydric Soil Indicators (check): — Histosol — Aquic Moisture Regime — Concretions. — Histic Epipedon = Reducing Conditions — H . igh Organic Surface (sandy soils) — Sulfidic Odor — Gley/Low Chroma Hydric; Sol[ Criteria Met? :-- Yes 2: No — Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Rationale.......................................................................................... ..... ......... .... . . HYDROLOGY Field Date: 9/15199 Depth of pit 141ger-5AMPI-P-01Y ............................. ...... ......... --** ...... ........... . Depth to saturation .................... .......... Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): Depth to free water/water table .............. 6 ........ . ..... . . . ...... ...... ...... ............. Inundation depth ........ .. . ... . ..... **""*'* ... ....... Other indicators: ........ 11— ........... — .............. .... . .......... Wetland Hydrology? = Yes 7 No Rationale: .. . .... ......... CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? - Yes z No classification......................................................................................................... ........... ............ -- ...... Field Date: 9/15/99 Observers: H, aP Project Number: 99046-001 Table 9. Field survey a for topographic low, Plot C 1, 00utbp7t property comer, southwest of ditch outlet). Cover Covet, WIS Productof ffd—ETATION Index Class Index Midpoint and Value Midpoint value WIS Value Scientific Name i rasa 2.5 4.0 10.0 Acer macrop Um + 2.5 3.0 7.5 p9pulus balsamifera Shrubs 3 37.5 4.0150.0 SYMP oricarpos albs 37.5 4.0 150.0 Rubus discolor 3 2 15.0 --------2.7 �401 ubus speCta 1 2.0 5.0 Comus sericea + .5 Herbs --U-rtica —didica 3 77 35..50 2.4.0 —1. 1O6P 2 1 0.0 Pteridium aquilinum 150.0 522.7 SUMS Weighted Mean Index: ........ -- % of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation index of 3.0 or less: .. ......... 40-0.0 ........... (1987 methodology). No VegNotes ....... --- ......... -- ....... .......... * ................... . ........ ... 1.--1- ........... ......... ...... Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.) Field Date: 9/15/99 Observers: d, ap Project Number: 99046-001 Table 9. Continue` SOIL observations confirm mapped type? (3 Yes C3 No Map Unit (Series/Phase) ... . .... - On hydric list? [3 Yes g No sandy loam, 6-15%.,,_,. Map Symbol Hydric inclusion? [3 Yes g No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast _ (moist) Texture Soil Profile ............... - ............. . .. Notes: ...... Histosol - Aquic Moisture Regime Concretions Histic Epipedon - Reducing Conditions High Organic Surface (sandy sails) Sulfidic Odor - Gley/Low Chroma Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? - Yes - No Rationale np.. . ........... ......... HYDROLOGY Field Date: 9115199 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth cf pit NIA .......... . .............. . ................. . ...... ...... ....... Depth to saturation Notes (inlettoutlet, etc.): Depth to free water/water table ....................... ' -.1 .... ... - .. Inundation depth ................ ... ...... . .. Other indicators: ............. Wetland Hydrology? -Yes No Rationale: p.Qg.1t1Y.Q b.ydnq P ft; 41g) ................................................ . ............................................................................................. CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? :: Yes Z, No Classification..................... . ................. . ..................................................................... . ............................................. .................. .......... ...... ...... ....... ........ - ........ -- ........... . ........ Field Date: 9/15199 Observers: d, 2P Project Number- 99046-001 e.vev tv. <—unEinueci. SOIL Soil pit number Field observations confirm mapped type? 0 Yes ❑ No Map Unit (Series/Phase) '.gtSu�lly..,:kap y. On hydric list? p Yes a No Map Symbol EwC.,... loam, 6 15% Hydric inclusion? ❑ Yes g No Profile: - Matrix Color Mottle Quantity,- Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture Soil Profile 1.Q.XR.4/.4subsail..(.airz�ilarea..Qil.l..aa.l..fr.�m..�.9..capprt) ......... ......... ............... Notes:, »t» Hydric Soil Indicators (check) - Histosol — Aquic Moisture Regime _ Concretions Histic Epipedon _ Reducing Conditions - High Organic Surface (sandy soils) - Sulfidic Odor — Gley/Low Chrome _ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? =Yes z No Rationale 1.ack..af..ins�ia kars:.hi9b.. hr.Qma.in.sudsai1........................................................................................................ HYDROLOGY Field Date: 9/15199 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit a�u9�c.sampla.aniu ............................ .»..,.*»» »..». ... �.».,;, .....»., Depth to saturation »...m „».,», »,»... ,,., »...., .» ,» .. ,».».... Depth to free water/water table ....................... Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): w.av—....., . »»..» .» .» ,. » ...... » »» ., »... ».» .».:,....... ....... Inundationdepth .......... , »»..... ... .. »,»..». ....... . ......» ,. ,..,., ...».... Other indicators: ,» ...„ .*„ Wetland Hydrology? _ Yes 3 No Rationale: Caufc.of..hy.Ci..si7.il.or..hY.dr.Q1.a�Y.ind.LG tors ............... :..:....................................... ......... ............. CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? r7Yes g No Classification uAI.aRS�.d6.Gldl�QUS.f.Rf.Si........................................................................................................................... Field Date: 9/15199 Observers: rl, ap Project Number: 99046-001 Table 10. Field survey data topographic low southwest property comer, Plot C3, (southwest comer along property boundary). VEGETATION Cover over WIS Product 01 Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific Name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees Alnus iLbTa- 4 62.5 3.0 187.5 Thuja plicata 1 2.5 3.0 7.5 Shrubs Rubus spectabilis 5 87.5 2.7 233.6 ambucus racemosa 3 37.5 4.0 150.0 Acer circinatum (s) 3 37.5 3.3 124.9 Oerhlefia cerasiformis 2 15.0 4.0 60.0 Herbs Urtica dioica 2 15,0 2.7 Pteridium aquifinum 1 2.5 4.0 10.0 -)56—lystichum munitum + 2.5 4.0 10.0 SUMS 262.5 823.6 Weighted Mean Index: ...... It ..... -- % of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation index of 3.0 or less: ........... 501.00 ........... (1987 methodology): No VegNotes ....... ........... - ...... ......... ......... .. . .... ............ ....... -- ..... .......... Habitat Features ...... . ....... ............. .. ...... * .. ........ * . . .... . .... (snags, logs, etc.) .... . ..... ........ ... -'-- ...... ---- .... * Field Date: 9/15/99 Observers: d, ap Project Number: 99046-001 1 Table 11 Property Pacific, Located in shrub area on west edge of cleared wet area V�GT1TIs +over over iS Class Index Product of Midpoint and Index Value Midpoint Value wis Value Scientific Name _ Trees 62.5 3.0 1$7.5 rubs Alnus r- F Shrubs 233.6 ubus speli, to l s 6.0 .0 66 0 a ucus racemosa Herbs5.0 2.5 Dryopterise xpanse SUMS Weighted Mean Index: ..............19.............. % of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation index of 3.0 or less: ............ MAU............ (1987 methodology): Yes VegNotes ,..,... „.,.,. ... ........... ......... ......... ..... Habitat Features .......... :.. ... .... .... (snags, logs, etc. ..... ......... .. ......... ... ... .... e ...,r.r ., ..... Field Date: 11/14/00 Observers: DG, RL Project Number: 99046-001 Table 11 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number E ...... Field observations confirm mapped type? E3 Yes a No .............. Map Unit (Series/Phase) On hydric list? E3 Yes a No Map Symbol Hydric inclusion? ca Yes [3 No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture 0-6 brown - dark brown SANDY LOAM (I OYR 4/3) 6-14+ light olive brown (2.5Y common, coarse, faint dark yellowish SANDY LOAM 513) brown (10YR 4/6) 14+ light olive brown (2.5Y common, coarse, faint dark yellowish S I LT LOAM/LOAMY 513) brown (I OYR 416) SAND SoilProfile .......................................................... ................................................................. Notes: .......... ......... . .... . .. ............... ... .... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol .7 Aquic Moisture Regime --i Concretions Histic Epipedon Reducing Conditions 7. High Organic Surface (sandy soils) Sulfidic Odor 7-, Gley/Low Chroma Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? r.-i Yes Z No Rationalebt.................... ; ....................................... ....... ...... . -- .......... ........... ....... ........ ....... HYDROLOGY Field Date: 11/14/00 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit 1,4± ... -- ... ........ ....... NIA ....... ......... ............ ........ ..... . Depth to saturation 5lightty.M.Q1.M.A.L1.4 ............ ....... Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): Depth to free water/water table r).Qnp ............. 0.01P.......... .... .... Inundation depth vonp ............ ....... ....... ....... .. Other indicators' . ......... ......... - ......... 200410 Rationale: ..................... - .... ............ - ............................... CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? = Yes g No L-i Classification......................................................................................................... . ............ ...... ........ . ... ...... Field Date: 11114/00 Observers: DG, RL Project Number: 99046-001 l Table 12 Proper North of Western Pacific, Plot G Located in deciduous forest 30 feet west of Plot F west of cleared area VEGETATION Cover Cover riS Glass Index Prdduct di' Midpoint and Index Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Scientific Name Trees 5 $7.5 3,0 262.5 Alms ru r Shrubs ubus pectabilis i3.5 �_.- 2.7 _ ®.__...._ l .0 0 195mbiicus racemosa Herbs Pteridium atiirrcrrra 1 .. ._ ..®. .,a 2.5 4.0 10,0 SUMS 192.5 561 Weighted Mean Index: ..............Z19.............. % of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation index of 3.0 or less:............�.�,�.7............. (1987 methodology): Yes VagNotes .......... ........r.... HabitatFeatures ..., ..,..•.......... . . ...R...,. .......... ; „ ...........,. ..... (snags, logs, etc.) ...... ..,..., ...r ..... ........... , Field Date: 11/14/00 Observers: RL, DG Project Number: 99046-001 Table 12 Continued. SOIL type? H Yes [3 No Soil pit number Q .................... Field observations confirm mapped Map Unit (Series/Phase) On hydric list? [3 Yes g No Map Symbol Ew.0 ioam ........ —, ... . .. Hydric inclusion? [3 Yes Im No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture 0-8 dark yellowish brown SANDY LOAM (I OYR 3/4) — LOAM 8-12 dark brown (10YR 3/3) SANDY 12-18 light olive brown (2-5Y 5/3) SANDY LOAM SoilProfile .......................................................................................................... . ............................. Notes: ......................................... ............. . ..... . ........ . ... . .................... . ............. . ............ I ............................. I ........................ Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol — Aquic Moisture Regime — Concretions Histic Epipedon — Reducing Conditions — High Organic Surface (sandy soils) Sulfidic Odor Gley/Low Chroma — Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? Yes Z, No Rationale........................................................................................................... ...... . ... ..... .... ... . .. ....... . ........ HYDROLOGY Field Date: 11114100 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit lAt-- ......... ....... ...... NIA ... ..... ......... "' " "' " ........... .... . .. ........ Depth to saturation ..... Notes (inlet/ out I e t, etc.) Depth to free water/water table wrle ............ . ....... ....................................... Inundationdepth opnp . .......... m ... . ....... . ......... . . . ...... ........... ......... -- ...... --- ...... . .......... ........... — Otherindicators: ........................................................................ . .......... 4 .............. . ... . ....................... , ..... —, .... — ...... Wetland Hydrology? = Yes z No Rationale: o.Q.Jn.d1.Q9t.Q.r.5 ..................................................................................................................................... .......... ........... 'CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? � Yes Z No Classification.......................................................................................................................... ..1-1--.— ... .......... . ....... ---111 ........ Field Date: 11114/00 Observers: RL, DG Project Number: 99046-001 Table 13 property no of Western Pacific, Plot H Located in small topograPhic,-swajel, North of Plot G *70GETATTOW Cover --c—ove F-- —WIS— Class Index Piro d u t of Midpoint and Index Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Scientific Name Trees 87.5 A3,0 lnus rubra- Shrubs 4 62.5 lRubus spectabl' 37.5 F— U 3 ISamb cus racemosa 4. -igo.o iOemle a C11:: 3 11 12.5 x tiff' � + aqui lum Herbs 227.5 7 41.9 SUMS Weighted Mean Index: % of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation index of 3.0 or less: .... . ... (1987 methodology). No Veg Notes ........... ....... .. .......... .. . .... . .... ........ ...... ....... Habitat Features ........ ............................ ........ ...... - ........ (snags, logs, etc.) .... - ..... ....... -- . . ...... ...... ---- .... -- . . ....... . ... - .... . ... Field Date: 11/14/00 Observers: RL, DG Project Number: 99046-001 Table 13 Continued. SOIL s 13 No Soil pit number H .................... Field observations confirm mapped type? M Ye Map Unit (Series/Phase) F—yetr.olt.-.aid.qrw.oad.gr.a.voity.-OgladY- On hydric list? C3 Yes g No Map Symbol ..... .. Hydric inclusion? [3 Yes M No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture 70--6dark brow' n (1 OYR 3/3) SANDY LOAM 6-12 brown - dark brown SANDY LOAM (I OYR 4/3) 18-24 olive brown (2.5Y 413) SANDY LOAM SoilProfile 3JRch..dMff.1fi1Y.er ................................................................................................................................................ Notes: ...... ...... ..... — .......... . — ..... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol Aquic Moisture Regime Concretions High Organic Surface (sandy soils) Histic Eplpedon --i. Reducing Conditions Suffidic Odor Gley/Low Chroma Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? — Yes 0 No Rationale.......................................................................................................... ............... ...... ...... . ...... .......... HYDROLOGY Field Date: 11114/00 Depthof pit Z4t .............................................................. NIA- ... . ..... .......... -1 ..... .................. ....... ........ - ...... Depth to saturation agna...., ...... .. ..... Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): Depth to free water/water table wrip . ............ Von Al ...... ... . .... ....... ... . .... Inundation depth aono...............I......... -.111.- .... .... .... ..... ...... Otherindicators: nnap ........ . .................... . . . ............................................................................................. **,,*,* ...... ...... Rationale: ............................................................................................................................... —.-- .... ......... -11 ..... ... ... ... ---- ... ....................... CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? --i Yes y,, No Classification WpJ.and_.d.er ...................................................... ......... .. -_ ............ . Field Date: 11/14/00 Observers: RL, DG Project Number; 99046-001 Cover over w1b Index Class Index Value Midpoint Value Table 14 property north of Western Pacific, Plot I Located north of Plot J at north edge of offisite wetland. Scientific Name Alnus, rubra Shrubs SUMS 97.5 Weighted Mean Index: . ...... --2,9 .......... % of dominant species with a WIS Hydro phytic vegetation index of 3.0 or less'. (1987 methodology): Yes Product of Midpoint and WIS Value 10.0 7.5 M -5 vez. .......... Veg Notes ... T(.Q05..ff-Q..AWmP dala-M - ......... ......... ..... ...... . . Habitat Features ..... ........ ......... ..... ................... ...... (snags, logs, etc.) ........ ........ ...... ......... ........ -* .................. * ........ *** ....... Field Date: 11114/2000 Observers: RL, DG Project Number: 99046-001 Table 14 Continued. SOIL _Rnil nit number I ...................... Field observations confirm mapped type? a Yes [3 No . Map Unit (Series/Phase) On hydric list? C3 Yes H N• loam Map Symbol F54 . ..... -w .... . e Hydric inclusion? •g Y s 13 No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture ---------- — ", 0-17 brown- dark brown SILT LOAM (I OYR 4/3) 17-24 grayish brown (2.5Y brown " SILT LOAM 512) (2.5Y 5/6) 24+ (7.5Y 5/2) COURSE SANDY LOAM SoilProfile .. . ...... .... . ........ -- ...... ...... * ....... ............ ...... . .......... * ...... Notes: ........ ........ ...... .......... - ......... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol Aquic Moisture Regime Concretions Histic Epipedon J Reducing Conditions High Organic Surface (sandy soils) -- Sulfidic Odor -, Gley/Low Chroma. Hydric Soil Criteria Met? - Yes S No - Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Rationale.. 12-hr-he-5 .................................................................... ...... ... .......... ........ . . ..... HYDROLOGY Field Date: 11/14/2000 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit 24t. .... ............ -- . .N114- Depth to saturation r).Qng .......................................... Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): Depth to free water/water table wnp....: ........any ...... .... ............. ...... - ....... Inundation depth wrie ............................................... ......... .... - ............. ....... Otherindicators: ... --.- ....... .. . ..... ........... .................... .... . . .... . ........ . ... ...... --- . . ... -- .... Wetland Hydrology? 0 Yes y, No Rationale: ............................................................................................................................. . ........ ..... -, ........ ......... ............. — ----- CLASSIFICATION Classification................................................................................................ .............. Field Date: 11/14/2000 Observers: RL, DG Project Number: 99046-001 Table 15 property North, of Western Pacific, Plot J Wetland, located in topographic lour WIS 9�roduet of cover over Index Class Midpoint and EG ATIGN Index Midpoint Value IS Value Scientific Name Value Trees 2.5 ..� �.�`. Wnus rubs Shrubs .... Herbs 75 a 2.5 SUMS , �4 . Weighted Mean Index: ..��.•..... Hydrophtic.vegetation % of dominant $eoies with a WIS 981 rnethodolo ): No index of 3.0 or less: ... , , Jmt species foundII.€�.itfd oe eitiiri,..rrl Veg Notes g Cra.d+i.C. .,..m,..., . Habitat Features (snags, loss; etc.) DG, RL Project Number: 99048-®01 e:..tr4 Hate: 11N4100 Observers: Table 15 Continued. Soil pit number Field observations confirm mapped type? o Yes n No Map Unit (Series/Phase) Map Symbol F_W.0loam On hydric list? [3 Yes 0 No Profile: . ........... Hydric inclusion? W Yes 13 No Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture 0-1 black (10Y—R ORGANIC 3-15 dark grayish brown common, medium, dark yellowish FINE SANDY LOAM (2-5Y 4/2) distinct brown (I OYR 4/6) 8 2-5Y 6/2) gray common, medium, light olive brown -'FINE SANDY LOAM faint (2.5Y 5/4) Soil Profile Notes: ...... ...... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol = Aquic Moisture Regime Concretions Histic Epipedon X Reducing Conditions -7 High Organic Surface (sandy soils) Suffidic Odor X Gley/Low Chroma - Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? g Yes i7 W Rationale . . ...... HYDROLOGY ..... Field Date: 11/14/ Field Observations: 00 Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit ......................................................... Depth to saturation Depth to free water/water table Notes (inletloutlet, etc.): Inundationdepth .................. ; ................................................................... Other indicators: ...... ..... .. . ......... Wetland Hydrology? Z; Yes J No Rationale: 5.QjJg..M Q ...................................................................................................................... ................... — .... . ... ....... CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? Z Yes 0 No Classification Pr ...p�hgbq,p..pgtu.4trin ,F _0 .................... ... . ...... --- ..... . . .... -.-- ....... ---- ........ Field Date: 11/14/00 Observers: DG, RL Project Number: 99046-001 From: Pete Bailey <pbailey@barghausen.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 8:06 AM To: William.Appleton@cifyoffederalway.com; Tony Doucette; Ann Dower; Theresa Thurlow Cc: 'kensinghb@hotmil.com'; Scott Spooner <scott@wetlands-wildlife.com> (scott@wetlands-wildlife.com); Dan Goalwin; Jeff Weddle; Nick Wecker Subject: Site visit to discuss standing water, Proposed ARCO at NWC of Pacific Highway and 356th Street, Federal Way WA, BCE #16777 All, Thanks for taking the time to meet at the site yesterday afternoon to discuss the standing water on the project site wanted to send a summary email of our discussion to update all parties. The main items we discussed were: • The existing sump pump at the northwest corner of the site. The city recently took possession of this site and the history of the sump pump (how long it had been there, how often is was used, etc.) is unclear. The parks department will be removing this sump pump and piping in the future. • Several downspouts at the rear of the storage unit buildings to the north were disconnected and there was also an irrigation system noted at the rear of the buildings (at the top of the 6-8 foot fill slope). It's unclear how much of the ponded water onsite would be from this source, regardless the downspouts should be properly connected to the onsite storm system. • The storm drain pipe at the northeast corner of the site was confirmed to flow to the east therefore no stormwater enters the site from this pipe. The pipe will be removed or capped as part of the future improvements to Pacific Highway. There is still a significant amount of water ponded on the low point of the site. Scott noted the existing vegetation and trees indicate this water hasn't always been there as this type of trees would not grow in wet, ponded conditions. The source of the water is still unclear, it's possible the development of the storage unit site to the north has altered the groundwater conditions in the area thereby causing a local bubbleup of groundwater in the closed depression. For the wetland delineation report, Scott will review all information available from the permit documents of the storage unit site to further research the issue. The Community Development department handles all permitting for the wetland coordination and Barghausen will follow up with Planning Department for the submittal process. The city staff will determine what additional requirements there are for the closed depression and how it impacts the final storm drain design. The city of Federal Way allows private stormwater facilities to use a pump for the outfall connection to the existing stormwater system. Please feel free to make any corrections to the items above if I have missed anything. Thanks. Pete Bailey, P.E. Project Engineer Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Ave South Kent, WA 98032 p: (425) 251-6222 f: (425).251-8782 From: Ann Dower Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 7:41 AM To: 'Pete Bailey' Cc: kensinghb@hotmil.com; Scott Spooner; Dan Goalwin; Nick Wecker; Leila Willoughby - Oakes Subject: RE: Drainage Reports and As -built Drawings, Proposed ARCO mixed use site at 356th and Pacific Hwy, BCE #16777 Hello Pete Our Surface Water Management Department has located as -built information for the storm line indicated in red, as well as a video taken in 2014. This pipe slopes to the east . The invert elevations are 206.82 (west side of Pac Highway), and 205.57 (east side of Pac Highway). Since the pipe currently serves no purpose, it is scheduled for removal during the Pacific Highway Phase 5 project , which is anticipated to begin in 2016. The Planning Department states that a wetland delineation/investigation report is required for a development on the subject property. The applicant may submit the wetland delineation and investigative report either as part of a land use application, or before any formal application as an Administrative Decision file. After the delineation/report is submitted, the Planning Department will initiate a contract establishing a scope of work for the peer review. A site visit can certainly be added to the scope of work for the contract. Peer review and site visits by a consultant on our roster are at the expense of the applicant, with the funds paid by the applicant and dispersed through the city. Planning and Surface Water Management Departments will make staff available for an onsite meeting if you still feel this is necessary. Any concerns raised in the meeting must be included in the wetland report for the wetland scientist peer reviewer to evaluate. I will schedule this for Tuesday March 10 at 1:30 if you wish to meet. Ann Dower 33325 Bch Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063 Phone: (253) 835-2732 Fax: (253) 835-2709 dAOUL410te- From: Pete Bailey [m, ilto. afl[ ba haus nrcom] Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:07 AM To: Ann Dower; Paul Heller Cc: kensin b hb il.com; Scott Spooner; Dan Goalwin; Nick Wecker Subject: RE: Drainage Reports and As -built Drawings, Proposed ARCO mixed use site at 356th and Pacific Hwy, BCE # 16777 We have visited the site and found another source for the shallow pond in the middle of the site. At the pre-app the sump pump at the northwest corner of . site was discussed . • if I remember correctly, pump was recently northeastoff. In addition to the sump pump, there is a 15" storm drain pipe coming from Pac highway that conveys runoff onto the site at the • ILS�J From: Paul Heller [m ailto' 'Paul Heller 'ci o deralwrayRcorr�] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 1141 A : Pete Bailey c: Jeff Weddle; Nick Wecker Subject: RE: Drainage Reports and As -built Drawings, Proposed ARCO mixed use site at 356th and Pacific Hwy, BCE # 16777 2 Working on it Pete .... hope to have smie info for you soon. The development must oave been recent as I have no info in my "as6uilt" section, so I'm checking with Development Services since plans are usually held there for a few months before finally making ittome. , Paul Heller, E.I.T. Surface Water Management Technician Public Wbrks Dal 33325 8th Ave. South Federal Way, WA 98003 253-835-2754 Office; 253-835-2709 Fax _ � From: Pete Bailey [mai to*pbaffey@barg Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 1:37 PM To: Paul Heller Cc: Jeff Weddle; Nick VVecker Subject: Drainage Reports and As -built Drawings, Proposed AR[O mixed use site o±3S6th and Pacific Hvvy, BCE #16777 Asvvediscussed earlier this week, please send the -s�� i�draxongsfor the proposed /\RCOnm�eduse s�einFederal \Nay.The sbeislocated the ' - ' Corner ofthe intersection of356 1hand Pacific Highway, APN: 292104-9127-07. The address is 35505 Pacific Highway South. Please include any previous wetiand reports ormaps aswell. Thanks. Pete Bailey, P.E. EngineerProject Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1821573ndAve South Kent, WA 98032 p: (435)251-6322 AL 7 FEDERAL WAY BUSINESS PARK 35205 PACIFIC HIGHIWAy SOUTH FEDERAL WAY, WA 98063 PREPARED s BNR DEVELOPMENT 220 NE 4TH STREET NORTH BEND, WA 98045 PREPARED By: NORTH BEND, PREPARED February 22, 2005 proposed dit will irxcl d the, placement of fill and rtr llartgfor tlx The construction o hproposed'developments. It i tim t d that approximately 1 �� 20,000 cubic yards of site grading will be required to be moved around the site for the proposed building pads. "Th grading work will include the nstru t"i re of a p ,r • � � - ri i i •: �1 - 1 - .rr i• - -r i - - •' 1 1 _ _ 1 r , - i _ r - series records. discharge due to the b. Special water quality treatment 11 e required prior to pro Imity to a type 1 wetland. C. After treatment, the storm water will be discharged to the wetland area to maintain wetland hydraulics through a flow dispersal trench. 4?rArgpM311%*dm_ent the storm water runoff will be discharged to the existing drainage course flowing northerly and westerly to the existing wetland located on this property and to the west. 1. Define and Map Study Area (see attached drainage map). The study area for the referenced project is delineated on the topographic maps attached. 2. Resource Review: The Public Works Division of the City of Federal Way was visited to research and obtain copies of available drainage resources for the project vicinity. The following information was used for the Level One drainage analysis go: a. Supporting Maps and Documents- Area wide topographic maps USGS area maps, detailed site topographic maps, soils reports and wetland studies were used for this analysis. The appropriate documentation is attached to this report. b. Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report- Not available for this site. c. Floodplain and Floodway Maps- The site is not located within an identified floodplain or flood hazard area. d. Other Reports or Analysis- The United States Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation Service soils map is attached to this report. The project site and downstream drainage Field Inspection of study area course were visually inspected in February 2005 and November 2004. The description of the study area is as follows: Draina, e An A visual inspection of the site and available topography notes the following. The centedine of Pacific 1-144*4Y Osori�ally d6fines the tributary area to the site from the &AA. . Th*fora'Pacifib Highway toa(dbutes 1.43 acres of off site area (0.64 acres impervious and 0.79 acres pervious). The undeveloped lot to the south is adjacent to S 356'11 Street and Pacific Highway. Future development of this lot will include a discharge of onsite storm water to existing or developed systems to the south. There does not appear to be a significant offsite area tributary to this site from either the south or east. The underdeveloped property to the north generally slopes from east to west, and there is no flo w onto the property from the north. Results of onsite inspections and review of existing topographic maps confirm 'a-1q-:?0V-6x etlands towards the Hylebos Wetlands. This existing wetland area (City of Federal Way identification # 20-21-4-124) was inventoried as a large 155 acre Class I wetland. This wetland encompasses the area to the west of the project site, extending southerly to and across S 356h Street and the local lowlands tributary to Hylebos Creek. There is also an existing pond identified as Brook Lake to the west of the site. The field topographic maps indicate a natural drainage course flowing northwesterly across the designated wetland area. There is approximately 1 feet of fall across the wetland and buffer area. After leaving the property t drainage course continues westerly towards e thexisting pond and nd wetlas I- I The King County Soils Survey Maps identify the soil types for the portion of the subject site to be developed as Everett Loam Series, Hydrologic Soil Group, "A/B", a free draining gravely sandy loam. Everett soils are generally considered acceptable for infiltration systems. The adjacent wetlands are mapped as Sk, Seattle Muck, a poorly drained organic soil and peat. Soil logs and test pits excavated on the property confirm the existence of the sands and gravel in some locations. There was no groundwater found in the various test pits on the property in March 2000. DescriptionIldentification of Potential Problems -Due in part to the lack of local development and the preservation of the large wetland, there are no signs of flooding, erosion, or other drainage problems associated with this property. _,:a�totential for flooding or erosion, and the wetland provides a large natural holding reservoir for rainfall. The City. had no record of specific drainage problems within this area. 1 King County Department of Development and. Environmental Services TECHNICAL Part t . ° PROD T W ,ANEW.. P ft PR JECT L TtOI D P OJE T;ENII ti-ER,.: bE C-- lP a., Project Owner Project name �s .tom 1 Address Location )6 ,P L - Township1 !� Phone Range ,...;.......Section 2� Project Einer Company c Address/Phone _:5 r~ 9 , °P ` . Tit F� O MIT. Part 4. OTHER ER REV,,IEvV.S,AND PERMITS :�APOLICAT10 . Subdivison DFW HPA Shoreline Management Short Subdivision COE 404 Rockery Cradad DOE Dam Safety Structural Vaults ornerc� FEMA Floodplain Other Other COE Wetlands rt.5' _S : CO U : t . ; Ai G SI Community r, Drainage Basin P `5. S*. C '+ .. I TICS, y. River Floodplain - Wetla,nds yo . Stream � Seeps/Springs Critical,tre c "H@h otoundwatbeT&14 Doipression/SW ales Groundwater 0A ohfti Lake _.. Other' .. s Steep Sloes Soil TypeSlopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velcoties Addiiionl Sheets Attand -- �;ti . P it: °OP ENT umrrA;T.i NS' REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT Ch. 4 — Downstream Analvsis Additional Sheets Attached MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC` REQUIREMENTS // DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION /Sedimentation Facilities +/Stabilize Exposed Surface ✓Stabilized Construction Entrance ARemove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities // Perimeter Runoff Control Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris �,f Clearing and Graing Restrictions / Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities Cover Practices Flag Limits of /Construction Sequence Sa Other Other n. SRFAC`lY iATSR -STEM , �t Grass Lined Tank Infiltration Method of Analysis Channel Vault Depression pipe System nergy Dissapator Flow Dispersal Cornp ns ion/M�t�gati Open Channel on of Eliminated Site ✓Wetland Waiver Storage Dry Pond :Wet Pond Streams Regional ilsza � - L� .1��e Detention Brief Description of S p System Operation Facility ;Related Site Limitations Reference, Facility Limitation P 11 UCTURAL ANALYSIS Iartm.1. 4S ENTS CTS /Cast in Place Vault Drainage Easement �l Retaining Wall Access Easement e/Rockery> qi' High Us 31ux� Native Growth Protection Easement Structural on Steep Slope Tract Other Other Part 1S SIG NATUR CF'PRCFESSIONAL ENGINEER 1 r a civil en °neer under my supervision my supervision have visited the site. Actual site co ions as d. erved'were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of MY ledge th information provided here is accurate. -" Evergreen �' . • - Airport' o ■ `' • _ • • • AgBEwC - < •.. k■ .`s # a3.H AgB Tu e . E oo •. . e 61 !1 !i r ® U r" � InC i! an n EvB•'® ° ° • ® -J • 352 2 Pant er a e Sch Ev C c m EwG U r ° esm ,.•• EwC t.. • 271 • .....t `N o• • Ur m ® • a No .f • m S k # f • U ■ Ew . •• S % 264 AgC • f 1 EvC AgC ! • • • ®k 29 Bn 7n Z_ E� 1 1, FLOW CONTROL AND WATER FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN pool v6iuine� rNpirod is 3%96 Thee mcluded herein. 11 Hill 1 1 134111P, I SIMI 1 compost filter. ji require 11 cat plans for the pri vvv�� IU`''cy.3 rtl�{ AFN 24210E-9027oi 717 e� ry t. i* Al hP0 292104-9951 v:°=-"�, "�, � _ ,„ � � � �, �r,r' —�"' .�.-•� iv"' r" r �,.✓ ,r""°""'' �I � �'�: hex 4 � (" i ��,r�� ' ✓�s / "r""". r �°�� '� !�'"'; `� � .. Ur 110 If r. h �I a •'� t,�r'� �j ! � .f'nJ' f F ✓ � f� gyp'.' " �r ,✓ r" +r r } k"`� k4� dr' 11 ! �„r. 4 � � 0 1 Jr ty } � s 5 r� �„r"r� r"'� >,.�,•✓' ' h s ..�' � I �'t r ,r°' � 3✓'.? -ram � d �,..". I•y t }' rr / r, * /`., I ; a dr,,:+''r��+`t s -+' � ,, r v' �' r.+" aye rG ,�' }+' E �„Y�, r' 4 .r'�" f• ° ° r ;.. m—.. d fit r "y p rI 5"i v MY PAZ; ✓ IV � � *�`��,}'� r,x`�a.� .r ✓P ,+' �.' x.„��-rwr ✓'' �„' � *r rs✓r � � -°� +"aa t f r >, f �,^` ` �, "`*r r=I l r^r pr: +,r '�F ,•^ ,+ r,r+ {rr` ,+�5 R '1 r a +`'+�,,a .n E r�` ,+� � ✓'r�NrJ� ' r„"'.,v"',fr`� r' �„'r' +, �° ,r „r"" r' �,' ,�,' °✓'' r, .fir. } �.` w...�.,�._ r r d t "... ,ref it r+ .f" „^v'``'. f��° �,� .��` ^'"�s r .•°rrr° l.,�",�' .,,✓ ,� �'' drr�"� ,✓ � " .�, "`'�. Y �i i a ?yl ✓ ' ' r ✓' Q V �,� �*n. *.�• ,f'+ ,,,,n° r �;�,r ir''/'l �_` r` r ✓kt� w... ,� f�� I r6 t } r'F d . Apo UPS a a f AM °".2MM 3727 A N 292104-9027 l SLk x LOBS' N x� k 4 w .;,, '-.., ,@ t 6 6 wed a�At"r*x�'�..,.6 "' w•*" AH SHEET NO: OF CALCULATED BY — CHECKED BY SCALE 'Ire�zrr� Q Eperp� C TN me LOT �sl -Z- m ej N, Ptc�sl L_T T<)'s') — DATE D PRODUCT 207 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Pond Side Slope: 3.00 H:lV Pond Bottom Length: 190.25 ft Pond Bottom width: 95.13 ft Pond Bottom Area:, 18098. sq. ft Top Area at I ft. FE: 29668. sq. ft 0.681 acres Effective Storage Depth: 5.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 205.00 ft Storage Volume: 113395. cu. ft 2.603 ac-ft Riser Head: 5.00 ft Riser Diameter: 18.00 inches Number of orifices: 2 Full Head Pipe Orifice Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 1.70 0.175 2 3.75 0.71 0.015 4.0 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation Surf Area (cut; (ft) (cuft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (sq. ft) 0.00 205.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 18098. 0.02 205.02 362. 0.008 0.010 0.00 18133. 18167. 0.04 205-04 725. 0.017 0.015 0.00 18184. 0.05 205-05 907. 0.021 0.018 0.00 18218. 0.07 205.07 1271. 0.029 0.021 0.00 18253. 0.09 205.09 1636. 0.038 0.023 0.00 18287. 0.11 205-11 2001. 0.046 0.026 0.00 18304. 0.12 205.12 2184. 0.050 0.028 0.00 18339. 0.14 205-14 2551. 0.059 0.029 0.00 18511. 0.24 205.24 4393. 0.101 0.038 0.00 18685. 0.34 205.34 6253. 0.144 0.046 0.00 18859. 0.44 205.44 8130. 0.187 0.052 0.00 19033. 0.54 205.54 10025. 0.230 0.058 0.00 19209. 0.64 205.64 11937. 0.274 0.063 0.00 19385. 0.74 205.74 13866. 0.318 0.067 0.00 19562. 0.84 205.84 15814. 0.363 0.072 0.00 19740. 0.94 205.94 17779. 0.408 0.076 0.00 19918. 1.04 206.04 19762. 0.454 0.080 0.00 20097. 1.14 206.14 21762. 0.500 0.084 0.00 20277. 1.24 206.24 23781. 0.546 0.087 0.00 20457. 1.34 206.34 25818. 0.593 0.091 0.00 20639, 1.44 206.44 27873. 0.640 0.094 0.00 20821. 1.54 206.54 29946. 0.687 0.097 0.00 21003. 1.64 206.64 32037. 0.735 0.100 0.00 21187. 1.74 206.74 34146. 0.784 0.103 0.00 21371. 1.94 206.84 36274. 0.833 0.106 0.00 21556. 1.94 206.94 38420. 0.882 0.109 0.00 2.04 207.04 40585. 0.932 0.112 0.00 21741. 2.14 207.I4 43769. 0.982 0.II5 0.00 21927. 2.24 207.24 44971. 1,032 0.1I7 0.00 221I4. 2.54 207.34 47192. I.083 0.I20 0.00 22302. 2.44 207,44 48431. 1.135 0.I22 0.00 2249I. 2.54 207.54 51690. I.107 0.135 0.00 22580. 2.64 207.64 53967. 1.239 0.127 0.00 22870. 2.74 207.74 56264. 1.292 0.130 0.00 23060- 2.84 207.84 58579. 1.345 0.132 0.00 23252. 2.94 207.94 60914. I.398 0.I34 O'OO 23444. 3.04 208.04 63268. 1.452 0.I36 0.00 33656. 3.14 208.I4 65641. 1.507 0.I39 0.00 33830. 3.24 208.24 68034. I.562 0.I4I 0.00 24034, 3.34 208.34 70446. 1.617 0.I43 0.00 24219. 3.44 208A4 72878, I.673 0-I45 0.00 24415. 3.54 208.54 75329. 1.729 0.147 0.00 246I1. 3.64 208^64 77800. 1.786 0.I49 0.00 24808. 3.74 206.74 8029I. 1.843 0.I5I 0.00 25008. 5.75 208.75 8054I. 1.849 0,152 0.00 25026. 3.76 208'76 8079I. 1.855 0.I52 O.O0 25045. 3^77 208,77 81043. I.860 0.I55 0.00 25065. 3.78 208,78 81292. I,866 0.154 D'OO 25085, 3,79 208.79 8I543. 1.872 0.I55 0.00 25I05. 3.80 208.80 81795. I.878 0.156 0.00 25125. 3.81 208.81 82046. 1.884 0.I56 0.00 25145, 3-91 200'9I 04570. 1.941 0.I60 0.00 25344. 4.81 209.01 87115. 2.000 0.154 0.00 25543. 4.11 209.11 89679. 2.059 0.167 0.00 25744. 4^21 209.21 92253, 2.118 0.I70 0.00 25945, 4'31 209,51 94868. 2.178 0.I73 O,UO 26147, 4.41 209.41 97493. 2.238 0.175 0.00 28350. 4^51 209'5I I00138. 2.299 0.I78 0.00 25553. 4.61 209.6I 102803. 2.360 0.I8I 0.00 88757. 4.71 209.7I 105489. 2.422 0.I83 0.00 26962. 4.81 209.8I 108I96. 2.484 0.I85 0.00 27167. 4'91 209.9I I10923. 2.540 0.I88 O.00 27373. 5.00 210.00 113395. 2.603 0.I90 0.00 27560. 5,10 2I0.I0 I16I5I, 2.667 0.654 0.00 27757. 5.20 2I8.20 1I8948. 2.731 I,500 0.00 27976. 5,30 2I0.30 I21750. 2.795 2.600 0.00 28185. 5.40 2I0.40 124585. 2.860 3.890 0.00 28394. 5,50 2I0.50 127455. 2.926 5.370 0.00 20605. 5'60 210.60 I30306. 2.99I 6.790 0.00 28826. 5^70 210.70 133198. 3.058 7.330 0.00 89028, 5.80 2I0.80 1361I2. 3.125 7.820 0.00 29241. 5.90 2I0'90 139047. 3.192 8,280 0.00 29454. 6'00 211.00 142003. 3.260 8.720 0.00 29668. 6.I0 211.10 144980. 3.328 9.140 0.00 39883. 5'20 2I1.20 147979. 8,597 8.540 0.00 50098. 6.30 2I1.30 151000. 3.466 9.920 0.00 303I4. 6.40 2II.40 154042. 3.536 I0.290 0.00 30531. 6'50 3I1.50 157I06. 3.607 I0.640 0.00 30749. 5-60 211.60 I60I92. 3.678 I0.990 0.00 30967. 6.70 21I.70 I63300. 3,749 1I.320 0.00 31187, 5.80 2II'80 166429. 3.821 11.640 O.0O 3I406, 6.90 21I,90 169581. 3-893 II.960 0.00 51537. 7.00 2I2.00 172755. 3.966 I2.270 0.00 31848. Hvd Inflow outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 3.94 2.71 5.31 210.31 122002. 2.801 2 2.00 1.11 5.15 210.15 117663. 2.701 3 2.03 0.19 0.19 5.00 210-00 113346. 2.602 4 2.41 0.19 4.95 209.95 111937. 2.570 5 2.05 0.17 4.20 209.20 91887. 2.109 6 1.27 0.16 0.14 3.34 208.34 70390. 1.616 7 1.69 0.13 2.91 207.91 60126. 1.380 8 1.97 0.13 2.79 207.79 57475. 1.319 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File;predev.tsf Project Looatimn:Gea-Tac ---8nnuaI Peak Flow Rates--- -----FIow Frequency Analysis ------- 2Lmw Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Pzob (CFS) (CPS) Period 0.I57 7 2/03/0I 2:00 0.307 I 100.00 0.990 D.I37 8 I/05/02 I8:00 0.233 2 35.00 0.960 0.188 & I2/08/02 I8:00 0,I90 3 10.00 0.900 0.I60 6 8/26/04 2z00 0'I89 4 5.00 0.800 0.190 3 I0/38/04 I8:00 0,166 5 5.00 0.567 0,I66 5 I/I8/06 I5:00 0-180 5 2.00 0,500 0.233 2 I0/25/08 O/OU 0.157 7 I.30 0.23I 0.307 I I/09/08 5:00 0.I37 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.282 50.00 0,980 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL STORMWATER FACIELrry SUAIMARY SBIEET ENGINEER DEVELOPER V'6 Name 13 I, -f Firm \x Firm Address '� ':�' Address — w I Phone Developed Site: Acres Number of lots -----L:— Number of detention facilities on site; Number of infiltration facilities on site: ponds ponds vaults vaults tanks tanks, Flow control provided in regional facility k (give location) No flow control required_ Exemption number ..Basin D Number & type of water quality facilities on site: said filter (basic or lazge?) bioffitration swale (regular/wet/ or sand alter,linear (bicasor large?) continuous inflow?) combined detentioor d rl/W" sand filter vault (basic or large?) (WQ portion basic o T"HI-De combined detention/wer stormwater wetland compostwetpond filter — I t^1F (basic or large?.)compost filter strip wetvault L_ flow dispersion farm management plan landscape management plan oil/water separator (baffle or coalescing plate?) catch basin inserts: Manufacture pre -settling pond pre -settling structure: Manufacture how-splitter catchbasin 9/1/99 Iggg Surface Water Design Manual KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL IGN TOTAL INDINVIDUAL BASIN INFORMATION, cont'd - Drainage basin(s) A B C D Onsite area 1 9 ,,--ate Offsite area ' Type of Storage Facility Live Storage Volume Predevelo ed Runoff Rate 2- ear eC� I0-year `1 100®year Developed runoff rate 2-year 10-year 100- ear _Type of restrictor Size of orifice/restriction No. 1 No. 2i ` No.3 No. 4 FLOW CONTROL & WATER QUALITY FACILITY SUMMARY S= SKETCH All detention, infiltration and water quality facilities must include a sketch per the following criteria: 1. Heading for the drawings should be located at the top of the sketch (top right-hand comer). The heading. should contain: North arrow (point up or to left) D9' Plat name or short plat number ® Address (nearest) • Date drawn (or updated) a Thomas Brothers page, grid number 2. Label CBs and NMs with the plan and profile designation. Label the control structure in writing or abbreviate with C.S. Indicate which structures provide spi1l control. 3. Pipes-- indicate: Pipe size Pipe length Flow direction Use s single heavyweight line 4. Tanks— use a double, heavyweight line and indicate size (diameter) 5. Access roads Outline the limits of the road Fill the outline with dots if the road is gravel. Label in writing if another surface. 6. Other Standard Symbols: • Bollards:. • Rip rap 0000 00000 Fences —x--x—x—x—x--- x-- • Ditches-D---'-D-- �D--�-D 7. Label trash racks in writing. 8_ Label all streets with the actual street sign designation. If you don't know the actual street name, consult the plat map. 9. Include easements and lot lines or tract limits when possible. 10. Arrange all the labeling or writing to read from left to right or from bottom to top with reference to a properly oriented heading. 11. Indicate driveways or features that may impact access, maintenance or replacement. 9/1I98 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 2 11 1*0 4" MIN --- 16. MAX. 04 ca ELBOW ELEV=208.75 0,71'0 ORIFICE INVERT ELEVATION = 205.00 12" RUBBER GASKET PLUG W/ 1.700 ORIFICE 11 RIM = 211.75 ROUND SOLID COVER MARKED "DRAIN" WITH LOCKING BOLTS. FRAME & LADDER OR STEPS OFFSET. SEE NOTE 8. FRAME & COVER ELEV. PER PLAN. VERTICAL BAR GRATE FOR SECONDARY INLET 210.00 12"0 STAND PIPE STEPS OR LADDER CLEANOUT GATE: SHEAR GATE 1270 INLET 54" MIN. .CATCH BASIN 1 1 E NOTES: 1. PIPE SIZES AND SLOPES: PER PI 2. OUTLET CAPACITY: NOT LESS TH 3. EXCEPT AS SHOWN OR NOTED, L IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQU TYPE 2, 54!� MIN. DIAM. 4. PIPE SUPPORTS AND RESTRICTOI MATERIAL, AND BE ANCHORED A DIAM. STAINLESS STEEL EXPANSI 5. THE RESTRICTOR/SEPARATOR SF ALUMINUM OR Me ALUMINIZED PIPE; IN ACC=E WITH Ak M 274. GALV STEEL SHAI 6. OUTLET SHALL BE CONNECTED I A STANDARD COUPLING BAND F GROUTED INTO THE BELL OF CO 7. THE VERTICAL RISER STEM OF I THE SAME DIAM. AS THE HORIZ( 8. FRAME AND LADDER OR STEPS A. CLEANOUT GATE IS VISIBL B, CLIMB DOWN SPACE IS Cl C. FRAME IS CLEAR OF CUR[ 9. IF METAL OUTLET PIPE CONNEC' PIPE TO HAVE SMOOTH if EQ 10. MULTI -ORIFICE ELBOWS MAY BE OF RISER TO ASSURE LADDER ( 5 SDMH 54" DIA. CONTROL STRUCTURE Cil N.T.S. 6' CHAIN LINK- 214,, FENCE PER PLAN 212 6' WIDE BERM - @ EL = 211.00 210 ----- ...... . ..... ... 208................................ WETLAND BUFFER 204- ,, . ........ ...... 202, -- zoo ,,,- ...... PROPOc 5' FLAT —BLDG F.F, 212.1 r7-r- TOP LIVE STG EL = 210.00 gg FBOTTOM LIVE STORAGE EL = 205.00 BOTTOM DEAD/ WET STORAGE EL = 201.00 1.0' SEDIMENT STORAGE (`Ei-DETENTION/WET POND SECTION SCALE: 1"=20' HORZ. 1"=2' VERT, 214............. 6 CHAIN LINK FENCE PER PLAN VARIES " 212-- ,, . ......... 6° ODE BERM 0 EL = 211.00 TOP UVE STG EL=210.00 210....................... ST PROPERTY LINE ... KTLAND BUFFIER 20s:............ I - -9 I Ig g g-g 204.......... 202• •° g� V711ES 200..... .... .... s FLAT PROPOSED BLD= F.F. 212.10 BMOM LIVE STORAGE EL = 205.00 y jq� I ELK = 204.00 BOTTOM DEAD/ 46LF 12" r: HET STAB B ADS N-12 EL = 201.00 0 3.85% CB TYP D L SOLID O RIM = 211 RI �® - INSTAL 6"-8" RIP -RAP IE = 204.7 - �I 9 QUARRY SPALLS 1.0° DEEP VARIES TO BOTTOM OF POND 1.0' SEDIMENT STORAGE 198 fF DETENTION 'ET POND SECTION C9 SCALE: 1"=20' HORZ. 1"=2' VERT. 214, -- . ........ , - 212 � ... ......... ... TOP LIVE STG EL = 210.00 210..., -, -- 208-, .. ....... BOTTOM uvE STORAGE EL = 205,00 206- 204 ......------ ... ..... BOTTOM DEAD/ WET STORAGE EL = 201.00 20LF 12" ADS 202,,,, .... N-12 @ 0.0% 200.. .. .. ................ 198.. 9LF 12" ADS N-12 0 0.0% 1.0' SEDIMENT STORAGE INSTALL SDMH TYPE 11-54'0 CONTROL STRUCTURE PER DETAIL 5/Cll. W/ SOLID LOCKING LID RIM = 211.75 IE (12-) = 205.00 E (12') = 205.00 of 34LF 12" ADS N-12 0 0.887. CB TYPE 11-48"0 Ga RIM = 214.00 E = 202.65 5LF 12" ADS N-12 0 1.0% INSTALL 8'X16' PRE —CAST STORMWATER MANAGEMENT LEAF COMPOST FILTER PER DETAIL I/C12 RIM = 214.00 IE (12- IN) = 205.00 IE (12' OUT) = 202.70 DETENTION/WET POND OUTLET SCALE: 1"=20' OR i �J►•TeT��im Mr. David th sr r Development 220 NE 1 Street ■' ' vt Bend, �' Re: Federal Way Business Park — Hydrologic impact Analysis Update 1 2005-06-001 r. Bockrth: At your request, R edeke Associates, hip, has prepared the following summary ect potential hydrologic impacts to the wetland as result ofdevelopment on p site in Federal Way, Washington. Tltis summary letter documents the results ofour assessment ft rn robable hedrologic impacts to the �wetl d on the .BNR evelopmentproperty development. This is in response to onrlition from the City of Federal ay (City Vie' permit No. 0 -101 6-04 0-00- . Specifically, the City requested an adequacy Of rOOf runoff to maintain appropriate hydrology in the wetland;and its associated buffer., This sununarY was prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc,, based on technical information provided by BNR Development and on discussion with their staff: EXISTING CONDITIONS ,k small portion Of the I ylebos I a wetland occurs on the property. edeke Associates, hoc.'"s staff originally delineated the on-sitc welInc, 1 fieldd area during e investigations 18 in September 1989 and March 1990 ( aedekeAssociates, identified as a Class 1 wetland by the City of Federal Way HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS J , :BNR a"�. evclopme t calculated pre- developmentUsing the Santa Barbara Urban .yxc' ph ( U ) flows to the on --site wetland for the 1.1-yeas, the 2-year, and the 10-year peaks storm events. The calculations provided by BR Development on June 28, 2005 indicate that under existing conditions, a I .I -year storm event provides 0.02 acre-feet of watery to the wetland at a rate of 0.02 cubic -feet per second (cfs). The %yearstorm event provides 0.06 acre- RAEDEKE: ASSOCIATES, INC '2} 525-3i%'2 5711 Noriheos 53rd 3t, Seattle, KA 98115 %��t� 06/29/2005 16:49 2065262880 Mr. David Bockrath June 29, 2005 Page 2 feet of water at arate of 0.05 cfs. —Abe 10-year storm event will input 0.12 acre-feet of water to the wetland at a rate of 0. 14 cfq. The modeled post development condition indicates that the same volume of water will reach the wetland at a slightly faster rate than the 1. 1-year storm event as calculated by BNR Development. Runoff from the proposed roof drains would provide 0.02 acre-feet of water at a rate of 0.05 efs. q a Z 0 size, ograpoic posi ion, r loll -AXIUL;V dm_;Iawdv; proposed development of different types. WIN"ONFIX, Given the soil mappings for the site (Alderwood and Everett Series, Snyder et'al. 1973; Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993), much of the upland portions of the site are underlain by a glacial till, and the wetland generally acts to discharge the shallow groundwater flows, Thus, under current conditions, the shallow groundwater inter -flow "perched" above the glacial till provides the primary source of water to thp, on-sitQ portion of the Hylebos Is wetland (in addition to direct precipitation falling within the wetland). As a result, the on -site wetland may be susceptible to local changes in shallow subsurface interflow latterns in close proximity as may result from the proposed plans. Based on the flow calculations by BNR Development, alterations of the site will incrcas I peak flows to the wetland for the 1. 1 -year storm event. The post -development peak flo for the 1. 1 -year event would be about 2.5 times the flow under existing conditions. However, the flow rates for this storm event are very low (0.05 cf .s after development versus 0,02 cfs undns er �-xisting conditio), However, the volume of water reaching the wetland from the site will be unchanged (0,02 acre-feet pre- and post -development). 86/29/2005 16:49 2065262800 . Thus, for peak flow rates to the wetland after development will be greater for the most j:f waterreaching the wetland will remain the same. the, developed site faster after the site is developed compared with existing conditions. The differences in peak flows have the potential to cause the following impacts: 0 increased likelihood of more frequent or longer saturation or inundation within portions of the buffer and upper (south) lobe of the wetland * alteration to the plant community in localized portions of the buffer near the storrnwater discharge area from the roof -runoff dispersion trenches, or within the upper portion of the wetland greater water level fluctuations within the upper (southern) lobe of the wetland on -site in response to more frequent (I - I -year) storm events, adverse impacts to the conditions or funotions of the wetland or its buffer. Several characteristics of the site and the wetland system would help mitigate these potential First, the developed area of the site (approximately 1.5 acres) is very small compared to the overall size of the wetland (over 90 acres) and its tributary basin (much larger still), Thus, excess flows will disperse into a relatively large wetland area as they flow from t narrow upper lobe on -site downslope into wider, flatter on -site and off -site portions of t wetland. Greater flow rates are expected during the more frequent storm events (1.1- YeAr)� t*f the developed flows are very low (0,05 d1s) : As O*d abovej this could result (and buffer)- Because these flows have a relatively wide area (and large wedand) in which to disperse from the upper end, we would not expect a significant increase in the water levels within the wetland, I 06/29/2005 16:49 2065262e8O Mr, David Bockrath June 29, 2005 Page 4 tYe buffer or wetland. in summary, some increases in peak flows are expected to occur from site development, compared to existing conditions, Specifically, peak flows would increase for the I - I. -year storm events. However, we as not expect these changes to cause, significant adverse impacts to the on -site wetland or its required !Wfbot buffer. This is &e to the size, of the wedaud and its basin relative to the prqlea sjte� the� very low rate (0-05 cfs) of the smallest storm event, the gentle topography and well-devQloped forested cover of the wetland and buffer, avoidance of direct alteration to the wetland or its 200-foot buffer, and the provision of dispeTsed flows. Discharge of roof runoff to dispersion facilities at different locations along the eastem portions of the wetland buffer would provide adequate areas of hydrologic input to the buffer and wettand. We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of BNR Development. No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from them. The deterrmination of ecological system classifications, fittictions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different co'uclusionsWith regard to wetlands, the final determination of their boundaries for regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various resource agencies that regulate development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such agency determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this letter should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any construction activities. -_ I �_ TIT e warrant Mat Me worK per 0 1 - field aud is prepared substantially in accordance with then-ourrent technical guideline� znd crite4a, 06/29/2005 16:49 20652628B9 June 29, 2005 Page 5 The conclusions of this letterropresent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the, project proponents and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made, If you have any questions regarding this report please feel frer, to call me at (206) 525- 8122. Z= RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. Christopher W. Wright Soil and Wetland Scientist UT)zRATURE CITED City of Federal Way. 1999. Environmeptally Sensitive Areas. Ordinance No, 99-353, Adopted November 16, 1999, Mitsch, W., and J. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York. 539 pp. F&aedeke Associates, Inc, 1993 . Wetland Assessment of the Western Pacific PropertT, Federal Way, Washington. May 3, 1.993 report to International Equity (USA), Ltd., Renton, WA. 39 pp. Snyder, D,E., P3. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1.973. Soil survey of King County Area, Washington. 100 pp. " `�U I"Ci��y ASS ro APN 292104-9027 fi � P Tf ,rr 1i iGu"a P A � '�'�� ,�^�'��^�.,�",w ✓. f x�r .� � r` `! ��,r n4.a.,.�„„,� t(rj fi��^'P. ». rr IP i bf WY i r,',,,✓', Y,rP S pp l m z ex Terr r� All " Jd t" it le f f 2J f r Jt P 3' J r P r r ! We e� �r ru PfA '' it l LOT v� 4. ,t. r pi 292104-9122 .K -.I^t SS.,§°#,� K j elf R�� APR 292iO4-9027 G� 7 I N ff t:' ,✓ ''� �+^' f w fVi- APN ` 't ✓ r EIi r + r� 4 � ° � fay*�,} � •� ' � „ � �� '" �,r�, ',r 0�� ',�''.. � �" „ I ( �* �V "i � Vr/'��z ^ _ �r'k' f ✓";� tr"`'t ' �' � .. „."r„ �� ._ �� ^- ✓�r �pp � �' � .� � 4 `))� to ��^�. F_! (^' ,-"'.•,?r �" '�Y : .t,r t` n. wn la � � �,+ ,+"° �,✓�d '`�,r"� err' �'� ,�� a ✓'"� •� � „,�'J' w �y � �` _,"" � }�. d� � ar "� '`,r`' ,7 »� " ,✓ r.,,.r "+` �, .r" f J"r r'} r'r �`A } r nr 7"'rt f c ,✓ yN i .r-"'" �" k " a � �u } � �� : �}} ''•�a. fir:: n " " AP4 292104-9010 Mgt§ r , � A o- S asu RY�r s gas" ' t � t fffr 6/17/05 11:16:19 am page 1 BASIN RESULT SUMMARY BASIN ----- VOL E.—.:- -RATE- ----TIME----- Hydrograph Area ID---ef-- Ac-ft --cfs- -min- hours Methodology Acres ` DEVWQ 795 _ 0.02 0.05 480 8.00 sBUH ,Method 0.19 EX10 5336 0.12 0.14 490 8.17 SBUH Method 1.55 EX2 2474 0.06 0.05 550 9.17 sBUH Method 1.55 EXWQ 787 0.02 0.02 960 16.00 sBuH Method 1.55 6/17/05 11:16:16 am page I BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: DEVWQ SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA ....... : RAINFALL TYPE .... : PRECIPITATION ...... TIME INTERVAL .... : 0.19 Acres TYPElA 1.37 inches 10.00 min AREA. . : CN .... TC .... 0.00 cfs PERV 0.00 Acres 0.00 0.00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 180.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0170 PEAK RATE: 0.05 cfs VOL: 0.02 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: EX10 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA ....... RAINFALL TYPE .... PRECIPITATION .... TIME INTERVAL .... 1.55 Acres TYPElA 2.90 inches 10.00 min AREA. . : CN .... TC .... 0.00 cfs PERV 1.55 Acres 76.00 46.39 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 180.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0170 PEAK RATE: 0.14 cfs VOL: 0.12 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: EX2 SBUH METHODOLOGY RAINFALL PRECIPITATION..... TIME INTERVAL ..... 1.55 Acres TYPEIA 2.05 inches 10.00 min AREA. . : CN .... TC .... 0.00 cfs PERV 1.55 Acres 76.00 46.39 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 180.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr: 2.00 s0.0170 PEAK RATE: 0.05 cfs VOL: 0.06 Ac-ft TIME: 550 min BASIN ID: EXWQ SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA ....... RAINFALL TYPE .... PRECIPITATION .... TIME INTERVAL .... NAME: EXWATER QUALITY 1.55 Acres TYPElA 1.37 inches 10.00 min AREA. C. TC. 0.00 cfs PERV 1.55 Acres 76.00 46.39 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 180.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0170 PEAK RATE: 0.02 cfs VOL: 0.02 Ac-ft TIME: 960 min IMP 0.19 Acres 98.00 6.00 min IMP 0.00 Acres 0.00 0.00 min IMP 0.00 Acres 0.00 0.00 min IMP 0.00 Acres 0.00 0.00 min TABLE SCS WESTERN • (Published by • Curve Numbers By Hydrologic i • CONDITII • I.: Soils • i LAND USE DESCRIPTION �Cultivated Land Mountain open areas I Low brush/Grassland Wood or crest Undisturbed 4 r•• or • -st Young 2nd growthlbrush cover crop Parks,With GcIflinks, - % or • - grass •ver w• :• :. •i Lawns, Parks, Golflinks, etc. 50% to 75% cover Commercial 85% impervious - ---- 5% impervious Residential (1/8-acre lot) 65% impervious Residential (1/4-acre lot) 380/c Residential (113-acre lot) o impervious Residential (1/2-acre lot) 25% impervious ads/Car Parks Dirt Roads/Car Parks •.e •.. Surfaces • f'� • • •• For more detailed information refer to the National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 9, Hydrology, E-4 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL (2) CN values can be area weighted when they apply to pervious areas of similar CN's (within 20 CN points). However, high CN areas should not be combined with low CN areas (unless the low CN areas are less than 15 % of the subbasin). In this case, separate hydr'ographs'should be generated and summed to form one hydrograph. lawl -114�=Umw HYDROLOGIC HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP GROUP- SOIL GROUP GROUP' Alderwood C Orcas Peat 0 Arents, Alderwood MaterW C Oridia. 1) Arents, Everett Material B Ovall C Beausite C Pilchuck C Bellingham 0 Puget D Briscot 0 Puyallup B Buckley 0 Ragnar B Coastal Beaches Variade Renton 0 Eadmiant Silt Loam 0 Riverwash Variable Edgewick C Salal C Everett A /B �Sammamish D Indianola A Seattle 0 Kitsap C Shacar 0 Klaus C Si Silt C Mixed Alluvial Land Variable Snohomish D Neilton A Sultan C Newberg B Tuila D Nooksack C Urban Variable Normal Sandy Loam D Woodinville D HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP CLASSIFICATIONS A. (Low runoff potential). Sails having high infiltration rates, even when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of deep, well -to -excessively drained sands or gravels- These sails have a high rate of water transmission. B(Moderately low runoff potential). Soils having moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of moderately fine to moderately c,,�arse textures. These sails have a moderate rate of water transmission. C. (Moderately high runoff potential). Soils having slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of sails with a layer that impedes downward movement of water, or sails with moderately fine to fine textures- These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. D. (High runoff potential). Sails having very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of day soils with a high swelling potential, sails with a permanent high water table, soils with a hardpan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow sails over nearly impervious materia.1- These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. From SCS, TR-55, Second Edition, June 19W, Exhibit A-1. Revisions made from SOS, Soil Interpretation Record, Form #5, September 1988. ACD, 3.5.2-2 11192 txy KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL FIGURE 3.5.1C 2-YEAR 24—HOUR ISOPLUVIALS m ., , .. �—- i w ? z t " co 2.0 w i 9 �. -. k�.+r. . ..y j t'L Jf '"""` w t , _w w I s� , IL g ,3.4 1SOPLUVIALS OF 2-YEAR 24-HOUR TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES ,? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mlles 46 KING COUNTY, W ASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL FIGURE 3.5.1E 10-YEAR 24—HOUR ISOPLUVIALS 2.1 22 2,3 4 . i , t 26 ao -� a � �} �, ., j .�.� is �1 ��- to q _:,�:� m � 1 4✓ tom,. . �:�' �', � �- ' � ��--`�x+. '"°. ..�."' �� ', t :,� Ile .: ff a .. " d a m Agint I" r,,,, f 41. .�. ." ate,,. � �;'�` �• � " �' ��,� �. � �� ,�� •$ n �� mod; y� a° ® a -YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION q. 1. ISOPLUVIALS OF 10-YEAR 24—HOUR TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES tip - { 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mu®s 4.2.2 OUTFALL SYSTEMS FIGURE 4.Z.2.0 FLOW DISPERSA�L TRENCH pipeO..D. 11-01 11-0 min min end cap or plug clean out wye from pipe 4" or 6" perforated pipe laid flat/[ notched grade board C, _T 2"x 2' notches v v type I CB w/solid cover (locking) 18" O.C. A A HE3 influent pipe (max design a flow s 0.5 CB per trench) qo 7 a clean out wye from pipe fir'j i PLAN NTS pipe O.D. galvanized bolts 1,-0 IA l'-0min 1 I -min F .00q. 5'a", 2" x1 2" pressure 7 treated grade 4" or 6" perforated board 7 pipe laid flat OX 7 4" x 4' support post Z7 clean (<_ 5% fines) 00, 11/2'- 3/4 washed rock a, 41-1 filter fabric *15% max for flow control/water quality treatment in rural areas. SECTION A -A NTS C),) cl= S C FS C flow to second dispersal trench if necessary 3 =er --4— flow to other branching CB's as necessary 18" O.C. 2" f2" grade board notches 2" NOTES: 1. This trench shall be constructed so as to prevent point discharge and/or erosion. 2. Trenches may be placed no closer than 50 feet to one another. (100 feet along flowline) 3. Trench and grade board must be level. Align to follow contours of site. 4. Support post spacing as required by soil conditions to ensure grade board remains level. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 9/1/98 4-31 JOB SHEET NO, OF CALCULATED BY.- DATE CHECKED By-- DATE..;. SCALE Lt!, X nA TN ' ( FT t` V . ' 1 7 Lc�'q x o' e� s� ` . n c 'B p a JOB I Z SHEET NO, OF CALCULATED BY DATE. CHECKED BY DATE SCALE y 1\ i�iic ti ice` 1 ! S R jq 5F o ;` , JOB SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED By- DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE n Ppm rT 907 From:UTILITY VAULT CO 2537354201 06/14/2005 11:05 #295 P-001/00! 0 UTILITY VAULT- adivisionof () Oldr-astle Precast Inc. www.oldcastlepr"ast-co- POBox 568 - Auburn,WA 98071-0588 Phone (253) 839-3500 Toll Free (800) 892-1538 Fax (253) 7354201 dj.pilancigoldr-astleprecast.corn Flax COW Shee MVMME s RE No. of Pages: 5 (includin_O cover) *Ubject: Federal Way Business Park Notes: This vault will flow 53 gallons per Minute @ a 15 minute retention time. Please call if you have any questions. Thanks, DJ From:UTILITY VAULT CO 2537354201 06/14/2005 11:05 #295 P.002/005 577-SA OIL WATER SEPARATOR 800 Galloin Capacity Outlet Pipe With Sampling Tee By Others M Vault No. 577-SA-B, 7,595 lbs, 7'— G' IVVVd inlet Pipe With Sampling Tee BY Others 7'-0" UTILITYVAULT— Covers Available With Non Skid Surface adivision or ID01deassfIL-Prerasrinc. P.D. BOX 588, Auburn, Washington 98071-05118 For Details See Reverse Side Phone; 253-839-3500 Fax: 253-735-4201 *3 MG05110 website; www.oldcilsilepracastromtauburnwa 127 Copyright 0 1-495 IL From:UTILITY VAULT 00 2537354201 06/14/2005 11:06 #295 P-003/005 577-SA OIL WATER SEPARATOR 800 Gallon Capacity No. 1012P Galvanized No. 3030P Galvanized Diamond Plate Cover Diamond Plate Cover 2 Places 2 7" 0' 4 1 Yl —Z A -4 A PLAN VIEW Slot 3/4" Dia. Lift Insert For Baffle and Weir Plates 4 Places i Typical 1/2' Dia. Lift Hole OUTLET PIPE INLET PIPE I Each Side. 2 Sides With Sampling Tee With Sampling Tee Contractor To Plug (Grout) By Others By Others, After Installation p FTIONAL RISERS 12 or 18' Heights As Required Oil Retainer a. Baffle — , 10 Flow Diffuser a 0 Baffle I 0 ifr Grit/Sludge Retainer Weir —22 � SECTION AA SCALE: 1/2"=1'-0' 'Items Shown Are Subject To Change Without Notice- 127A All Rights Reserved Issue: January, 2003 letermining the number of SformlFilter cartridges - The number of filter thaty�umuotumehnyour�torn1FUt�r�y�t�n�� ' depends � °=.=~�� p�n on requirements, the amount ofstormwaterrunoff from your site that must betreated, pollutant '^ loading tuyour system, and certain oite-apeoifiocharacteristics. Your local jurisdictional agency usually determines the requirements for treating runoff in your area. Typically your agency will specify one oftwo primary design methods, a flow -based method oravolume-based method, that you should use todetermine the amount ofrunoff that must be treated, If you do not know what e required method is in your area, contact the Stormwoder Management Engineering partmentat(8OO)548-4GG7.endtheywU|oasistyouwith determining this information. Use the flow chart below toidentify the set ofcalculations thatyou should use for the design method identified byyour local jurisdictional agency. Step-by-stepinstructions for completing these calculations can befound onthe following pages. ' Establish agency guidelines Flow -based Volume -based design method design method Use volume -based design calculations, - _ Is the 'YESStorTnF!Iter dnwno�eam L �� d�n�n ^� Use design calculations for detention, p. SF-8 Use design calculations for highly impervious � Is the site highly impervious (>70%)? � ! ` NO ^ ' - ' �calculations for U - - - pervious sites, ' �11 �� .��.��7 � o.S��^�� -3 Determining the number of StormFilter cartridges Before determining the number of cartridges to use in your StormFilter system, first contact your local regulatory agency regarding the requirements for water quality facilities in your area, in order to determine what your system will need to treat. Your local agency will specify a modeling methodology that you can use to calculate either the water quality flow rate or runoff volume from your site. Flow -based regulations Most water quality facilities are designed around a "design storm" established by the local regulatory agency. The local agency typically identifies a storm of a specific magnitude with certain characteristics and sets in place regulations so that facilities in the area are configured to handle that storm when it occurs. There are at least two design storms identified by the regulatory agency that must be considered: the water quality design storm and the peak conveyance design storm. Water quality design storm The peak flow rate from the water quality design storm (Qt,,,t) is used to size water quality facilities. Typically, the water quality design storm has a return period of approximately six months and is set by the local agency in order to maintain a certain level of water quality. Peak conveyance design storm The peak flow rate from the peak conveyance design storm (Qpe, k) is used to evaluate the hydraulic conveyance of stormwater treatment systems in the case of a severe storm event and to determine the need for a high flow bypass. Typically, the peak conveyance design storm has a return period that can vary from once every 10 years (10-year event) to once every 100 years (100-year event). Contact your local agency for information on the peak conveyance design storm and corresponding peak conveyance flow rate for your area. Volume -based regulations Other agencies require that a certain volume of runoff be treated. Most volume -based regulations require that the first Y, " to V of rainfall or runoff be stored and released over a period of time. Contact your local agency for information on the volume -based requirements for your area. SF-4 0 To determine the number of 8tormFilter cartridges needed for a highly impervious site MIM561,11 70% impervious): AM � 0416dlatOWe PeakflOW rateffom the water quality storm (Qtr,t) for your site using the approved hydfblog!�� models e�NiSh6d by your local ag a eTIOVIf there are no agency gUldollnes' we recommend us�lhg the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Whod, 2. Calculate the number of cartridges required to treat the peak water quality flow rate (Nfl,),) for your site. Nfl. = Qtr..t (449 gpm/cfs / Q,,rt gpm/cart) N otes: 0 Assume Qrt = 15 gpmicart, which is the maximum flow rate that an individual cartridge can treat. In some areas -or situations, cartridges with a flow rate other than 15 gpm may be required, resulting in a different Qc,,,t value. 0 If the number of cartridges is not a whole number, round the number of cartridges up to the next whole number. 8 '10,548r,4667 F 800,5361,1,2-111' W stormwatelrkinc,.corm, SF-5 WaTfOrdliffirlIM, Sizing the Precast StormFilter To determine the size of your Precast StormFilter: I . Determine the number of cartridges required to treat your water quality flow rate. See "Determining the number of StormFilter cartridges" for instructions on how to calculate this value. 2. Locate the number of cartridges in the Precast StormFilter sizing table below. 3. Use the corresponding StormFilter size. V,Mq# Sfor mFilter Size Number of Cartridges Normal Exterior Footprint _ Width Length 6x8 1 to 6 7 9 6xI 2 6 to 11 7 13 8x1 6 12 to 26 9 17 8x18' 26 to 33 9 19 6x12 / 8x16 26 to 44 9 35 a 8x16 / 8x16 45 to 59 9 39a 8X18b / 8X18b 60 to 66 9 43a a Allows 5' between units. b #1 Lkagall&"ta SF-38 , 7' ",tv, A"D t) Sizing the Precast StormFifter To det �� AMI �MWZIV Determine the number of cartridges required to treat your water quality flow rate. See "Determining the number of StormFilter cart(idges" for instructions on how to calculate this value. 2. Locate the number of cartridges in the Precast StormFilter sizing table below. I Use the corresponding StormFilter size. 17, verily 717 TIMensions available in yQuFarea. Table 5. Precast StormFilter vault sizes Sfor mF!IterS!ze Nu—mb—e—ro—M—art—rld—ges —Normal Exterior rin Width �t W I to 6 ____.�h 7 _ 9 6xI2 6 to 11 7 13 8x16 12 to 26 9 17 8x18' 26 to 33 9 19 6x12 / 8x16 26 to 44 9 35a 8xI6 I8x16 45 to 59 9 39*' 8X18 b / 8XI8 b 60 to 66 9 43a a Allows 5' between units. b Only available on the East Coast. SF-38 F 80M61,11271 W JOBS SHEET NO, OF -- CALCULATED BY d n DATE CHECKED BY DATE. SCALE -,� � �e� �•,�- Vie-. :�� ' .W. d^` 1 �,�g r T ; _ 'A' s� CPS:) ' � c s ry' mac' .,"� ��-��c� t-°i� � �, `�"c�.; ''�`�,,•v t ;�.� a--,�- ��'�� •' �� l o iJe�� sin '�—`��, PrDject Name Flow azLOIl& "at - Total drainage area (A) = Impervious drainage area (1) Mean Annual Precipitation= Water quality flow Maximum detention release r2tt Detention release rate @ 2-year storm V brie and Dead storage in detention (if preserin lvd) J \ ......... . . . . .• —acreaorw --filches / year ofs (alownstrea rn of detent ion) (downstream of detention) CUUC feet (6, minimum) feet Cubic fee; -9 1 r feet Total basin settling VCILJMe @ 2-year Storm �fb - V1 + Vd) - -!ub!G feet 17. 1' — fee, feet 2—YEAR LIVE 7 Y PJCA T T STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, ING ' 12021-11 NE AIRPORT WAY. PORTLAND, OR 137220 PHONE: soo"548-4667 - FAX; 890/$61-1271 - SYORIMWATCRINC.00,�j David Bockrath'PE BNRDeve|opmant 6431 East Carolina Drive Scottsdale, AZQ5254 Stormwater Management, Inc. has reviewed the StormFilter design for the Federal ffay Business Park site. The storm drainage system for this project was designed by BNR Development of Scottsdale, AZ- We believe the StormFilter TM is an appropriate water quality solution for this site. Since the StormFilter vault is downstream of detention, the design of the system was based on a mass loading design. With the information provided by BNR Development, the StormFilter was designed for annual maintenance. The peak release rate from detention through the vault was reported to be 0.19 efs. This flow rate is within the internal bypass/conveyance capability of the system. Thus, no external bypass structures are required. Our systems require periodic maintenance to operate properly. Given typical rooftop/parking lot pollutant loading rates, Stormwater Management, Inc. recommends itaintenance on an annual basis. The configuration of the StormFilter inlet and outlet pipes is acceptable. The system appears to be constructible and is located in order to facilitate maintenance activities. In summary, However, Stormwater anagement has not reviewed the hydraulics 0'rinecoiiecuon SYSLUITI upstream or downstream of the filter. Either you orthe Chty`sreviewer may contact meifyou have any questions. Sincerely, Determining Number of Cartridges for Systems Downstream of Detention Project: Federal Way Business Park Date: June 21, 2005 Location: Federal Way, WA SMI Engr.: Bob Bartel� i= Step I Determine maximum release rate from detention Q,el�- peak (maximum Step 2 Determine treatment release rate from detention Qreleaetrat (ofS) 0.015 Step 3 Input the percentage of pollutant removal required Agency % ---80./. Step 4 Calculate pretreatment removal efficiency using FHWA method Volume of settling basin, Vb (ft3) 128,193 Runoff Volume, Vr (ft) 70,390 Ratio of Vb/Vr :E8�2 Depth of water in basin, H (ft) 7.91 Pretreatment Efficiency, Ep, 501/.,_ (not to exceed 50%, see attached graph) Step 5 Calculate the annual mass load Mean Annual Rainfall, P (in) 37 Site Area, A (acres) 10,75 Impervious Area (acres) 7.9 Percent Impervious (%) 73 Composite Runoff Coefficient, C 0.71 Percent Runoff Capture Mean Annual RunoffV, (ff) 924,422 Event Mean Concentration of Pollutant, EMC (mg/1) Annual Mass Load, M,,,,, (lbs) 2,595.37 Step 6 Calculate the number of cartridges on a mass -loading basis Mass removed by pretreatment system, Mp, (lbs) 1297.68 Mass load to filters after pretreatment, Mp., (lbs) 1,297.68 Estimate the required filter efficiency, E,,,,, 60% Mass to be captured by filters, Muit,r (lbs) 778.91 Allowable Cartridge Flow rate, Q.,t(gpm) Check that Q_t can meet Ef-,jt, OK Mass load per cartridge, M., (Ins) 36 Number of Cartridges required, N... 22 wd Treatment Capacity (cfs) 0.37 Step 7 Determine Critical Sizing Value Number of Cartridges using Q,eie.set—, Nnow Step 8 Chose Method With Most Number of Cartridges Method to Use:IAS,(OADING SUMMARY roar rant Flniv Bata artridge Flow Rate 7.5 umber of Cartridges 22 9M GENERAL NOTES 8 X 16' PRECAST STORM A 1.) STORMFILTER BY S PILTER TORMWATER MANAGEMENT INC., PORTLAND OREGON 800/54,B-44567. i 2-) ALL STCRMFILTERS REQUIRE REGULAR MAINTENANCE REFER TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR DETAILS. 3.) ONCRETE VAULT To BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH = AND C858, 4.) STORMnLTLR RECAJIRES ZX OF DROP FROU INLET TO OUTLET, imtkilft- �- 5.) INLET AND OUTLrr PIPING TO BE M BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED By CONTRA CTOR. 6.) ANTI -FLOATATION BALLAST TO BE SPECFIED BY ENGINEER. BALLAST To BE SET ALONG ENTIRE LlNOTH 1:)r BOTH SIDES OF VAULTBALLAST MATERIALS TO BE PROVIDED By �O*TuGlbk 7-) PRECAST STCRM,7LTr;R EQUIPPED WITH EITHER CORED OPENINGS OR KNOCKOUTS AT INLET�UTLET LOCATIONS S.) DETAJL REFLEOTS DESIGN RIT04T ONLX ACTUAL VAULT DIMENSIONS AND CONFICURATION WILL BE SHOWN ON ll�E #RG6�710N 1*46P 00*4 M WE FLOW SPREADER (TYP) ENERGY DISSPATOR S $ X16 I PRECAST STORMFILTER — PLAN VIEW SCALE N.TS_ .30"0 MANHOLE FRAME & COVER (Typ)--\ ---ln m�irww kirr)— 4vwvl� ;c16' PRECAST STORMPILTER — SECTION VIEW j4. �N� A —A "16' PRECAST STORMFILTER PLAN AND SECTION VIEW DESIGN MANUAL - STANDARD DETAIL SCALE. PRWM7 W. AS SHOW MEIIA U-2 JOB SHEET CF. CALCULATED BY ---_DATE CHECKED BY DAF;_ SCALE 5. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN All of the proposed onsite and offsite conveyance systems have been sized to convey the 100 year flows. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES The proposed project requires no special reports or studies. 6. OTHER PERMITS The proposed project requires no special permitting. Due to the type of project and the proposed detention pond the project requires, we will be constructing the "permanent" stormwater facility during the ESC and grading portions of the project. This facility will be slightly modified and have a sediment pond riser installed per King County requirements during the ESC and grading portions of the project. We have proposed a gravel construction entrance and perimeter silt fencing to prevent any sediment from leaving the site during construction. It will be up to the field inspector if any additional ESC measures will be needed during construction. Section I - Construction Sequence and Procedut"M Prior to commencing any grading or filling upon the site, all erosion control measures, including installation of stabilized construction eMM1100" shall be Installed in accordance Withihis pW and the details shbwft on the drawing$, More specifically, the following spoente "I be observed'. I , Construction on the site shall be conducted in accordance with the construction sequenk�� describ(ed on the plans and in the A OtOsion . control �plan'. ))"4tibM &om this seqtic� §b91 be su�ed to tht pToJ04 �prigirreer and, permitting jurisdiction. Deviations must be approved prior to an� site -ad6vity not contained within these plans. 2. For each phase of the development of this site, the following general sequence shall be observed. A. Install perimeter filter fabric fence as shown. B, Install inlet protection for existing inlets in the vicinity of areas to be disturbed. C. Call for inspection by the project engineer. D. Construct TESC pond and outlet. E. Perform grading directing site runoff towards the sediment pond prior to discharge from the site. 3. Monitor all erosion control facilities, and repair, modify, orenhance as directed by the city inspector. Section 2 — Soil Stabilization and Sediment Trapping Vehicle tracking of mud off -site shall be avoided. Installation of a stabilized construction entrance shall be installed at the start of construction at the exit point to be used by construction equipment, This entrance is a minimum requirement and may be supplemented if tracking of mud onto the public right of ways becomes excessive If so, the truck tires shall be washed oh -site on the construction entrance rock pad, prior to ' ing the site. If any soil dose get tracked off -site, •the street shall be washed and swept exit clean. Lodsturbed areas on and off -site shall be hydroseeded or otherwise landscaped or stabilized upon project completion to provide permanent erosion control where required. Erosion control measures shall remain in place until final site stabilization is imminent. Section 4 - Geotechnical Analysis The site has an average slope of 3 percent and doesn't require special geotechnical requirements. See soils report. =;I 1. Installation of erosion control facilities prior to clearing 2. Completion of clearing 3. Completion of excavation, filling, and earthwork. 4. Completion of project 5. As needed to determine compliance of approved plans and/or specifications, (this dose not require advance notice) The project/construction engineer (Paul Ribary or David Bockrath @ 425 444-3 592 or 206 251-8445) and the permit authority shall inspect the temporary erosion control facilities prior to commencement of construction. The inspector has the right to mand increased temporary erosion control measures as necessary per the ongoing site ZD•In conditions change during the course of construction. I I I I F I I 1111111,111111111111111 11111 111 1 111111111111111 l+ �'� The contractor shall maintain equipment in good operating condition to minimize fluid leaking. Keep absorbent chemicals diapers available to mitigate spills. Wash concrete trucks in one location, do not allow off -site washing of trucks. All disposable debris shall be placed into an on -site dumpster for disposal. Responsibility for controlling pollutants resides with the contractor, who is giving a copy of this report. Pollutants shall be controlled on the work site per requirements outlined in the 1998 King County stormwater manual. Construction vehicle maintenance and refueling shall be accomplished in the designated staging area. Washing of construction vehicles with solvents is not allowed, high pressure washers are recommended. Section 7 — Utilities 4 Trenching and excavation work is within the project erosion control area and is protect ftom offlite silt migration. Utilities which will be installed will include water, storm sewer, site power, main power, gas, sanitary sewer, and telephone. Trenching and backfilling shall performed such that a maximum 200 LF of open trench is present at any giving time, to minimize siltation to the erosion control system. SHEET NO. OF. CALCULATED Y DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE. JOB SHEET NO, OF, CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN for FEDERAL WAY BUSINESS PARK Introduction: An approximate 17.2 acre site is to be developed as a two -lot light, industrial and self storage development in two phases. Phase I being the self storage development and phase It being the industrial office warehouse building. Approximately 2.27 acres of the site is reserved for a designated type I wetland and an additional 5.36 acres surrounding the wetland is reserved for a 200 foot wide buffer area around the wetland. The 7.63 acre wetland and buffer area will be dedicated to the City of Federal Way. Development of the remainder of the site will include a 0.63 acre detention pond; 0.28 acres will be deeded to the City of right of way along Pacific Highway. The net area remaining for development on site is 4.81 acres for lot 1, (warehouse site) and 4.50 acres for lot 2 (self storage site). 1.43 acres of off site area is also included in the contributing area from Pac. Hwy for the development. The specific project includes the development of Lot 1 (Phase II) of a 53.113 square food dock high concrete tilt -up shell building for future tenant improvements. Development on Lot 2 (Phase I) will include eight separate one and two story self storage warehouse buildings totaling approximately 104,925 square feet of gross leasable storage and office space. A combination water quality and storm water detention pond will be developed on Lot 2. This combined facility will service both lots of the project. The subject property is located along the west side of Pacific Highway South, approximately 500 feet north of SE 356 th Street in Federal Way, Washington. The development of the project site will consist of site work, paving and utilities as required to service the subject properties. PredeveJ22ed Conditions The site is rolling topography with a natural slope towards the south and west. The site is covered with a mixture of second growth coniferous and fir trees. There are no signs of previous development or use of the property. There is a large wetland area located along the northwesterly quarter of the property. This wetland is connected to the adjacent Hylebos Wetlands to the west. A visual observation of the property and topographic maps noted that there is a natural gradient southwesterly and then northerly towards the wetland. The natural drainage course has a uniform slope from the south to north at approximate 20, with an elevation drop of approximately 16 feet towards this wetland area. Due to the free draining characteristics of the soils, there is no sign of standing water on the property. Developed Conditions� The proposed project will include the placement of fill and surcharge for the construction of the proposed developments. It is estimated that approximately 15-20,000 cubic yards of site grading will be required to be moved around the site for the proposed building pads. The grading work will include the construction of a temporary erosion/sedimentation control pond and other water quality measures as required by the City. The TESL pond will be the permanent detention /wet pond. In conjunction with the site development permits, the proposed improvements will include the widening and installation of curb and gutter on the west side of Pacific Highway adjacent to the site. Private utilities to be extended to the site include natural gas, electrical power, and telephone. Site improvements will include an underground storm drainage collection system for the proposed development. All storm water runoff from building downspouts (of phase 1 and a portion of phase II only), footing drains and parking and paved areas will be connected to this drainage system. The drainage system will discharge to a combination detention and water quality pond and leaf compost filter located along the westerly boundary of the property recharging the south portion of the wetland. A portion of the proposed roof water on phase 2 (equivalent to the existing volume of storm water runoff to the water quality storm) will be directed to proposed infiltration trenches along the eastern boundary of the wetland buffer. This is required to recharge the existing wetland and keep it functioning in its natural state. See the attached tributary areas and volume calculations. Phase 2 will also be required to install an oil / water separator prior to flowing into phase 1 due to the anticipated truck traffic under the high use menu application in the KCSWM. Construction implementation will occur ONLY when phase 2 is constructed and prior to connecting to phase I's proposed storm system. Plan Goal The specific purpose for the storm water facility is to minimize pollution that is typically associated with modern development. In general, pollution from motor vehicles and pollution generated from erosion. Attached to this narrative is a maintenance manual which offers guidelines to the owner for storm water facility maintenance. Prevention BlIP'S The owner shall be responsible for sweeping the lot, installing storm drainage stenciling and provide spill control procedures. In case of spill call 1-425-649-7000. 0 Maintenance Standards for Drainage Facilities No. I - Detention Pond No. 4 - Control Structure/Flow Restrictor No. 5 - Catch Basins No. 11 - Wet Pond NO. 15 - Stormfilter / Leaf Compost Filter No. 16 - Baffle Oil/Water Separator These BMP's will be inspected a minimum of 2 times per year or as directed in the Maintenance and Operation Manual. The owner shall keep a record of inspection and maintenance for a period of 5 years and will provide a copy of the records and maintenance checklist for the City Inspector to review. The City of Federal Way is to review and approve any changes to this stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prior to changes in its implementation. Additionally, any changes in ownership or person of responsibility are to be reported to the City Utilities Sections. Inspection / Maintenance: Regular inspections of the drainage facilities should be carried out twice per year, in the spring and fall. The responsible party should keep records of these inspections available for review by the City. Additional inspections may be required after severe seasonal storms. Routine maintenance of the site will include mowing, care of landscaping and the removal of trash and debris from the drainage system. The parking lots and driveways should be kept clean and in repair. Events such as major storms or heavy winds will require immediate inspections for damages. Catch Basins shall be cleaned when sump is 1/3' full of sediment or debris. General~ Trash &Dnbhe Any trash and debris which exceed s Trash and debris cleared from' site. cubic feet per 1,000 square feet (this is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. If less than threshold all trash and debris will be removed as part of next scheduled maintenance. Poisonous Any poisonous or nuisance vegetation Vegetation and which may constitute a hazard to' noxious weeds maintenance personnel or the public. Any evidence of noxious weeds as defined by State or local regulations. (Apply requirements of adopted IPM policies for the use of herbicides). Contaminants I Any evidence of oil, gasoline, and Pollution contaminants or other pollutants oordinate removal/cleanup with i" Rodent Holes is acting as a dam or berm, or any -ev4e�,"#,f-watey AiAkrg tfrr#xjh iwc or berm via rodent holes. Beaver Dams UDam results inchange nrfunction of I the facility. -_ -- ''- Insects When insects such ae wasps and � hornets interfere with maintenance may not be possible. Compliance wit State or local eradication policies required I Nocontaminants urpollutants Rodents destroyed and dam or berm repaired. (Coordinate with local health department; coordinate with Ecology Dam Safety Office if pond exceeds 10 acre-feet.) I (Coordinate trapping of beavers and removal of dams with appropriate permitting agencies) Apply insecticides in compliance with adopted IPM policies � Tree Growth Tree growthdoee notaUmw Trees donot hinder maintenance and Hazard maintenance access orinterferes with activities.Hamee�d�*esshould be Trees maintenance 'recycled to mulch orother benaficis| mowing, silt removal, vemonng.or uses (e.g,alders for firewood)- equipmantmnvementa). If trees are � not interfering with access or 3 Remove hazard Trees y maintenance, dunot remove � �ealth of tree or removal ,— Detention l aihten.art e Defect: Conditions Man l i tetian e Is Results x It t (he,n Iylaiken rice' component a d" Is p rfrrrn ed Side Slopes Erosion Eroded damage over 2 inches deep Slopes should be stabilized using of Pond where cause of damage is still present i appropriate erosion control rnessure(s); or where there is potential for e.g., rock reinforcement{ planting of continued erosion. grass, compaction. Any erosion observed on a If erosion is occurring on compacted compacted berm embankment. berms a licensed civil engineer should be consulted to resolve source of erosion. Storage Area Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds Sediment cleaned out to designed pond 10% of the designed pond depth shape and depth; pond reseeded of unless otherwise specified or affects necessary to control erosion. inletting or outleing condition of the facility. Liner (If Liner is visible and has more than Liner repaired or replaced. Liner is fully Applicable) three 1/4-inch holes in it. covered. Pond Berms Settlements Any part of berm which has settled 4 Dike is built back to the design elevation. (Dikes) inches lower than the design elevation. If settlement is apparent, measure berm to determine amount of settlement. Settling can be an indication of more severe problems with the berm or outlet works. A licensed civil engineer should be consulted to determine the source of the settlement. Piping Discernable water flow through pond Piping eliminated. Erosion potential berm. Ongoing erosion with potential resolved. for erosion to continue. (Recommend a Goethechnical engineer be called in to inspect and evaluate condition and recommend repair of condition. Emergency Tree Growth Tree growth on emergency spillways Trees should be removed. If root system Overflow/ creates blockage problems and may is small (base less than 4 inches) the Spillway and cause failure of the berm due to root system may be left in place. Berms over 4 uncontrolled overtopping. Otherwise the roots should be removed feet in height. Tree growth on berms over 4 feet in and the berm restored. A licensed civil engineer should be consulted for proper height may lead to piping through the berm/spillway restoration. berm which could lead to failure of the berm. Piping Discernable water flow througjpond Piping eliminated. Erosion potential bean. Ongoing erosion with resolved. for erosion to continue. (Recommend a Goethechnica engineer be called in to inspect and evaluate condition and recommend repair of condition. . I — Detention — Control Structure/Flow Restrict Maintenance t afeo C rt itt h'e 7 irat rta e i Seemed .. be lts x d tea omip on . r t� i taoario is ormed General Trash and Debris Material exceeds 25% of sump depth or 1 Control structure (Includes Sediment) foot below orifice plate. orifice is not blocked. All trash and debris removed. Structural Damage Structure is not securely attached to manhole Structure securely wall. attached to wall and outlet pipe. Structure is not in upright position (allow up to Structure in 10%°from plumb). position. Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight Connectionsto outlet and show signs of rust. pipe are water tight; structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. Any holes --other than designed holes --in the Structure has no structure, holes other than designed holes. Cleanout Gate Damaged or Missing Cleanout gate is not watertight or is missing. Gate is watertight and works as designed. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one Gate moves up and maintenance person, down easily and is watertight. Chain/rod leading to gate is missing or Chain is in place and damaged, works as designed. Gate is rusted over 50% of its surface area. Gate is repaired or replaced to meet design standards. Orifice Plate Damaged or Missing Control device is not working properly due to Plate is in place and missing, out of place, or bent orifice plate. works as designed. Obstructions Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation Plate is free of all blocking the plate- obstructions and works as designed. Overflow Pipe Obstructions Any trash or debris blocking (or having the Pipe is free of all potential of blocking) the overflow pipe. obstructions and works as designed. Manhole See "Closed Detention See "Closed Detention Systems" (o. 3). See "Closed Systems" (No. 3), Detention Systems" (No. 3). Catch Basin See "Catch Basins' See "Catch Basins" (No. 5). See "Catch Basins" (No. 5), (No. 5), — Catch Basins air tei� n p 06f t C6n iti err iron i'l v nul *p to When . CO iritdao s General Trash & Debris Trash or debris which is located immediately in No Trash or debris located front of the catch basin opening or is blocking immediately in front of inletting capacity of the basin by more than catch basin or on grate 10%. opening. Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 60 No trash or debris in the percent of the sump depth as measured from catch basin. the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case less than a minimum of six inches clearance from the debris surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe Inlet and outlet pipes free blocking more than 1/3 of its height. of trash or debris. Dead animals or vegetation that could No dead animals or generate odors that could cause complaints or vegetation present within dangerous gases (e.g., methane). the catch basin. Sediment Sediment (in the basin) that exceeds 60 No sediment in the catch percent of the sump depth as measured from basin the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case less than a minimum of 6 inches clearance from the sediment surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. Structure Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches Top slab is free of holes Damage to or cracks wider than 1/4 inch and cracks. Frame and/or Top Slab (Intent is to make sure no material is running into basin). Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame the riser rings or top slab from the top slab. Frame not securely attached and firmly attached. Fractures or Maintenance person judges that structure is Basin replaced or repaired Cracks in unsound. to design standards. Basin Walls/ Bottom Grout fillet has separated or cracked wider Pipe is regrouted and than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the joint secure at basin wall. of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Settlement/ if failure of basin has created a safety, function, Basin replaced or repaired Misalignment or design problem. to design standards. Vegetation Vegetation growing across and blocking more No vegetation blocking than 10% of the basin opening. opening to basin. Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints No vegetation or root that is more than six inches tall and less than growth present. six inches apart. Contamination See "Detention Ponds" (No„,1). No pollution present. and Pollution • • • • i. .. Catch .. Cover • _ • basin _ cover J ooeh catch basin requires maintlen6hde� closed Locking opened e person with proper tools. Bolts opens Not Working into fraro no" iosS tnah 1)2 inch of thread, proper tools. CoverMechanism imaintenanceperson• Remove - lid -after a0hoiogfior"l lifting • Cover can be removedbto y r one person. is keep cover from sealing off access to Ladder Rungs I Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, not Ladder meets design Unsafe misalignment,(Intent Securely attached to basin wall, • and allows person safe .•.: r: �.x +Grate opening meets '• stt !. •.. Grate free of trash and . 11 — Wetponds i fent �N#:::ectif #firIi Od a sT i md� General Water First cell is empty, doesn't hold Line the first cell to maintain at least 4 feet water. of water. Although the second cell may drain, the first cell must remain full to control turbulence of the incoming flow and reduce sediment' resusponsion. Trash and Accumulation that exceeds 1 OF Trash and debris removed from pond. Debris I per 1000-SF of pond area. Inlet/Outlet Inlet/Outlet pipe clogged with No clogging or blockage in the inlet and Pipe sediment and/or debris material. outlet piping. Sediment Sediment accumulations in pond Sediment removed from pond bottom Accumulation bottom that exceeds the depth of in Pond sediment zone plus 6-inches, Bottom usually in the first cell Oil Sheen on Prevalent and visible oil sheen. Oil removed from water using oil -absorbent Water pads or vector truck. Source of oil located and corrected. If chronic low levels of oil persist, plant wetland plants such as Juncus effusus (soft rush) which can uptake small concentrations of oil. Erosion Erosion of the pond's side Slopes stabilized using proper erosion slopes and/or scouring of the control measures and repair methods. pond bottom, that exceeds 6- inches, or where continued erosion is prevalent. Settlement of Any part of these components Dike/berm is repaired to specifications. Pond that has settled 4-inches or lower Dike/Berm than the design elevation, or inspector determines dike/berm is unsound. Internal Berm Berm dividing cells should be Berm surface is leveled so that water flows level. evenly over entire length of berm. Overflow Rock is missing and soil is Rocks replaced to specifications. Spillway exposed at top of spillway or outside slope. No. 15 — StormfilterTM (leaf compost filter) Below Ground Sediment Sediment depth exceeds 0,25-inches. No sediment deposits which Vault Accumulation on Media. would impede permeability of the Ity compost media. Sediment Sediment depth exceeds 6-inches in first No sediment deposits in vault Accumulation in chamber. bottom of first chamber. Vault Trash/Debris Trash and debris accumulated on Trash and debris removed from Accumulation compost filter bed. the compost filter bed. Sediment in Drain When drain pipes, clean -outs, become full Sediment and debris removed. Pipes/Clean-Outs < with sediment and/or debris. Damaged Pipes Any part of the pipes that are crushed or Pipe repaired and/or replaced. damaged due to corrosion and/or settlement. Access Cover Damaged/Not Cover cannot be opened; one person Cover repaired to proper working Working cannot open the cover using normal lifting specifications or replaced. pressure, corrosion/deformation of cover. Vault Structure Cracks wider than 1/2-inch or evidence of Vault replaced or repairs made Includes Cracks soil particles entering the structure sothat Vault Meets design in Wall, Bottom, through the cracks, or specifications and is struct, Pr-11 Damage to Frame and/or Top Slab Baffles Access Ladder Damaged Below Ground Compost Media Cartridge Type Short Circuiting mamilenance/inspection personnel determine that the vault is not structurally �sqund. Cracks wider than 112-ih6li 6fthe joint of any inlettoutlet pipe or OVidence of soil particles entering through the cracks. Baffles corroding, cracking warping, and/or showing signs of Wu ro as determined b�maihtenancofinspection person. cracks, and ftsali(Ori ed� J Drawdown of water through the mAedia takes longer than 1 hour, and/or overfl occurs frequently, Flows do not properly enter filter cartridges. I sound, existwiderthan 1/4-inch atthe joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. Baffles repaired or replaced to specifications. Media cartridges replaced. No. 16 — Baffle OWWater Separators (API Type) Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Results Expected When Component Needed Maintenance is Performed is General Monitoring Inspection of discharge water for v t rfo Effluent discharge from vault should obvious signs of poor water 2�� a's s t be clear with out thick visible sheen, quality. Sediment Sediment depth in bottom of vault No sediment deposits on vault Accumulation exceeds 6-inches in depth. bottom that would impede flow through the vault and reduce separation efficiency, Trash and Debris Trash and debris accumulation in Trash and debris removed from Accumulation vault, or pipe inlet/outlet, vault, and inlet/outlet piping. floatables and non-floatables- Oil Accumulation Oil accumulations that exceed 1- Extract oil from vault by vactoring,, inch, at the surface of the water. I:a:n:d Disposal in accordance with state local rules and regulations. Damaged Pipes inlet or outlet piping damaged or Pipe repaired or replaced. broken and in need of repair. Access Cover Cover cannot be opened, Cover repaired to proper working Damaged/Not Working corrosion/deformation of cover, specifications or replaced. Vault Structure Damage - Includes "Catch Vault replaced or repairs made so that vault meets design Cracks in Walls See Basins" (No. 5) specifications and is structurally Bottom, Damage to sound, Frame and/or Top Slab Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at the Vault repaired so that no cracks joint joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or exist wider than 1/4-inch at the joint evidence of soil particles entering of the inlet/outlet pipe. through the cracks, Baffies at Baffles corroding, cracking, Baffles repaired or replaced to warping and/or showing signs of specifications. failure as determined by maintenance/inspection person. Access Ladder Damaged Ladder is corroded or deteriorated, not functioning Ladder replaced or repaired and meets specifications, and is safe to properly, not securely attached to use as determined by inspection structure wall, missing rungs, personnel. i ��1: 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 May 2, 2000 '117="197 #,eveiopment, LLG� P.O. Box 860 Renton, Washington 98057 Subject: Transmittal Letter — Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Logan Federal Way Site Pacific Highway near South 356th Street Federal Way, Washington We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed storage a warehouse development to be constructed in Federal Way, Washington. The scope of our wo consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaini walls. This work was authorized by. your acceptance of our proposal, P-5144, dated March 2000. 1 The subsurface conditions of the proposed building site were explored with ten test pits th encountered topsoil and forest duff overlying varying layers of either sand, sandy silt, or combination of the two. The variety of material is underlain by silty, gravelly sand, These soi I became medium-dense/stiff to dense approximately 3 to 6 feet below grade, The propos buildings can be constructed on conventional footings. The large buildings' footings should bear• medium-dense/stiff to dense soil, while the small buildings can be constructed on 12 inches structural fill placed over native soils. The native material is silty and very moisture sensitive. Grading should not be done during the wet weather season, The upper silt is not suitable for use as structural fill and should be separated during the grading activities. Reducing the wetland buffer setback from 200 feet to 100 feet is adequate in our opinion. Erosion control measures will be needed to protect the wetlands during site activities. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Pacific West Development, LLC May 2, 2000 JN 00107 Transmittal letter —Page 2 The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact design and construction phases of this project, us if there are any questions regarding this report,. or if we can be of further assistance during the GEOTECH CONSU ANTS, INC. D. Robert Ward, P.E. Principal k GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Logan Federal Way Site Pacific HIOWay South NeAr South 3WIl Stre Federal Way, Washington I This report presents the findings and r6commendzitidns of our gediethnical engineering the si`feof the proposed I ff� t study f se s orage warehouse tdifty in Federal )��, Washington, The Vicini Map, Plat& 1, MuStrates the �genera I location of the slte • Based on this plan and conversations with the client, the location Of two storm water retenti ponds on the southwestern portion of the site are to be roughly south of the area designated wetlands. Site storm WatO� systems will be drained to the retention ponds, I RoMMOWA The trapezoidal shaped site is approximately 751,761 square feet in size with approximately 1,000 feet of frontage on its eastern side along Pacific Highway South. The site is undeveloped and densely covered with vegetation and trees. The topography of the site is generally flat with small rolling features and dense vegetative overgrowth, The topographical lowpoint of the property is on the western side. This portion is designated as wetlands, and was not ventured into during our site visit due to the proposed riparian setback for the development. It is unknown if there is standing or flowing water on this portion of the site, Pacific Highway South becomes elevated above the northern portion of the eastern frontage to the site. A 6-foot high rockery retains the road bed along this portion with a mild slope up to the rockery toe. Part of the adjacent property to the north is also elevated to have access to Pacific GEOTECHCONSHITAMTq 1h1r- Pacific West Development LLC May 2, 2000 Highway South. This area was likely built up for the construction of the road bed and is not original grade. The subsurface conditions were explored by excavafinqt 1, t pi en Let tS zit the approximatO locali�dris ShOWh on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 24 Our�e4lorafion PrOgr8rh �Wet based o n the proPbsed construction, anticipated subsurfaite &6hdifidnt and those erib6britered during eXpfora�on� 2jqd 1 a scope of work outlined in our proposal. th The test Pits encountered 6 to 18 inches Of topsoil and forest duff, This material is overlying varying layers of either brown sand, sandy silt, or a combination of the two, This variety of material was underlain by silty, gravelly sand approximptel, 3 to 6 feet below the existing grade, Y The upper sandy silt and sand layers are not consistent across the site and are medium -stiff and medium -dense at best. The underlying gravelly, silty sand is medium -dense to dense at the interface 3 to 6 feet below grade, becoming denser enser approxim ately 5 to 8 feet below No groundwater seepage was observed, The test pits were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the lack of seepage on the logs may not represent the Complete L absence of groundwater. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. The final logs represent our interpretaflons of the field logs and laboratory tests, The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximateboundaries between soil 'types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide spatecific subsurface information only the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture descdjotions indicated on the test pit to as are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. g GEOTECHCONSHITAMT1Z lm(- Pacific West Development LLC May 2, 2000 The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the weather conditions that are encountered, While site clearing will expose a large area of bare soil, the erosion potential on the site is relatively low due to the gentle slope of the ground. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope side of any cleared areas, and especially around the wetlands, Rocked construction access roads should be extended into the GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC Pacific West Development LLC May 2, 2000 site to reduce the amount of mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Following rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS • Depending on the final site grades, some overexcavation may be required below the footings to expose competent, native soil. Unless lean concrete is used to fill an overexcavated hole, the overexcavation must be at least as wide at the bottom as the sum of the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width. For example, an overexcavation extending 2 feet below the bottom of a 2-foot-wide footing must be at least 4 feet wide at the base of the excavation. If lean concrete is used, the overexcavation need only extend 6 inches beyond the edges of the footing. The following allowaNe bearing pressures are appropriate for footings constructed according to the above recommendations, Where: (1) Psf is Pounds per square foot, GFnTP:r'.wr,nKiciiPr--, -- Pacific West Development LLC JN 00107 May 2, 2000 Page 5 A one-third increase in these design bearing pressures may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -'construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thickness, will be about one inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a distance of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation a is the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of t foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must b& either poured directly against relative level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the followi 0 design values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: 4, Coefficient of ri ti n Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Where: (1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (H) passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above design values. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS The site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1997 Unifor Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC1 the site soil profile is be represented by Soil Profile Type SD (Stiff Soil). The site soils are not subject to seismic liquefacti because of their dense nature and the absence of near -surface groundwater. i The building floors may be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop medium -dense to dense sand or silty, gravelly sand, or on structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. All slabs -on -grade should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of coarse, free -draining structural fill with a gradation similar to that discussed later in PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS. As noted by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in Section 3.2.3 of the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab �tructures, proper moisture protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI also notes that vapor retarders, such as 6-mil visqueen, are typically used. A vapor retarder is defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (psf) per hour, as determined by ASTIVI E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Pacific West Development K8ay2.2OOO JNOO1O7 Page We recommend proof -rolling slab enaao with a heavy truck or B large piece of construction equipment prior to slab construction. Any soft enaae encountered dUh�g proof-noUinD ohou|d b exC2vated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. Retaining vva/ka backfUed on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth � p saunas imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended d�oi�D parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: ispounds per cubic foot, and yV acCfve and passive ===" pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid The values given above are to be Used 'o design permanent foundation and retaining walls only, We recommend a safety factor of at leas't 1,5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walIs, Restrained wall soil parameters should be- utilized for a disiance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners in the walls ' - Pacific West Development LLC JN 00107 May 2, 2000 Page 7 The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind t walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjace foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be add to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will ne to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropria design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active flule density. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls with a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls 'are designed for the additional lateri pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls shou I be accomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by th higher soil forces that occur during compaction. I IIIN NINE! Foundation drains are not required except where (1) crawl spaces or basements will be below 2 structure, (2) a slab is below the outside grade, or (3) the outside grade does not slope downward from a building. Drains should also be placed at the base of all earth -retaining walls, These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non- woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a nr-nTc . Pacific West Development LLC May 2, 2000 JN 00107 Page 8 crawl space, and it should be sloped for drainage. We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should they become necessary, during excavation and foundation construction. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 8. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains, h i No groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage dit c es, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. All building and Pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment Used, and the number, of Passes made to cOthPact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches, We recommend testing the fill as it is placed, If the fill is not compacted to specific�#Ons, it cah IJ6 r6bbrnpacted before another lift is Oated� This eliminates the need to remove th6 fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recoa mmended reltive cOmPactioh8 for structural fill: Where; Minimum Relative COmPaction is the ratio, exd in percentages, of the COMPacted dpresse ry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in acco�aoOOD With ASTM Test Designation D 1557-91 (Modified Proctor), GEOTE(',Hr.nKiqj117AKf-rQ lkj� Pacific West Development LLC JN 00107 May 2, 2000 Page 9 Use of On -Site Soil B placea in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percehtage of pattl)cles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the� three-quarterAnch sieve. The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing -a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Pacific West Development LLC, and its representatives, for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials, and selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include serviIces� related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically ilescribed in our report for consideration in design. In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm GEOTFC'H r.nMCZI 11 TANI-rQ lkl! Pacific West Development LLC May 2, 2000 that subsurface conons are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation oonstruction activities Comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in thIs rvpbrt� aftd1 � Nd o provi e sugg�Ostions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ ftrn those ah�6lpated p6)r to the start of construction. However, our work would not indud!61he sooj*isn di * or mc-tion of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents, Also, Job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. The scope of our work did not include an environmental assessment, but we can provide this service, if requested. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 7 Test Pit Logs Plate 8 Typical Footing Drain Detail We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or If we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us, Scott Stevens Geotechnical Engineer D. Robert Ward, P.E, Principal El TP-1' PROPOSED I'LDI T - T P .— TP-2 TP— TP-6 e 3m T P=T TP—t 0'If TP— L= - - - ------------- LEGEND:' PROPERTY' LI-N,E APPROXIMATE' TEST PIT LOCATION' TP-1` SITE PL AN FEDERAL WAY,- WA roa No, ; Dore. (J 17 Prone: U . 2 a's iE W �o TEST PIT 1 CP Description Dark brown/black, silty SAND, with organics, moist, loose (TOPSOIL)` I I I I Light brown/tan, sandy SILT, non plastic, moist, soft to medium -stiff AIL s h j Gray with brown mottling, silty, gravelly SAND, medium- to coarse -grained, i [ moist, dense terminatedTest Pit was at 10 feet on 111 No groundwater seepageobserved during excavatio No caving was observed di excavation. TEST PIT 2 Desc Lion p Dark brownlbl ck„ silty SAID, with organics; moist, loose TO SOIL' o Sp Dark brown SAND fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense R I Li Light brown silty, y, gravelly SAND, medium- to coarse -grained, with fine-grained weathered layer, very moist, dense fI - becomes very dense SP - ., ..M. Test Pit was terminated at 10 feet on March 27, 2000. No groundwater s-,-r_•- was observed during excavation. cavingNo was observed during o n. Pacific TEST PIT LOG Federal • i rr L i•rr-r r /� P 19H an W TEST PIT 3 DeSCTIption MDark brown/black, silty SAND, with organics, moist, loose (TOPSOIL) =24.8% jj�j Gray with brown mottling SILT, non plastic, slightly fractured, moist, medium- ML stiff becomes sandy SM Light brown, silty, gravelly SAND, fine- to coarse -grained, very moist, dense S�P— becomes very dense Test it was terminated at 10 feet on March 27, 20W No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. No caving was observed during excavation. TEST PIT 4 Description Dark brown SAND, fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense Test Pit was terminated at 4 feet on March 27, 2000. No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. No caving was observed during excavation. TEST PIT LOG GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, EqC Pacific Highway South near South 356th :Street] Federal Way, Washington r 17h Al, LJob No: Date: I Loaqedj : OL06 1 L07�. I March 2000 1 �c Description Dark brown/black, silty S Nt ,with arganias, moist, loose (TOPSOIL) SP Dark brown SAND, fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense snn Light brown, silty, gravelly SAND, medium- to coarse -grained, very moist, dense SP. * Test Pit was terminated at 6 feet on March 27, 2000. o groundwater seepage was observed during excavation,- * o caving was observed during excavation. TEST PIT 6 Description Dark brown/black, silty SAND, with organics moist, loose (TOPSOIL) SP Dark brown SAND, fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense - becomes medium -dense S f Light brown, silty, gravelly SAND, fine- to coarse -grained, moist, dense SP k * Test Pit was terminated at 7 feet on March 27, 2000. 10 o groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. o caving was observed during excavation. TEST PIT LOG GEOTECH i CONSULTANTS,INC. Pacific Highway South near South 356th Street Federal Way, Washington Job No ate: Logged by: Plate: 00107 March 2000 SES 5 TEST PIT 7 Description pt Dark brownllfack, organics, moist, loose (TOPSO '___' Gray with brown mottling SILT, non plastic �moist, ��medium-stiff MIL becomes sandy 5 M=6.5% spGray with brown mottling, gravelly, silty SAND, medium- to coarse -grained, very moist, dense Test Pit was terminated at 6 feet on March 27, 2000. 10 No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. No caving was observed during excavation, 15 I M im TEST PIT 8 Description ac ,softy SANG w�tf� HIH organios, moist, loose (TOPSOIL) Gray with brown mottling SILT, non plastic ML moist, medium -stiff Aiw Gray with brown mottling, gravelly, silty SAND, medium- to coarse -grained, very moist, dense Test Pit was terminated at 5 feet on March 27, 2000. No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. No caving was observed during excavation. TEST PIT LOG GEOTECH CONS ULTAWs, INC. Pacific Highway South near South 356th Street Federal Way, Washington Job No: Date: Logged by.Plate: 00107 March 2000 SES 6 9 IIIIIIIIIII11W 0 TEST PIT 9 Description brown/black, silty SAND, with organics, moist, loose (TOPSOIL) Brown SAND, medium -grained, moist, medium -dense Test Pit was terminated at 7 feet on March 27, 2000. No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. 'N TEST PIT 10 C�- 9�'q' Desc7iption r Dark brown/black, silty SAND, with organics, rnoisloose ,_1 Gray with brown mottling SILT, non plastic, moist, stiff becomes gravelly and sandy Gh4 �be6Wm s0fy, dfbV611�e AND, in Slope backfill away from foundation. Provide surface--,,, drains where necessary. Washed Roc (7/8" min. size) 6" min, T Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) Vapor Retarder I Free -Draining Gravel 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pine (if appropriate) I I (Invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) NOTES. (1) fn crawl sPaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypasses 'he perimeter footing drains, le � L (2) Refer to ' part 'ext for additional drainage and waterproofing considerations Jason Engineering & Consulting Z:7 Business, Inc. BNR Development 220 NE 4th Street North Bend, WA 98045 Geotechnical Engineering Date: 3-7-2005 - Retaining Structures ELFederal Way Business Foundation Design Park Pavement Design & Analysis File #: 05-026 Site Address: Pacific Hwy So., Federal Way, WA Re: Ecology Block retaining wall Attn: Dave Bockrath As per your request, we have provided a wall design for the Federal Way Business park located on Pacific by South in Federal Way WA. The wall will be constructed of Ultra Block ecology blocks, stacked in a nuu-ting bond with a maximum height of 12 feet (6 courses of block). Geogrid reinforcing is to be placed at each course (every 2 feet) for the height of the wall. The geogrid shall have a minimum tensile strength of 2,400 lbs/ft. Varying heights of wall may require different lengths of geogrid reinforcement as shown in the table below. Geogrid embedment is measured from back of wall. The geogrid should be securely connected to the ecology blocks. A 12 to 18 inch layer of drain rock should be placed directly behind the ecology blocks for drainage. Place a six inch perforated pipe in the bottom of the drain rock to reduce excess hydrostatic pressure. Drainage pipe should be directed away from the wall a distance at least equal to the height of the wall. Backfill soils within the geogrid zone should be compacted to 95!® of maximum density per ASTM D1557. Wall height (ft) Ge From 8 to 12 10 From 5 to 8 6 If you have any questions concerning the above items, the procedures used, or if we can be of any further assistance please call on us at (206) 786-8645. MMIMHMM�� HORMHEMM MMH�MMrm PO Box 181 Auburn WA. 98071 --7�age I of 5 Phone: 206-786-8645 dirt to shear lower upper avail Est. It of layers <= 6 layer plane, 45+pba/2 sigma vn, psi ersebdmeut length, it emebdinent length, It In Safety factor, (FS) 2 Number of layers 6 12.0 5.59 1.15 1.5 295.7 -9.340 Lift thickness, (Sv) 2 ft pullout safety cocf. 2 10.0 4.66 231,15 1.5 4.4 4046 Tensile strength of fabric, (T,max) Tensile strength of 2400 to 7` it mcsl pull test cost. Cs 0.91 8.0 3.73 461.15 1.5 3,7 -0.023 fabric allowable, (T,atlow) 1200 sell thrust, Is / LF 3,956 6,0 2.79 691.15 1.5 3.4 -0.016 adgat" "ft; from base of height ofwall, (11) 12 ft wall 4.00 CO 1,86 921,15 1.5 3.3 -0.012 length of wall, (1) 100 ft 13-mb tfirtant - 0 i5ef i 2.0 0.93 1151.15 1.5 3.2 -0.009 Backflll soil density (grna) 115 PCF awPeigllt of trice of wall, llas 2r"60 asked at " ft from base of 14,0 ...y .. .... .,. Phi angle,(phi) 30 dogrecs wall 200 delta d , degrees 12.0 approx. 2/3 f 0 weight of surcharge, lbs 2700 r � acting at i° " It from base of cohesion, (c) 0 lbs/ft2 aw:nli 4.50 10,0 - .- surcharge , tweii+,lak of waltlrrd@ofY(1, ilas 12420 acting at „ „ ft from base of fr^ 8.0 - � point lbs wall 4.5 Line lb / It Total Weight of wall, ibs 17880 6.0 - area 300 lb /tt2 4 t.tag moment, ft-lbs verbir ai 15,.524 4.0 backfilt wall an le, (theta -a) 90 degrees VQaisting moment, ft-Ibs 73,560 backflll slope 2.0 -- angle, (beta) 0 degrees OvetWrttvtsgI'S C65 wall face angle, Q.0 „ _ (theta-p) (beta can't be greater 85 than phi degrees or you get iinginary numbers) 0.00 l.Q 2.00 MO 4.00 5.00 6.00 Ka 033 depth, ft Ka equation 0.333 (FS*Ka Svn[' (sigma,xt+si gena,n+1)/ rS°li, (Cs"sAg. 2] (sig'ma,n a) 'Cs/2) Fe di ral ay Business dark,12 foot ecology block wall: geogritt reinforceaaieaat calculations 05-0216 3/7/2005 Jason PO Box181 AubucnWA. 95071 i„ Engineering 6c Phone:253-833-7316 Consulting Mobile:206-786-8645 Business, ins. jasonbellpe@netzero.net Page W.11 Safety factor, (FS) 2 Lift thickness, (Sv) 2 it Tensile strength of fabric, (Tmax) 2400 11a / ft Tensile strength of fabric allowable, (',allow) 1200 height of wall, (H) 8 it length of wall, (L) 1.00 it Backfill soil clonsity,(gura) 1.15 PCF phi angle,(phi) 30 degrees delta d, degrees Est. # of layers <= 4 Number of layers 4 pullout safety coef. 2 mesh pullout Coal. Cs 0.91 soll thrust, lb / LF 2,025 WRTIg at it from base of tv-A 2,67 Umb-1 � VITIIF:-7 0-7511-1 6 " " ft from base of approx. 21 a f 0 weight of surcharge, lbs ISO Acting at ft from base of cohesion, ( c) 0 lbs/f[2 wo" 3'(30 surcharge weight of wall baclefiff, —lbs —5510 cl 1ing a I ft from base of point lbs Wall line lb / ft ll'vsolpht ofivall, - M gii area 300 lb /ff2 backfill wall angle, vartUrning moment, ft-lbs {theta -a) 90 degrees Resisting mornant, ft-lbs 25,640 backfill slope angle, (beta) 0 degrees overturnhal N�-' 4,75 wall face angle, (theta-P) 85 dqrec,'i (beta can't be greater than Pill 0r'Y*U got inag(nary numbers) Ka 0,33 Ka equation 01333 list to sbe'u lower upper plane, emeodment eiaebeftnent layer 45+plii/2 sigma vil, psi length, it length, ft hi 8.0 3.73 1.15 1.5 295,7 4780 6.0 2.79 231.15 1.54.4 -0.024 4.0 L86 46115 1.5 37 4012 2h 0.93 691J5 L5 3.4 -0,008 U 0.00 921.15 L5 33 -0,006 j 9.0 U 0 7.0 6,0 5n 3 4.0 10 Zo 1.0 U U0 Federal Way Business Park, 8 foot ecology block wall: geogrid reinforcement calculations 05-026 3/7/2005 Jason PO Box 181 Auburn WA, 98071 'A Engineering & Phone; 253-833-7316 Consulting Mobile: 206-786-8645 Bness usii , Pna jasonbellpeftetzernuet 1.00 2.00 3.00 4M depill, It (FS'Ka*sr'*( (signia,n+si gMa'T1+1)/ FS'Th/(Cesigm 21/(sigmaji -Cs/2) a n 2 r r � F Ap a a ' '•t[, m n lL sm �e �m ^q o0 n� s� ew G.. p� V Y n � X ®. sn >y m s ° FEDERAL WAY BUSINESS PARK x Pacific i lb4-y South Federal Way. WA. , 206 251- 5 m P Ecology Block Retaining Walt NO Geolechnical Engineering ";�a Ja s^» ReWning Walls E znaera. & Foundations °an>asi$43,, Pavement Design & Analysts B-Ishn-sr, MC PO Box i87 ?Auburn VIA. SF,071 Phon _ (206) ,SE .�3.a FEDERAL WAY BUSINESS PARK Pacific Hwy South Fedc al Way, WA. 206-252-84?5 Ecology Flock Retaining, Wall � 3v ar,<A ling Eu<.in ,:,.Inc IN [4 Lt. ei I z VI §J wal 0 H Pacific West Development, LLC P.O. Box 860 Renton, Washington 98057 Attention: Cory W. Martin Subject: Transrnittal Lotter—Geotechttical Engineering Study Rwosed Loga�nf�ed&al Way 8ij6 Pacfffb Hig�waY near Sotith 366th Ztt6et Federal Way, Washington 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (421) 747-8561 May 2, 2000 JN 00107 Transmittal letter — Page 2 The, atttbhed MPPrt contains a dis�cussjOn of the study and our recommendations. Please conta us flhere are any qbestjohs regardjn� this report, or if we can be of further assistance during tj djasigh 4hdconstrucbon Phases of this project, 'GO E- OU IT CHI CONSU ANTS, INC. D. Robert Ward, P.E. Principal G FnTP(.W rInkici ii — .,-- -.- Sa/TE CONDITIONS SURFACE The trapezoidal shaped site is approximately 751,761 square feet in "size with approximately 1,000 feet of frontage on its eastern side along Pacific Highway South'. The site is undeveloped and densely covered with vegetation and trees, The topography of the site is generally feat with small rolling features and dense vegetative overgrowth The topographical iowpoint of the property is on the western side, This portion is designated as wetlands, and was not ventured into during our site visit due to the proposed riparian setback for the development It is unknown if there is standing or flowing water on this portion of, the site Pacific Highway South becomes elevated above the northern portion of the eastern frontage to the site. A 6-foot high rockery retains the road bed along this portion with a mild slope: up to the rockery toe, Part of the adjacent property to the north is also elevated to have access i to Pacific GPr)TFrru r,n......-- May 2, 2000 Highway South, This area was likely built up for the construction of the road bed and is not original grade. Generally, the Pacific Highway South corridor is developed with light commercial and retail development. The adjacent property to the South of the site is undeveloped as is the land to the west and northwest. To the southwest of the site are some residential houses as well as a meeting lodge. None of the surrounding structures will affect the development of the site. il Conditions The test Pits encountered 6 to 18 inches of topsoil and forest duff. This material is overlying varying layers of either brown sand, sandy silt, or a combination of the two. This variety of material was underlain by silty, gravelly sand approximately 3 to 6 feet below the existing grade, The upper sandy silt and sand layers are not consistent across the site and are medium -stiff S and medium -dense at best, The underlying gravelly, silty sand is medium -dense to dense at the interface 3 to 6 feet below grade, becoming denser approximately 5 to 8 feet below grade. No groundwater seepage was observed. The test pits were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the lack of seepage on the logs may not represent the complete absence of groundwater. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations, The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test Pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation, r,.Pr)TP('u '_, .' Pacific West Development LLC May 2, 2000 The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. E III a a MIA a] on - WI The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the weather conditions that are encountered. While site clearing will expose a large area of bare soil, the erosion potential on the site is relatively low due to the gentle slope of the ground, Vve anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope side of any cleared areas, and especially around the wetlands. Rocked construction access roads should be extended into the Pacific West Development LLC May 2.2OOU JNOO1O7 Page site to reduce the amount of mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Follow il rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not be immediate covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the prqjp�pt contra)�tdbcuments, This report should also be provided to any future property owners so thOY will be �6ware of our findings and � . ~ ~ ' ' CONVENTIONAL - FOUNDATIONS , - Where: 0) Psf is Pounds per square foot. Pacific West Development LLC May 2, 2000 y + i + .: i • i - We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above design values. ` # • i # �" i - Onc- of + �� • +i- i # i— •— i • t — •; - � 1 t t i -• WO GEOTECH COntsw n T®niTQ- IKfn Pacific West Development LLC May 2, 2000 JN 00107 Page 6 We recommend proof -rolling slab areas with a heavy tfOCJk or a large Oete of constructi equipMeijt prior to slab construction. Any Soft areas encountered during PMf-rolling should excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. %rNENT FO Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral ear-th pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended design parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: Where: 0) Pcf is Pounds per cubic foot, and (H) active and passive earth Pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid Pressures. I iot da 1 0 W I, LU in tly-au• lyve active eqbiValent�fluid The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for over -turning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. Restrained wall soil parameters should be utiNzed for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners in the walls. Pacific West Development LLC JN 00107 May 2, 2000 Page 7 - - ---- ----- EXCA VA TIONS AND SLOPES • ---- ---- - - ---- - Pacific lest Development LLC May 2, 2000 Drawl space, and it should be sloped for drainage, We can provide drains, should they become necessary, during excavation and foundation co st udctioions far interior n. All roof and surface water drains must be Dept separate from the foundation drain typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate For the best Perforated PVC pipe I recommended for all subsurface drains: system. A long-term performance, No groundwater was observed during our Meld work. If seepage is en should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated g countered in an excavation, it drains, v y pumping it from wraps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at drains, excavation, pipe or ranch the bottom of GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, o other deleterious material The stripped or removed materials should no materials to be used as structural fill, but they could de used p rganic soil, and t be mixed with any landscape beds. in non-structural areas, such as . 4u'npaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557-91 (Modified Proctor). GEOTECH CONSULTANT.-, Pnerr Pacific West Development LLC A 00107 May 2, 2000 Page 9 • NOW • • • In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm Pacific West Development LLC May 2, 2000 that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation; construttion, PoUvibes COMPly with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report� and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ kom thOso anticipated pri4:)r to the start of construction. However, our work would not ihduds the supe"i f Oe� S10h Or I on of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agenb�Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contra�or. The scope of our work did not include an environmental assessment, but we can provide this service, if requested. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 7 Test Pit Logs Plate 8 Typical Footing Drain Detail We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Scott Stevens Geotechnical Engineer D. Robert Ward, P.E. Principal IM TP- T MIC LEGEND.' PROPERT-V LI-NE --J 0 APPROXIMATE' TEST PIT LOCATIOU TP-1, TP- 1- PROPOSED 9 U It D M G TP-30 TP-6 rp-z TP-4 C-3 TP`--�7 SjTE PLAN PAC.HWY.- S. nr 365th ST. FEDERAL WAY,,. WA . ...................................... IN TEST PIT 7 Description Dark browndlack>,,siNt�r AND, with organics, most, loose (TC3 a®ILA � � � 1 Gra with brown molir Y 1LT, non plastic, moist, medium -stiff L j - becomes sandy M=6.5% SP Gray with brown mol most, dense in g, gravelly, silty SAND, medium- to coarse -grained, very * Test Pit was terminated at 6 feet on March 27, 2000. 1 o groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. o caving was observed during excavation. 15L TEST PIT 8 ' � s Description Dark rownf lack, silty ANL ,with organics, rnoist loose P I } L Gray with brown mottling SILT, non plastic, moist, medium -stiff 5 I Gray with brown mottling , gravelly, silty SAND, medium- to coarse -grained, very moist, dense * Test Pit was terminated at 5 feet on March, 2000. No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. 10 No caving s observed during excavation. m TEST PIT LOG CONSULTANTS, E,�C. Pacific Highway South near South 356th Street F-7 je, X TEST PIT 9 GO DescripptZOn Dark brown/black, silty SAND with organics, moist, loose (TOPSOIL) P s Brown SAND medium -grained, moist, medium -dense M=22.4% Gray with brown mottling SILT, non plastic, moist, stiff Ci * Test Pit as ter iatd at 7 feet arch o 7,000. 10 No round tr see a e o e a urird excavation. Gavin " as-b a Burin excavation. - 15 c� , � RM IMM 1 Description lark brwnlblack, silt AID, with organics, moist, EooseOPOIL) I Gray with brown mottling SILT, non plastic, moist, stiff L - becomes gravelly and sandy y ! Gra /brown, silt , raved SAND, fine to oaars-�re„-moist.dense * Test Pit was terminated at 6 feet on March 27, 2000. No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. 10 No caving was observed during excavation. r 1 �OTEST PIT I Description Dark brownlblack,-silty SAND, with aganics, moist, looseTOSOIL I Light brownitan, sandy SILT, non plastic, moist, soft to medium -stiff L Gray with brown Mottling, g, silty, gravelly SAND, medium- to coarse -grained, } moist, dense S SP * Test Pit wasterminated t 10 feet on March 27, 2000. No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. No caving was observed during excavation. 1 Description 71r nlblack„ s`slty SAID with organics, moist, loose (TOIScD1L n SAND, fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose tomedium-dense n, silty, gravelly SAND, medium- to coarse -grained, with fine-grained layer, very moist, dense �jMvery dense. TEST PIT LOG GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, IN C. Pacific Highway South near South 356th Street Federal ill Logged 3 E o k ; 04 FM7=24.87'%. I MTFF� 61 TEST PIT 3 Description -ark brown/black, Silty SAND, with organics, moist, loose (TOPSOIL) Gray with brown mottling SILT, non plastic, slightly fractured, moist, medium - stiff - becomes sandy becomes very , y g S Y ravel) SA- fine- to coarse -grained, arced Light brown silt S ry delis very moist, dense 10 ��1 t t * Test Pit was terminated at 10 feet on March 27, 2000. No ground star seepage e a uri o Gavin was observe ri excavation. x v ti 1 TEST PIT 4 Description Ork brwnlllsck, silty SAND vuith orgatics, moist, loose (TOPSOIL) [EpiDark brown SAND fine- to medium -grained moist, loose to medium -dense 5 27,2000. st it t i to t tot o groundwater seepage as ob ring excavation. M TEST PIT 5 V, , o Description F��17Dark rownlblaclt, silty SAND, �+ 1h organic, moist, loose TOI SOIL S Dark brown SAND, fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense �snn Light brown silt sp g y, gravelly SAND, medium- to coarse -grained, very moist, dense * Test Pit was terminated at 6 feet on March 27, 2000. o groundwater seepage was observed duri excavation. o caving as observed during excavation. TEST PIT 6 Description Qark browniblack, silty SAND, with organics, moist, loose (TOPSOIL) -)den . Dark brown SAND fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense - becomes medium -dense Light brown silt 9 y, gravelly SAND, fine- to coarse -grained, moist, dense * Test Pit was terminated at 7 feet on March 27, 2000.No ` groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. o caving was observed during excavation TEST LIT LOG Pacific Highway South near South 356th Street Federal ay, Washington r' Job No: Date: Loggged=b1a0010March 20008ES5 Slope backfill away from foundation. Provide drains Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) ackfill (See text for requirements) Vapor Retarder Nonwoven Geotextile C or Barrier Filter Fabric Washed Rook SLAB (7/8" min. size) e.. iw00 6 min. Free -Draining Gravel 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (`f appropriate) (Invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) NOTES: (1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypasses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer to report text for additional drainage and waterproofing considerations. TYPICAL FOOTING DRAIN GEOTEC �. g'qq��77 g ��'`` ��.** 0 t T �Not0 Sca[e 8 F rFX111 SEC. 29, T 21 N, R 4 E, 5 EX #5 EX #9 R/W _7 S S P� S R/W S S_ S_ REMOVAL NOTES S_ EP T P ADJUST EASTING CATCH BASIN TO GRADE AND 0 REPLACE GRATE NTH A SOLID COVER. S ST - ST — �T ST — — ST — ST — - 77 G —IG G — — G G — 0 ADJUST WATER VALVE E30 - X TO GRADE, C, 0 CONTRACTOR To COORDINATE WITH UTILITY REMOVE 20 ?o 40 G + OR RELOCATE EXISTING POLE AND/Oh POLE ANCHOR. 00 C3 to U, CONTRACTOR To COORDINATE WITH U11LITY TO SCALE IN FEET t 2 1 SL,RELOCATE , RELOCATE OR ADJUST POWER VAULT/TRANSFORMER :2 -0 ;UD TO ,GRADE PACIFIC HWY S - ------------ j w . (D REMOVE EXISTING LUMINAIOE FOUNDA11ON 100' STREAM ----------------- w ..BE OW GRADE. MOVE LUMINAIRE, JUNCTION BOX CHANNEL BUFFER a_ Li AND ASSOCIATED HARDWARE TO NEW LOCATION AS 13 m I SPECIFIED ON SHEETZ LLj 0 K LAj CONTRACTOR TO REM6VE,EXIS-nNG'SERVICE/SIGNAL 8 -1 Li HARDWARE AND ASSOCIATED FIXTURES ONCE NEW En SIGNAL IS ACTIVATED, CONTRACTOR To:COORDINA7E REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT CONCRETE WITH NCRTHnST REGION SIGNAL SHOP FOR A PAVEMENT SEE SP-1 TO SP-3 EQUIPMENT SALVAGF_ ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST —I;,ST ST ST ST ST REMOVE WATER METER AND BOX. P p ABANDON WATER PIPE IN PLACE. Rp OF REMOVE C-CURB, OF up OF OP OF UP OP a 96 ADJUST SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE TO GRADE. OF _7m — s RELOCATE EXISTING MAILBOX. OP OF OF S— S - — -------- s- -S R�W — C S s S S. S S S S Z;- DISCONNECT AND REMOVE EX POWER TO BUILDING. S REMOVE TREE. COORDINATE SHUT OFF WITH LOCAL POWER UTIUTY, REMOVE AND RESET FIRE HYDRANT, CONTRACTOR 91 REMOVE EXISTING BUILDING/STRUCTURE. G/STRUCTURE. TO COORDINATE RELOCATION WITH UTILITY. RECONSTRUCT EXISTING BUS STOP PAD AND REPLACE FRAME WITH HEAVY DUTY LOCKING RING 12 REMOVE BUS STOP SIGN, 79 AND COVER, REXUS 24 INCH, NEENAH R-1556 OR APPROVED EQUAL 13 REMOVE EX. STORM STRUCTURE/PIPE - PROTECT AND PRESERVE EXISTING LUMINAIRE. PRESERVE EXISTING JUNCTION BOX/ADJUST TO CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE VATH UTILITY TO GRADE. INSTALL NEW CONDUIT AND CONDUCTORS ADJUST EXISTING COMMUNICATIONS MH TO GRADE, INTO EXISTING JUNCTION BOX. 29 CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH UTILITY TO 15 CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE EXISTING JUNCTION BOX — ADJUST GAS VALVE BOX TO GRADE T_#0K: W"4774010SA* s I0 sm/vl�r o' 7 &N/44?6 1002) IWO 1 /Z R/W — — — — — 4*1 F—ADDENDUM #I: REVISED ACP REMOVAL AREA F_ F_ FF_ F_ F_ F_ F_ F_ F_ F_ F_ F_ F_ F_ Z" I P/_/- r ;2m_ r--s Rasp Fm'.- imHDR Engineering, Inc. 626 Columbia Street NW, Suite OlympW,WA 98501 360) S7"00 360) 670-7272 -fax ttayee M. SKINNER asa Ix MELVIN PACIFIC HWY S S CITY OF FEDERAL WAY S 356th ST. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST, 2005 OF FEDERAL WAYIKING COUNTY AUGUST, 2008r.. SCALE AS SHOWN 20 10 0 20 40 REMOVALPLAN) S 356th/ PACIFIC HWY S 00000026397 RM-4 B6897-ItMiAwg a C a Raw C C C ,. 20 10 0 20 40 O , '-- G -- ,.+._. p q SCALE IN FEET +-_,_,�,,.--..�,.. G — — G G .: Tti. S as Taa � i. 8 _`° M � `r i ^C TION F--X. AT01 65+00 i DID i.;.,31F 3 Q } 64+00 F— LL'i 63+00 �" "P" ,LINE. _ N 88° 37' O W ALt7N0 61 hS6sktJ1A 7ED (n T 62+00 .—„ ..�:.—gi. CE 9NE OF 356PH £Ei N _. BETWEEN THE MOKJJ1M€NT IN CASE AT IST .._+ AVENUE SOUTH AND THE NouUMENT IN w w — — --- — 6 AT THE I LANE_ 53GQO OF JW _ �,i _. a 1ST AVENUE SOUTH, _ V) _. CONNECT TO "� „' ALL CATCH BASIN STA. CAU_OUTS TO CENTER EXISTING CB P OFGRATE AT FACE OF CURB. OR CENTER Fes— 6 LF OF 6" D.I. ., '4 STORM PIPE. wP - 4F GRATE AT CENTER OF.. OCTCH. CO #26 " ' NOTE: mKomw ST %.r—_ST np SIT— S, A..--- — - AL SECTION SHEETS FOR DITCH n � OP d ` :/ -a,__—,,.:: C7�' _i .. .... I,Tr DP I C '^ s�01 LIP — a S D S S „. OP — ®.` C1f' "„.,'®' _..—, 5—�,.-W. -a--':�'_' '^` ®"`., ,... J --.-. '"""„ 'S — S - 2. SEE DETAIL SHEET DT-3 FOR CULVERT S ... S S — — S "�d . DISCHARGE PROTECTION. -- ^� cut LINE (TYP) 15 2 I 215 MnNG GROUND AT ---_- 210 210 SEE — —_ !— CANTRN IATiON _ s , — — ` 205 205 12- DUCTILE IRON STORM SEWER PIPE ® '+PBS 200 STA. Y'P" 63+14.71. 3.74' LT 240 215 CB 2FF S TYPE 1 �. VA.TR, PROPOSED OADWAY LETT FTnOWL1 IE RIM==x08.45 EXIS ING GROUND �� ^'s STRUCTURE' LEFT FL ILBNE PROFILE AT (L (TYP.) YP.) IE tou! ELE•YATl13N (204.60 (s) cz SZ 99 FLO INE LEFT EX ROADWAY 210 61+50 62+00 62+50 63+00 63+50 64+00 64+50 W 215 205 215 STA. "P" 62+4 i.62' 32.79' RT EXIS 14G GROUND AT EXISTING CB ( PE 1) ----- I. FILL AREA STA,. " 6T+89,02, 2.63' RT RIM=207.29, M ,TCH TO GRADE _ fEl r TYPE IL IE 12" 203.99--- 21® 05.8 MAtCti G %DE EEC-d 12 204, 4 N 210 c SEE 202.50 (S)100 150 200 'RN ATION 203.70 (E) 0 50SHT, D 4 ---- — — _ _- 205 FIILL AREA TAI SECTION A, -A,, 205 � NITS l a 61—LIF 12" D 'TILE IRONlq� _. STORM PIPE ® 1.21%.:. ,,200 20® ; RIGHT FL kLINE RECORDDRAWINGS ELEVATIO (TYP.) EXIS NO GROUND AT q (TYP,)1 S 99 FLOW INE RIGHT I NO CHANGES ON THIS SHEET ' BY: MASON SXINN R DATE: rn 0 ; 12 38 8 a a c6 a : w a.. o f o a s a. N n N'' ro I .: P.E. APPROVAL• c cv c4 N N a n T 61+510 62+00 62+50 63+00 63+50 64+00 64+50rDRM::7A�-INAGE PLAN AN�IDD�PRO�FILE �— �— (— M. BURCH C�+ a T.. M. SKINNER Lsl I _ _ OF ',L PACIFIChI{. F— I I— I— F `" hn on% Imo: T. f F- f F- X INTERSE I N IMPROVEMENT'S �ec a�A�a wm. msu __— I f�� " F- rF— I If G26 Columblo SirNI NW, Suite 2WJ X ': ®"e" ar.a uaa aesP rroi 9'7 dlIrpla, WA SMI t AUGd}S"p,'., 2008 W. w 000i70i?26897 4� (36Si� F 7 2-fast.. K� MELVIN C' F Da Yf{{'N COUNTY AUGUST, sh e : SCALE fi5 SHOWNP6897mI3I u, 7D-10 ,3 . { NOTE.' This project progresses from south to north in the opposite direction of stationing. Lateral references to construction features are made with the west side denoted as 'W" and the east side denoted as "E" ASPHA CLASS B 0. 12' OA2, CLA55 8 0.12. IIME1149E — P �-L -------------------- A UNIT U �05,T-C, UNIT U 41 11 C.S.7.C. UNIT N UNIT N C FETE CLASS C 0.5 ONC CONCRETE CLASS C SEE NOTE 51DE VIEW ICONCRETE CLASS C END VIEW SeL®w Ld NOTE: REMOVE A PORTION OF EXISTING CATCH BASIN DOWN TO GRADE ESTABLIS14ED BY ENGINEER_ PLACE CONCRETE CLASS C ON ALL SIDES TO PREVENT FROM ROCKING. GROUT ALL JOINTS. (11 MODIFY CATCH BASIN U) :1 LL SIZ 9!) CS 1701 STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS (p DRAWN J LA 10 WV]ASH z� Washington State - REVIEWED 3. C-, 1,�E R R 11 F CHECKED Nam )F, JOB nuhis-Eii W WDepartment of Transportation Ly PROJ.ENGR. R.F. HAOVAP 83WOR3 i :1 1 1 (a [A I DIST. ADM. -J - C>. -Z I P- K.L- E� CONTRACT NO. Fab 28.1983 DATE REVISION -gAPP DAPPROvED -Yj_— I L— Vv. IV]. OCY LEGEND- 0 CATCH E&ASIW OL'- COnJCMETG INLET 0 MAMHOLE SEW.GP- PIRG DITCH GeArGF KJLF--r qOR PAWD PLACED P-iPP-AP UTILITY . ABBREVIATIONS F- ?,La. fAcipic wop-774wEs-r SELL 7-EL. CO. f-.3-P, 4L- PUGET -SOUNM P0Wr.$Z 4 LIGHT CC). WASHtNG7-01-1 NATURAL- GAS CO. WD- 124 v_tWG CO. WA-I-Ep- 0FSTP-IC--r NO. IZ4 5iF-v4sFe cxS-rF-IC-r DRAINAGE ABBREVIATIONS C.S. CATCH BASIN CL31 ZC:,SF CLASS 31:eETWPORCED, COMC. SEWER PIPE V-D.P- L1W6M7P-0eA k PIPE C)F r->F'-AIW PIPE RC.S.F' PLAIM, COIJCFF=C- Sf-=WGF- PIPE SR 99 359TH ST. TO S. 333RD ST. � 7 1 OF D R A I NA GF PI AM C. N WE Po',J� SCALE- V-40' [;=1-=EGEND �N NG. 00 All, T�M MAW dog (it Aft AHC:0.4� . _0� AIR -y- LUMYRE (THE) Elio YARD am EE Pam ur" -o- POWER POLE JRKTION BOX (AS NOTED) TEL UANHOL CATCH RkSN (CO) 0 SIORM WNW (SDUH) 0 SUMN SEWER NUBBLE (SSWI) CLEANOUT (AS NOTED) GAS LIETER W-AILR—VALVE (W4 HIRE wNNANT(FH) / co"CrICH(FD) ED WATER MANHOLE WATER UTTER BLOW -OFF I AWAC SON SUMP RON, DIRECTIONAL ARROW S SURvv MoNvaut (AS NOTES) + QUICHUARN + SECTION CORNER (AS NOTED) TOM RESPRICAP (AS NOTEDJ o row LEADIFACK SLINVEY CONTROL STATION p POGROM LINE HANDICAP CONCRETE GRAVEL/SAND (AS NOTED) ASPHALT BUMNIG LINE —X CHAIN LM PENCE //= WOOD FENCE c— EARNED TORE FENCE HOUWIRE FENCE WATER UNE GAS UNE —N.4— OVER-FA/UhUERGROUND TEL. USE OWTHUDIUNDERGROUND PWR L94E HE TREE LEGEND: xlw X OAK TREE : X'F It PUT XICED X CEDAR TREE XID X: NISC, DECIDUOUS TREE X'CKER X CHERRY TREE XICOT X: CUITCOWDOD, TREE X,A X* ALDER TREE rlwtol& (PER r" WITACAR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY PITA COMMITMENT NO. 4209-23D2416 DATED AuovsT z 20a4 a 7,30w) 1. LIEN Of THE REM- ESTAIE EXC15E SULES TAX AND SUROURN L"k AW Skr W %ND TAPE UGE IF LIMA& AS OF THE DATE KKR. THE EXME TAX RATE FOR XWE 01% Or FMU` WAY IS &I 1.78% LEW/ABEA CON. 1205 (NOT SURVEY RELATED) 2. GENERAL 'AXES FOR THE YEAR 2014- LOT TW 4SUMS,'.: UUANW hTU AM XTN` THE SECOND HALF SECOUES DELINCIVINT PEIR MOW TAX ACCOUNT NO, 292104912707 151 HALF AMOUNT BNLLXP 5 9,361.41 AMOUNT PAID: S 9.581.41 Nown DUE: S SUN) ASSESSED LAND VALUE: OD t 1,15O.M. ASSESSED BUFROVEVIUNT VALUE' 1 0.00 ME HALF AMIL" ERLED- 5 9.36141 A."ON .; s 0.00 AMOUNT DUE, S 9,361AI ASSESSED LAND VALUE: 1 1,163,300.00 ASSESSED IMPROVEMENT VALUE' I am (HOT SURVEY RELATED) :I, 114!TS HZ RC AgWISSCO AND WCHEED, ON MY SUBSEQUEENT ROCL - THE TAX YEAR Aar In 0 N wpwAvjns ANN 0% :wr WHICH SAW BE RaWE ON ]PC R(OULSA ASEESSAW ECAL no A" AM AN = UID, hot YET DUE OR PAYABLE. Oki SAIM FNAAROI P TO HDOK-W, OR WYNECTION CHARGES A D pKIDLI: MCAND "BE "UH, FACHRIES Cf frWX WAY AS DISCLOSED IMF 06MAVO POWDER torx AY*%AzC NO, IIABSOCAF 129 AND 91SIN110, DEBT YAM RELATED) NOTE: IF THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION MINNES A PARTHERSIXP's ASSETS THE NEATEN CONSENT OF SUBMITTED. DOWN TO CLOSAU, (HOT SUM RELATED) M ANDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY pvr OVA, IX& , L4;AAt -0004AWW177M p%-UR3wlwM= . ISODPLADY NO RIGHTS IF TENAIRS, AND 9XVITED "Mills To a I S AT THE EXPIRATION or THE TERU. QoT 91M RINATED) It EASEUENT. IHGXUDNU JERUS RAN PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDING INFORILAPONz 740423G479 I, TAYER BE.- KIM SOUND POWER & LICHT COMPANY A WS"TON CORFORA70H FOR, TAPE MERKANG THE CRWNIE'S INTEREST 05 ASSIGUIRED TO THE STATE OF WAU06TON By INSIRUUEHT RECORDED RECORDING INFORAFTION: 70520D243 (FLOM HEREON) to. gxrr NOOK L%0105 IS AND AK COUTURIER OR DEUMEATEG ar TRIE Sulk,,' BE 64 ", ON MEN =14 010. (HOT PLOTIANDLE) CONDINDNS6rW0S=,JfIS AND onjoM INS 410MAMAO OR DELINEATED CRE tMOV C 6=X 00 THE FACE DER IL (Na PLONTARLE) 12. EASEMENT, MUSING EVILS AND PROW"S CONTAINED TIONEW: RECORDINO WORUATION, 85103190M at FAVOR Or, LAKrAVE4 SEWER DUIRICT FOR: SEVER OWNS WITH THE NECESSARY APPURTENANCES (PLOTTED KKON) t ARIUS AM PROVISIONS CONTAINED THERON: 04 FAVOR Ort Po"x 400%M DEAL ontn" Cc~ Fft VLOCK"M WIRRAVADON UNE1 SAID VAMOMS AM CONUMS (PLOW Kno") i S. M AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AM CONFIRM THEPEOF-- BETACEIt. FEDERAL WAY WATER AND SEWER DSTIUCT AREP FEDERAL, WAY COUMUNIFf CENTER RECORDING "DURATION: 9106740811 ("s PLOTML) Ul. CO S, NOTE5. CAS9001S, PMVM6 T=EAZj4kEMC CONTMIED OR DDINEAVED ON THE PAGE OF THE "V RECORDED UUCP 10 MIT Aqoows (ANY PLOTTOBLE) INSTRUMET RECORDED UNDER BECOMING NUMBER 20. THE TURNS AND PROYSONS CONTAINED IN THE DOEXAM EHUTEO -RGHT BE EMIT? RECORDED: SEPTEVSU 25.2007 RECORDING NO.: 2OD709MIT70 (FLOERD Rawoo) 22. MWENT. INCLUDING TERNS AND PROM9ONS COKLAXIED THEREIN; KC"NG LWORMATOR: 201312240 D787 IN FAVOR DR BROOVlAKE COWLINITY CENTER FOR: ACCESS NO UNIONS USEUENT (PLOTTED RUDE" 73, EASEMENT, 94UMIM TENNIS NO PROVIST3115 CONFUNNED INEREINZ RE DIG INFORIOTION: 20131224000769 IN FAVOR O': EROC*QAxE COMMUNITY CENTER FOR ACCESS AND UWM EASEMENT (PLOTTED Now") VISUAL c(sq'i'PTIOND jpGX PIRSE AMENAEAH TITLE IA&MANCE CWPAW ALTA COUBATMENT W. 4202-2302416 DATED AUGUST 7, 2014 AT 7;3OAME REAL PMFM in THE CmUFF Of MM, STATE OF WASHORGION, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT P09MU OF THE MILITANTLY 415M FEET OF THE KNTnTST CLATRER OF M UMPEAST CHARTER OF SECTION 20. 7DAHW 21 HIDDEN, RANGE 4 EAST. VA, 94 CoulfrE, TUsUIRMITH., FEET THEREOF, As CAINE ONTD IN, FULFILLMENT DEEDS OWES RECORIAM An 805181 102; A. AND EXCEPT THAT PORDON CONDEMNED FOR HOMY PUFFIDSES BY SUPIKODIR COURT CAUSE WUaCR 81-2-05452-11, pORANOW CUWCW[O 10 KIM COUNTY FM ROAD PURPOMS BY DEEDS OCCOIS04 MAR ODDS 9104051109. 910#01 Ilk 9104051111. 9ID4051 1 S2 SASS 0104f64k93i Sw IAMER IDEVARRO vht- CMUKM AT THE NORTHEAST DENVER OF SAC SECTION 29, THENCE ALONG, THE ROM LIE OF OF SSUBONISIDN, NORTH W322V TEST 151H.01 FEET TO THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE Or FAMM HIGHWAY Sam (SR99k TWICE "am SUIT SOCUR 2747-51- BUT, 263.50 FEET TO A UONMEK IN A STEEL CASING, SEMG A HAA. SET IN CONCRETE AT THE CENTER1.26i Of SAID PMXFC W4,Wy Gaunt TwxE CEPOUNANG ALM SAID CEATERUKC SOUTH 22748`1I' WEST. 48.33 FEET 10 THE Satfiff L94 OF NFE NORTH 3D FEET OF SAID SOUTHERLY 416 FEET; TAM ALONG SLID SDM IK"A"' W32'l f` HEST, 5163 FEET 70 THE WESTERLY MARTNIN or sw FACOIC HIGHWAY SOUTH No THE TRUE POINT Of BEGINNING Of THIS URI DESMpnft TREECE CONFRAVIC ALONG SAO SWW URE, NOOK W32rW WEST, 1288 FEET TO A ACUTE 62,00 FEET WESIVALT, A,' NEW" At MR AMES, 70 THE CENTESURE Of SAD PACIFIC SGXJPA as - -A "OTIN" Sftftu "twml *EST. MAI ICEI TO A POINT 014 TOGETHER INCH THE F40 OF ENTRY 04R A FoRlof or Not *DjoOlac FOOPTErm SK"o To THE TIM AND tw"M AWAY cwwo ol 061AVKW Kowa am FU COUNTY wCoRow IRAW 2070MIT4 HOODIDNax Oulu SEE-Htit wND 4 lzmpzme of fusuRAL W&I toy 0 100 D" "a oftAl"a 'a $09 POS1104, no Al vilt ,I. NWD VOWARICAN NO, .- W� rwv2o rwkl2 M NEW too ROM10f, BEING SOUTH 5TW22' WEST, VIDETCAL Una WEVEAA, OULU 100 INS PROTECT IS ""029 PER CITY OF FEDERAL WA CITY OF FUNFAIL $BY VNUrA KWIMARX NO. 22OD-11 WAS HELD FOR ELEVATION, HEW 241.50 FEET "29). 1, RECORD OF SiRdY, RED. W. 2MI114WOMO (RI) 2. 81A 05-100INEZ-00-su, Etc NO. 2051108900001 (R2) I RECORD Of SURVETE, REC. NO, 200805069000% (R3) CARS OF SUM roo or obter,lu0 v HL CONDUCTED DECEMBER, 2013, AkA =NIS =rtotft Wror vam ul IN INE. ASTER CEIRCE1 EVERGREEN ENDED PARTNERSHIP. A WASUDIND011 TOUCHED PARTNERW SURVEYOWS CERTIRCATE- THIS 5 To CERTIFY TFAV MAS CAP AND TA SWOEY UPONASTICN IT IS SWO WERE WADE BEY ME OR CANNER NY WCANON AND 00HROWL? MULIS THE CONDITIONS OF THIS SITE AS OF THE DATE OF 14C MID SWO ON OCCITTRVER 10, 2014. EIRM M CIALLOCILY. P.L.S. 647E WASHINGTON REGGIRADON Ell 46315 P E