Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8630 212th St NE_PWD843_2025 SOUND ANALYSIS for SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD EAGLE CREEK SUBSTATION ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON Submitted to: Snohomish County PUD 1802 – 75th St. SW Everett, Washington 98203 Prepared by: Ioana Park, P.E. 1932 First Avenue, Suite 620 Seattle, WA 98101 p: 206.270.8910 f: 206.270.8690 www.brcacoustics.com October 12, 2016 Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page ii CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1 2. PROJECT SITE AND NEARBY LAND USES.......................................................................1 3. SOUND LEVEL DESCRIPTORS............................................................................................3 4. EXISTING SOUND LEVELS..................................................................................................4 5. PERMITTED SOUND LEVELS..............................................................................................7 6. CALCULATED SOUND LEVELS FROM THE PROPOSED SUBSTATION......................9 7. SOUND MITIGATION MEASURES....................................................................................12 APPENDIX A..............................................................................................................................A-1 Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION This report is a sound analysis of the proposed Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) Eagle Creek Substation to be located in Arlington, Washington. The scope of this report is to present existing sound levels measured near the proposed substation site, to evaluate sound levels from two electrical transformers proposed for the site with respect to State of Washington and Snohomish County noise regulations, and to recommend noise-mitigation measures as necessary. 2. PROJECT SITE AND NEARBY LAND USES Figure 2-1 shows a vicinity aerial photograph of the project site, surrounding properties, and sound measurement and calculation locations. The project site is currently a utility yard and not used as a substation. The site’s west boundary adjoins a power-line easement and multi-family housing beyond. A single-family residence is located immediately to the south. The project site's north boundary adjoins 212th St. NE (Tveit Road). Directly across to the north are the Snohomish County PUD East Arlington Substation and single-family residences beyond. To the northwest, across 212th St NE, are single-family townhomes forming the 910 Medical Center Drive subdivision. Properties to the east and northeast (across Tveit Road) are currently undeveloped. The substation site and the East Arlington Substation property to the north (across Tveit Road) are zoned P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) by the City of Arlington. Adjacent properties to the west and south and properties to the north (beyond East Arlington Substation) are zoned RHD (High- Density Residential) by the City of Arlington. Properties to the east are zoned SR (Suburban Residential) by the City of Arlington with a Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay. Properties to the northeast (across Tveit Road) are zoned PRD SA-1 (Planned Residential Development) by Snohomish County, with a Comprehensive-Plan designation of Urban Low-Density Residential (4-6 dwelling units/acre) and are currently unoccupied. The nearest residential properties to the northeast are located approximately 450 feet away, fronting on 89th Avenue NE. The proposed site development includes installation of two 28-MVA Waukesha transformers at the locations shown in Figure 2-1. E2-1 E1-1 E2-3 E6-2 E6-1 Project Site E4-1 E5-1 Transformers E5-3 E3-1 16.067 Figure 2-1 Date Name Drafted 10-12-16 IP Snohomish PUD Eagle Creek Substation Sound Analysis Sound Measurement and Analysis Locations Checked BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 3 3. SOUND LEVEL DESCRIPTORS Sound is measured as sound level in units of decibels, dB. Environmental sound is often measured as A-weighted sound level in dBA. The A-weighting is a specific weighting filter in a sound level meter that corresponds to human hearing sensitivity at the various sound frequencies. People normally experience sound levels between about 30 and 90 dBA, depending on their activity. For example, a loud nearby vehicle, radio or power tool may produce 80 to 90 dBA, normal conversation is about 50 to 60 dBA, and a bedroom or quiet office is about 30 to 40 dBA. Each 10-dB increase in sound level corresponds to a tenfold increase of sound energy, but is judged by a listener as only a doubling of loudness. The smallest changes in sound level considered clearly noticeable are about 3 to 5 dBA. Sound levels from two or more sources are combined using logarithms, not by adding the levels. When two levels are combined, the louder level predominates, and the combined level is the louder level plus 0 to 3 dBA. Some examples: 50 dBA combined with 50 dBA is 53 dBA, and 50 dBA combined with 40 dBA results in 50.4 dBA. Because sound levels fluctuate over time, several sound-level descriptors are used to characterize the sound. In this report, the following descriptors are used: Leq Equivalent sound level, Leq, is the most commonly used descriptor for measuring fluctuating sound. The Leq is the level of a constant sound that, over a given time period, contains the same amount of sound energy as the measured fluctuating sound. Ldn Day-night average sound level, Ldn, is the Leq over 24 hours with a 10-dBA penalty added during the nighttime hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The Ldn is often used to measure the overall 24- hour sound to determine land-use compatibility and overall impacts. The Ldn is usually close to the same level as the daytime Leq. Lmax Maximum sound level, Lmax, is the highest instantaneous sound level for a given sound source, event, or time period. Because the Lmax in a neighborhood will, unlike Leq, typically have large fluctuations from hour to hour and day to day, Lmax is seldom used to measure noise impact, except in cases where brief high- level sound is causing an impact such as sleep disturbance. Lmin Minimum sound level, Lmin, is the lowest sound level during the measurement period. The Lmin is an effective descriptor for quantifying the relatively steady level of sound that is present in Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 4 the absence of local noise events. If a continuous sound source such as a transformer is operating, the Lmin may be caused by that source. Sound Spectrum For a sound comprising energy over a range of frequencies, the distribution of sound energy by frequency. When considering sounds with a frequency spectrum such as the hum of a transformer, which is characterized by a large portion of the sound energy being concentrated in the 60-Hz and 120-Hz bands, the sound spectrum is also measured. The sound pressure levels are usually measured in frequency bands of one octave centered at frequencies of 31, 63, 125, 250, 500, 1000 (1k), 2000 (2k), 4000 (4k), and 8000 (8k) Hz. The most important of these octave bands in terms of potential annoyance is the 125 Hz octave band, because transformer hum occurs primarily at 120 Hz. 4. EXISTING SOUND LEVELS Existing sound levels were measured at six locations near the proposed substation site, shown in Figure 2-1 as Locations E1-1 to E6-1. Two types of measurements were performed. Continuous measurements for 24 hours were conducted at Locations E1-1, E3-1, and E4-1, using a RION NL-32 and a Bruel & Kjaer 2238 Integrating Sound Level Meter. Short-term (ten-minute), attended measurements were made at all six locations, using a Bruel & Kjaer 2250 Real-Time Spectrum Analyzer. All instruments conform to ANSI S1.4 requirements for Type I measurement systems. All measurements were conducted at the first-story elevation of five feet above the ground elevation. The locations and times of the measurements were as follows: Location Description E1-1 At the south property line of the residential property at 21302 87th Ave. A-weighted sound levels were measured continuously for 24 hours beginning at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, August 24, 2016, using a Bruel & Kjaer 2238 Integrating Sound Level Meter. A 10-minute measurement of A-weighted and octave-band sound pressure levels was made on Thursday, August 25, 2016 beginning at 2 p.m. E2-1 At the west boundary of the power-line easement, adjacent to the residential subdivision at 910 Medical Drive, near Unit 101. A 10-minute measurement of A-weighted and octave-band sound pressure levels was made on Thursday, August 25, 2016 beginning at 12:50 p.m. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 5 E3-1 At the north property line of the residential property at 8618 212th St. NE, south of the substation. A-weighted sound levels were measured continuously for 24 hours beginning at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, August 23, 2016 using a RION NL-32 Integrating Sound Level Meter. A 10-minute measurement of A-weighted and octave-band sound pressure levels was made on Tuesday, August 23, 2016 beginning at 2:10 p.m. E4-1 At the east property line of the substation, directly east of the proposed transformers. A-weighted sound levels were measured continuously for 24 hours beginning at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, August 23, 2016, using a Bruel & Kjaer 2238 Integrating Sound Level Meter. A 10-minute measurement of A-weighted and octave-band sound pressure levels was made on Tuesday, August 23, 2016 beginning at 2:30 p.m. E5-1 At the west boundary of the power-line easement, adjacent to the residential property at 8510 212th St. NE. A 10-minute measurement of A-weighted and octave-band sound pressure levels was made on Tuesday, August 23, 2016 beginning at 2:50 p.m. E6-1 At the west property line of the residential property at 21202 89th Ave. NE, northeast of the site. A 10-minute measurement of A-weighted and octave-band sound pressure levels was made on Tuesday, August 23, 2016 beginning at 3:20 p.m. Three additional locations were considered in the analysis and are shown in Figure 2-1 and listed in Table 4-1. TABLE 4-1 ADDITIONAL SOUND ANALYSIS LOCATIONS Loc Description E2-3 3rd-story, southeast corner window of 910 Medical Dr., Unit 101 E5-3 3rd-story, east-facing window of 8510 212th St. NE Building, Unit 307 E6-2 2nd-story, west-facing window of residence at 21202 89th Ave. NE The weather during the measurements was clear, with daytime temperatures in the mid- to high 80s, nighttime temperatures in the mid-50s degrees Fahrenheit, and northwest winds at 10 to 12 mph. The weather was within the range allowed by Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-58 for the measurement of environmental sound. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 6 Results of the long-term measurements are shown in Figures A-1 to A-3 in Appendix A. The A- weighted sound levels are shown as Leq, Lmax, and Lmin over one-hour intervals, and 24-hour Ldn. The results of the 10-minute measurements at Locations E2-1, E5-1, and E6-1 are shown in Table 4-2. TABLE 4-2 TEN-MINUTE DAYTIME SOUND MEASUREMENTS (Leq, dBA) MEASUREMENT LOCATION E2-1 E5-1 E6-1 8/25/16 8/23/16 8/23/16 Date and time of measurement 12:50 p.m. 2:50 p.m. 3:20 p.m. (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) Measured 10-minute Leq 48 49 55 Nearest 24-hour monitor E1-1 E4-1 E4-1 Simultaneous 10-min Leq measured at nearest 52 47 45 monitor Quietest nighttime hourly Leq measured at 40 32 32 nearest monitor Derived quietest nighttime hourly Leq at short- 36 34 42 term measurement location The principal sources of sound at locations surrounding the Eagle Creek site are intermittent traffic (including truck traffic) on Tveit Road, aircraft flyovers (including training flights from nearby Arlington Municipal Airport), concentrated periods of activity at the existing Eagle Creek Pole Yard, and daytime residential renovation activities at 8510 212th St. NE. (southwest of Location E5-1). During the daytime, sound from transformers at the existing East Arlington Substation was clearly audible at Location E1-1. The daytime hourly Leq sound levels at the long-term measurement locations are generally in the low to upper 40s dBA during the daytime, with occasional hourly Leq exceeding 50 dBA. The hourly Leq sound levels at Locations E3-1 and E4-1 are in the 30s dBA during the late-night hours. Hourly Leq sound levels at Location E1-1 remain above 40 dBA during the nighttime hours due to the steady sound from the existing transformers at the East Arlington Substation. The measurements at Locations E3-1 and E4-1 (Figures A-2 and A-3) show elevated sound levels during the morning hours of 6 to 8 a.m., attributable to activities at the existing Pole Yard. Existing sound levels at Locations E2-1, E5-1, and E6-1 are consistent with a suburban residential community. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 7 5. PERMITTED SOUND LEVELS 5.1City of Arlington Arlington Municipal Code Section 9.20.060, Nuisance noise originating from private property or premises not open to the public, adopts by reference the noise limits contained in Chapter 173- 60, Maximum Environmental Noise Levels, of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Noise limits under WAC 173-60 are based on the Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement (EDNA) of source and receiver properties. Where a local Zoning Code is in effect, the EDNA classification is made according to the zoning designation of source and receiver properties, with residential zones generally being Class A EDNA, commercial zones Class B, and industrial zones Class C. The maximum permissible sound levels according to WAC Chapter 173-60 are listed in Table 5- 1. TABLE 5-1 STATE OF WASHINGTON PERMITTED SOUND LEVELS (dBA) EDNA of Sound Source EDNA of Receiver A B C A 55 57 60 B 57 60 65 C 60 65 70 The Eagle Creek Substation site is zoned P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) by the City of Arlington. The Zoning Code does not specifically categorize this zone as Residential or Commercial. For the purpose of a conservative (worst-case) analysis, the substation site is considered EDNA A (Residential), consistent with the zoning of neighboring properties. Residential properties to the north (beyond East Arlington Substation), northwest, west, south, and east are categorized as Class A EDNA. The noise limit for EDNA A source and receiver properties is 55 dBA. Between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., the permitted sound levels listed in Table 5-1 are reduced by 10 dBA for Class A EDNA receivers. Electrical substations are exempt from the reduction in noise limits for nighttime conditions; therefore the noise limit pertaining to sound produced by the transformers and received at surrounding residential properties is 55 dBA. For sound sources of short duration, the noise limits are increased as follows: ï‚· By 5 dBA for a total of fifteen minutes in any one-hour period; or, ï‚· By 10 dBA for a total of five minutes in any one-hour period; or, ï‚· By 15 dBA for a total of 1.5 minutes in any one-hour period. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 8 For steady-state sound sources such as transformers, the limit of 55 dBA is primarily relevant. The permitted exceedances for short-duration noises ensure that momentary noise from equipment start-up will not exceed State of Washington noise limits. The noise limits apply to equipment within the substation. The limits do not apply to traffic on public roads or aircraft flyovers. 5.2Snohomish County Sound levels between properties in unincorporated Snohomish County are regulated by Chapter 10.01, Noise Control, of the Snohomish County Code (SCC). Noise limits under SCC 10.01 are based on the District of source and receiver properties, which is assigned according to land-use zoning. The maximum permissible sound levels according to SCC Chapter 10.01 are listed in Table 5-2. TABLE 5-2 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PERMITTED SOUND LEVELS (dBA) District of Receiving District of Noise Source Property Rural Residential Commercial Industrial Rural 49 52 55 57 Residential 52 55 57 60 Commercial 55 57 60 65 Industrial 57 60 65 70 As stated in Section 5.1, the site of the Eagle Creek Substation is zoned P/SP by the City of Arlington and is considered Residential for the purpose of this sound analysis. Properties to the northeast, across Tveit Road, are zoned Residential by Snohomish County. The noise limit for Residential noise sources and receivers is 55 dBA. During nighttime hours, the permitted sound levels listed in Table 5-2 are reduced by 10 dBA for Residential receivers. Furthermore, the permitted sound levels listed in Table 5-2 are reduced by 5 dBA for sound sources which have a pure-tone component and Residential receivers. Electrical substations are exempt from both the reduction in noise limits for nighttime conditions and the reduction for pure-tone components; therefore the noise limit pertaining to sound produced by the transformers and received at residences to the northeast is 55 dBA. For sound sources of short duration, the noise limits are increased as follows: ï‚· By 5 dBA for a total of fifteen minutes in any one-hour period; or, ï‚· By 10 dBA for a total of five minutes in any one-hour period; or, ï‚· By 15 dBA for a total of 1.5 minutes in any one-hour period. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 9 For steady-state sound sources such as transformers, the noise limit of 55 dBA is primarily relevant. The permitted exceedances for short-duration noises ensure that momentary noise from equipment start-up will not exceed Snohomish County noise limits. The noise limits apply to equipment within the substation. The limits do not apply to traffic on public roads or aircraft flyovers. 6. CALCULATED SOUND LEVELS FROM THE PROPOSED SUBSTATION Snohomish County PUD proposes to construct a new double-banked substation on the site of the existing Arlington Pole Yard property. The new Eagle Creek Substation would be constructed during 2017. Two 28-MVA Waukesha power transformers would be installed in the north half of the property. 6.1Reference Sound Levels of Proposed Transformers In order to quantify the sound emissions of the proposed 28-MVA Waukesha transformers, BRC Acoustics conducted measurements of two existing transformers of the same manufacture and model, located at the Snohomish PUD Maplewood and Tulalip Substations. The sound spectrum of the 28-MVA Waukesha transformer (Snohomish PUD K-355) currently located at the Snohomish PUD Maplewood Substation was measured on December 30, 2013, using a Bruel & Kjaer 2270 spectrum analyzer. In order to quantify the noise emissions of the Waukesha transformer at Maplewood Substation, sound levels produced by the transformer were measured in octave bands at reference distances of 8 to 13 feet from the nearest surface of the transformer in four directions surrounding the unit. The load on the transformer was reported by the District’s SCADA network to be 450-550 amperes per phase during the measurements. The sound emissions of the 28-MVA Waukesha transformer (PUD K-355), normalized to sound power levels, are presented in Table 6-1. The sound levels shown in the table include the noise of eight cooling fans operating. The four directions are defined with respect to the principal features of the transformer and also to the proposed orientation at the Eagle Creek Substation. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 10 TABLE 6-1 SOUND POWER LEVELS OF 28-MVA WAUKESHA TRANSFORMER PUD K-355 DIRECTION dBA OCTAVE-BAND CENTER FREQUENCY, Hz 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k I 115 kV bushings 84 76 78 84 87 84 77 71 67 62 and radiators (N) II (E) 85 75 81 95 87 83 77 72 68 64 III 12-kV bushings 84 76 81 90 84 79 78 73 71 64 (S) IV (W) 83 79 83 90 81 82 76 69 64 58 The measurements of transformer sound levels were conducted in close proximity to the unit in order to minimize the effect of other environmental noise sources. Furthermore, the transformer sound levels reported in Table 6-1 are based on the measured Lmin, which is not affected by intermittent ambient noise. However, these precautions did not completely eliminate the effect of background noise sources such as continuous traffic. For this reason, the source levels given in Table 6-1 are considered worst-case (high) estimates of the transformer emissions. In order to update the source emissions data obtained at Maplewood Substation, BRC Acoustics also measured the sound spectrum of the existing 28-MVA, Waukesha transformer installed at the Tulalip Substation. The measurements took place on Tuesday, August 23, 2016, using a Bruel & Kjaer 2250 spectrum analyzer. In order to quantify the noise emissions of the Waukesha transformer at Tulalip Substation, sound levels produced by the transformer were measured in octave bands at reference distances of 15 to 25 feet from the nearest surface of the transformer in four directions surrounding the unit. The load on the transformer was reported to be 279 to 301 amperes per phase during the measurements. The sound emissions of the 28-MVA Waukesha transformer (PUD K-362), normalized to sound power levels, are presented in Table 6-2. The sound levels shown in the table include the noise of eight cooling fans operating. The four directions are defined with respect to the principal features of the transformer and also to the proposed orientation at the Eagle Creek Substation site. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 11 TABLE 6-2 SOUND POWER LEVELS OF 28-MVA WAUKESHA TRANSFORMER PUD K-362 DIRECTION dBA OCTAVE-BAND CENTER FREQUENCY, Hz 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k I 115 kV bushings 78 73 78 83 79 76 73 66 61 61 (N) II (E) 79 87 78 87 82 75 73 66 61 61 III 12-kV bushings 73 84 77 79 72 71 69 61 56 52 (S) IV (W) 77 71 74 80 73 75 73 64 55 50 The measurements of transformer sound levels were conducted in close proximity to the unit in order to minimize the effect of other environmental noise sources. Furthermore, the transformer sound levels reported in Table 6-2 are based on the measured Lmin, which is not affected by intermittent ambient noise. However, these precautions did not completely eliminate the effect of background noise sources such as continuous traffic on Marine Drive NE. For this reason, the source levels given in Table 6-2 are considered worst-case (high) estimates of the transformer emissions for the given load. 6.2 Calculated Sound Levels at Neighboring Properties The sound levels received at surrounding properties from the proposed transformer banks were computed using the CadnaA program, which is based on International Standard ISO 9613 for the prediction of environmental noise. The model takes into account the sound power level, directivity, location, and height of the noise sources, distance, ground cover and topography between the noise source and receiver, atmospheric conditions, and location and height of the receiver. The calculations were conducted using transformer reference data from both Snohomish PUD K- 355 (measured at Maplewood Substation) and K-362 (measured at Tulalip Substation). As stated in Section 6.1, the data derived from K-355 included some interference from continuous traffic and therefore is expected to overestimate the resulting sound levels. The results modeled using K-362 are expected to be more representative of sound levels that will be experienced in the vicinity of the Eagle Creek Substation after the two transformer banks are energized. The sound calculations were executed for the nine Analysis Locations listed in Section 4 and shown in Figure 2-1. The calculated A-weighted sound levels at the Analysis Locations from the Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 12 proposed transformers without additional noise mitigation are shown in Table 6-3. The table also shows the Snohomish County noise limits (applicable at Location E6-1 and E6-2), State of Washington noise limits (applicable at all other Analysis Locations) and the existing measured or derived quietest-hour Leq at the measurement locations. The calculations indicate that, without noise mitigation, A-weighted sound levels produced by the proposed transformers would be below the Snohomish County or State of Washington daytime and nighttime noise limits of 55 dBA at all Analysis Locations. The calculated sound levels based on reference sound emissions of PUD K-362 are also at or below the nighttime noise limit of 45 dBA that applies to commercial source and residential receiver properties. As stated previously, electrical substations are exempt from the nighttime reduction in the noise limits. The calculated sound levels shown in Table 6-3 are also below the existing hourly Leq measured during the quietest nighttime hour at all Analysis Locations with the exception of Location E4-1. The comparison with existing conditions at Location E4-1 is not relevant since the location is currently unoccupied. 7. SOUND MITIGATION MEASURES The calculated sound levels presented in Table 6-3 indicate that the transformer banks proposed for the Eagle Creek Substation would comply with applicable noise limits at all Analysis Locations. Therefore, no additional noise mitigation measures are required. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 13 TABLE 6-3 CALCULATED SOUND LEVELS FROM THE PROPOSED SUBSTATION A-WEIGHTED DECIBELS (dBA) Sound Source Analysis Location E1-1 E2-1 E2-3 E3-1 E4-1 E5-1 E5-3 E6-1 E6-2 Two Waukesha Transformers 29 28 31 40 51 38 37 28 29 (modeled on PUD K-355)* Two Waukesha Transformers 24 22 25 31 45 32 31 22 23 (modeled on PUD K-362 State of Washington or Snohomish County 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 Permitted Sound Level Existing Quietest-Hour Leq Sound Level 40 36 -- 34 32 34 -- 32 42 *The reference sound emissions of PUD K-355 were overestimated due to interference by traffic. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page A-1 APPENDIX A Graphs of Measured Hourly Sound Levels Figure A-1 Existing Sound Levels Location E1-1 August 24-25, 2016 90 80 70 µPa 60 50 40 Sound Pressure Levels, re 20 30 20 Ldn 03:00:00 PM04:00:00 PM05:00:00 PM06:00:00 PM07:00:00 PM08:00:00 PM09:00:00 PM10:00:00 PM11:00:00 PM12:00:00 AM01:00:00 AM02:00:00 AM03:00:00 AM04:00:00 AM05:00:00 AM06:00:00 AM07:00:00 AM08:00:00 AM09:00:00 AM10:00:00 AM11:00:00 AM12:00:00 PM01:00:00 PM02:00:00 PM Time at Beginning of Hour Ldn Hourly Leq Hourly Lmax Hourly Lmin Figure A-2 Existing Sound Levels Location E3-1 August 23-24, 2016 90 80 70 60 50 Sound Pressure Levels, re 20µPa40 30 20 Ldn 0:00:001:00:002:00:003:00:004:00:005:00:006:00:007:00:008:00:009:00:00 13:00:0014:00:0015:00:0016:00:0017:00:0018:00:0019:00:0020:00:0021:00:0022:00:0023:00:00 10:00:0011:00:0012:00:00 Time at Beginning of Hour Ldn Hourly Leq Hourly Lmax Hourly Lmin Figure A-3 Existing Sound Levels Location E4-1 August 23-24, 2016 90 80 70 µPa 60 50 Sound Pressure Level, re 2040 30 20 Ldn 01:00:00 PM02:00:00 PM03:00:00 PM04:00:00 PM05:00:00 PM06:00:00 PM07:00:00 PM08:00:00 PM09:00:00 PM10:00:00 PM11:00:00 PM12:00:00 AM01:00:00 AM02:00:00 AM03:00:00 AM04:00:00 AM05:00:00 AM06:00:00 AM07:00:00 AM08:00:00 AM09:00:00 AM10:00:00 AM11:00:00 AM12:00:00 PM Time at Beginning of Hour Ldn Hourly Leq Hourly Lmax Hourly Lmin SOUND ANALYSIS for SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD EAGLE CREEK SUBSTATION ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON Submitted to: Snohomish County PUD 1802 – 75th St. SW Everett, Washington 98203 Prepared by: Ioana Park, P.E. 1932 First Avenue, Suite 620 Seattle, WA 98101 p: 206.270.8910 f: 206.270.8690 www.brcacoustics.com October 12, 2016 Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page ii CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1 2. PROJECT SITE AND NEARBY LAND USES.......................................................................1 3. SOUND LEVEL DESCRIPTORS............................................................................................3 4. EXISTING SOUND LEVELS..................................................................................................4 5. PERMITTED SOUND LEVELS..............................................................................................7 6. CALCULATED SOUND LEVELS FROM THE PROPOSED SUBSTATION......................9 7. SOUND MITIGATION MEASURES....................................................................................12 APPENDIX A..............................................................................................................................A-1 Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION This report is a sound analysis of the proposed Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) Eagle Creek Substation to be located in Arlington, Washington. The scope of this report is to present existing sound levels measured near the proposed substation site, to evaluate sound levels from two electrical transformers proposed for the site with respect to State of Washington and Snohomish County noise regulations, and to recommend noise-mitigation measures as necessary. 2. PROJECT SITE AND NEARBY LAND USES Figure 2-1 shows a vicinity aerial photograph of the project site, surrounding properties, and sound measurement and calculation locations. The project site is currently a utility yard and not used as a substation. The site’s west boundary adjoins a power-line easement and multi-family housing beyond. A single-family residence is located immediately to the south. The project site's north boundary adjoins 212th St. NE (Tveit Road). Directly across to the north are the Snohomish County PUD East Arlington Substation and single-family residences beyond. To the northwest, across 212th St NE, are single-family townhomes forming the 910 Medical Center Drive subdivision. Properties to the east and northeast (across Tveit Road) are currently undeveloped. The substation site and the East Arlington Substation property to the north (across Tveit Road) are zoned P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) by the City of Arlington. Adjacent properties to the west and south and properties to the north (beyond East Arlington Substation) are zoned RHD (High- Density Residential) by the City of Arlington. Properties to the east are zoned SR (Suburban Residential) by the City of Arlington with a Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay. Properties to the northeast (across Tveit Road) are zoned PRD SA-1 (Planned Residential Development) by Snohomish County, with a Comprehensive-Plan designation of Urban Low-Density Residential (4-6 dwelling units/acre) and are currently unoccupied. The nearest residential properties to the northeast are located approximately 450 feet away, fronting on 89th Avenue NE. The proposed site development includes installation of two 28-MVA Waukesha transformers at the locations shown in Figure 2-1. E2-1 E1-1 E2-3 E6-2 E6-1 Project Site E4-1 E5-1 Transformers E5-3 E3-1 16.067 Figure 2-1 Date Name Drafted 10-12-16 IP Snohomish PUD Eagle Creek Substation Sound Analysis Sound Measurement and Analysis Locations Checked BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 3 3. SOUND LEVEL DESCRIPTORS Sound is measured as sound level in units of decibels, dB. Environmental sound is often measured as A-weighted sound level in dBA. The A-weighting is a specific weighting filter in a sound level meter that corresponds to human hearing sensitivity at the various sound frequencies. People normally experience sound levels between about 30 and 90 dBA, depending on their activity. For example, a loud nearby vehicle, radio or power tool may produce 80 to 90 dBA, normal conversation is about 50 to 60 dBA, and a bedroom or quiet office is about 30 to 40 dBA. Each 10-dB increase in sound level corresponds to a tenfold increase of sound energy, but is judged by a listener as only a doubling of loudness. The smallest changes in sound level considered clearly noticeable are about 3 to 5 dBA. Sound levels from two or more sources are combined using logarithms, not by adding the levels. When two levels are combined, the louder level predominates, and the combined level is the louder level plus 0 to 3 dBA. Some examples: 50 dBA combined with 50 dBA is 53 dBA, and 50 dBA combined with 40 dBA results in 50.4 dBA. Because sound levels fluctuate over time, several sound-level descriptors are used to characterize the sound. In this report, the following descriptors are used: Leq Equivalent sound level, Leq, is the most commonly used descriptor for measuring fluctuating sound. The Leq is the level of a constant sound that, over a given time period, contains the same amount of sound energy as the measured fluctuating sound. Ldn Day-night average sound level, Ldn, is the Leq over 24 hours with a 10-dBA penalty added during the nighttime hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The Ldn is often used to measure the overall 24- hour sound to determine land-use compatibility and overall impacts. The Ldn is usually close to the same level as the daytime Leq. Lmax Maximum sound level, Lmax, is the highest instantaneous sound level for a given sound source, event, or time period. Because the Lmax in a neighborhood will, unlike Leq, typically have large fluctuations from hour to hour and day to day, Lmax is seldom used to measure noise impact, except in cases where brief high- level sound is causing an impact such as sleep disturbance. Lmin Minimum sound level, Lmin, is the lowest sound level during the measurement period. The Lmin is an effective descriptor for quantifying the relatively steady level of sound that is present in Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 4 the absence of local noise events. If a continuous sound source such as a transformer is operating, the Lmin may be caused by that source. Sound Spectrum For a sound comprising energy over a range of frequencies, the distribution of sound energy by frequency. When considering sounds with a frequency spectrum such as the hum of a transformer, which is characterized by a large portion of the sound energy being concentrated in the 60-Hz and 120-Hz bands, the sound spectrum is also measured. The sound pressure levels are usually measured in frequency bands of one octave centered at frequencies of 31, 63, 125, 250, 500, 1000 (1k), 2000 (2k), 4000 (4k), and 8000 (8k) Hz. The most important of these octave bands in terms of potential annoyance is the 125 Hz octave band, because transformer hum occurs primarily at 120 Hz. 4. EXISTING SOUND LEVELS Existing sound levels were measured at six locations near the proposed substation site, shown in Figure 2-1 as Locations E1-1 to E6-1. Two types of measurements were performed. Continuous measurements for 24 hours were conducted at Locations E1-1, E3-1, and E4-1, using a RION NL-32 and a Bruel & Kjaer 2238 Integrating Sound Level Meter. Short-term (ten-minute), attended measurements were made at all six locations, using a Bruel & Kjaer 2250 Real-Time Spectrum Analyzer. All instruments conform to ANSI S1.4 requirements for Type I measurement systems. All measurements were conducted at the first-story elevation of five feet above the ground elevation. The locations and times of the measurements were as follows: Location Description E1-1 At the south property line of the residential property at 21302 87th Ave. A-weighted sound levels were measured continuously for 24 hours beginning at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, August 24, 2016, using a Bruel & Kjaer 2238 Integrating Sound Level Meter. A 10-minute measurement of A-weighted and octave-band sound pressure levels was made on Thursday, August 25, 2016 beginning at 2 p.m. E2-1 At the west boundary of the power-line easement, adjacent to the residential subdivision at 910 Medical Drive, near Unit 101. A 10-minute measurement of A-weighted and octave-band sound pressure levels was made on Thursday, August 25, 2016 beginning at 12:50 p.m. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 5 E3-1 At the north property line of the residential property at 8618 212th St. NE, south of the substation. A-weighted sound levels were measured continuously for 24 hours beginning at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, August 23, 2016 using a RION NL-32 Integrating Sound Level Meter. A 10-minute measurement of A-weighted and octave-band sound pressure levels was made on Tuesday, August 23, 2016 beginning at 2:10 p.m. E4-1 At the east property line of the substation, directly east of the proposed transformers. A-weighted sound levels were measured continuously for 24 hours beginning at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, August 23, 2016, using a Bruel & Kjaer 2238 Integrating Sound Level Meter. A 10-minute measurement of A-weighted and octave-band sound pressure levels was made on Tuesday, August 23, 2016 beginning at 2:30 p.m. E5-1 At the west boundary of the power-line easement, adjacent to the residential property at 8510 212th St. NE. A 10-minute measurement of A-weighted and octave-band sound pressure levels was made on Tuesday, August 23, 2016 beginning at 2:50 p.m. E6-1 At the west property line of the residential property at 21202 89th Ave. NE, northeast of the site. A 10-minute measurement of A-weighted and octave-band sound pressure levels was made on Tuesday, August 23, 2016 beginning at 3:20 p.m. Three additional locations were considered in the analysis and are shown in Figure 2-1 and listed in Table 4-1. TABLE 4-1 ADDITIONAL SOUND ANALYSIS LOCATIONS Loc Description E2-3 3rd-story, southeast corner window of 910 Medical Dr., Unit 101 E5-3 3rd-story, east-facing window of 8510 212th St. NE Building, Unit 307 E6-2 2nd-story, west-facing window of residence at 21202 89th Ave. NE The weather during the measurements was clear, with daytime temperatures in the mid- to high 80s, nighttime temperatures in the mid-50s degrees Fahrenheit, and northwest winds at 10 to 12 mph. The weather was within the range allowed by Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-58 for the measurement of environmental sound. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 6 Results of the long-term measurements are shown in Figures A-1 to A-3 in Appendix A. The A- weighted sound levels are shown as Leq, Lmax, and Lmin over one-hour intervals, and 24-hour Ldn. The results of the 10-minute measurements at Locations E2-1, E5-1, and E6-1 are shown in Table 4-2. TABLE 4-2 TEN-MINUTE DAYTIME SOUND MEASUREMENTS (Leq, dBA) MEASUREMENT LOCATION E2-1 E5-1 E6-1 8/25/16 8/23/16 8/23/16 Date and time of measurement 12:50 p.m. 2:50 p.m. 3:20 p.m. (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) Measured 10-minute Leq 48 49 55 Nearest 24-hour monitor E1-1 E4-1 E4-1 Simultaneous 10-min Leq measured at nearest 52 47 45 monitor Quietest nighttime hourly Leq measured at 40 32 32 nearest monitor Derived quietest nighttime hourly Leq at short- 36 34 42 term measurement location The principal sources of sound at locations surrounding the Eagle Creek site are intermittent traffic (including truck traffic) on Tveit Road, aircraft flyovers (including training flights from nearby Arlington Municipal Airport), concentrated periods of activity at the existing Eagle Creek Pole Yard, and daytime residential renovation activities at 8510 212th St. NE. (southwest of Location E5-1). During the daytime, sound from transformers at the existing East Arlington Substation was clearly audible at Location E1-1. The daytime hourly Leq sound levels at the long-term measurement locations are generally in the low to upper 40s dBA during the daytime, with occasional hourly Leq exceeding 50 dBA. The hourly Leq sound levels at Locations E3-1 and E4-1 are in the 30s dBA during the late-night hours. Hourly Leq sound levels at Location E1-1 remain above 40 dBA during the nighttime hours due to the steady sound from the existing transformers at the East Arlington Substation. The measurements at Locations E3-1 and E4-1 (Figures A-2 and A-3) show elevated sound levels during the morning hours of 6 to 8 a.m., attributable to activities at the existing Pole Yard. Existing sound levels at Locations E2-1, E5-1, and E6-1 are consistent with a suburban residential community. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 7 5. PERMITTED SOUND LEVELS 5.1City of Arlington Arlington Municipal Code Section 9.20.060, Nuisance noise originating from private property or premises not open to the public, adopts by reference the noise limits contained in Chapter 173- 60, Maximum Environmental Noise Levels, of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Noise limits under WAC 173-60 are based on the Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement (EDNA) of source and receiver properties. Where a local Zoning Code is in effect, the EDNA classification is made according to the zoning designation of source and receiver properties, with residential zones generally being Class A EDNA, commercial zones Class B, and industrial zones Class C. The maximum permissible sound levels according to WAC Chapter 173-60 are listed in Table 5- 1. TABLE 5-1 STATE OF WASHINGTON PERMITTED SOUND LEVELS (dBA) EDNA of Sound Source EDNA of Receiver A B C A 55 57 60 B 57 60 65 C 60 65 70 The Eagle Creek Substation site is zoned P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) by the City of Arlington. The Zoning Code does not specifically categorize this zone as Residential or Commercial. For the purpose of a conservative (worst-case) analysis, the substation site is considered EDNA A (Residential), consistent with the zoning of neighboring properties. Residential properties to the north (beyond East Arlington Substation), northwest, west, south, and east are categorized as Class A EDNA. The noise limit for EDNA A source and receiver properties is 55 dBA. Between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., the permitted sound levels listed in Table 5-1 are reduced by 10 dBA for Class A EDNA receivers. Electrical substations are exempt from the reduction in noise limits for nighttime conditions; therefore the noise limit pertaining to sound produced by the transformers and received at surrounding residential properties is 55 dBA. For sound sources of short duration, the noise limits are increased as follows: ï‚· By 5 dBA for a total of fifteen minutes in any one-hour period; or, ï‚· By 10 dBA for a total of five minutes in any one-hour period; or, ï‚· By 15 dBA for a total of 1.5 minutes in any one-hour period. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 8 For steady-state sound sources such as transformers, the limit of 55 dBA is primarily relevant. The permitted exceedances for short-duration noises ensure that momentary noise from equipment start-up will not exceed State of Washington noise limits. The noise limits apply to equipment within the substation. The limits do not apply to traffic on public roads or aircraft flyovers. 5.2Snohomish County Sound levels between properties in unincorporated Snohomish County are regulated by Chapter 10.01, Noise Control, of the Snohomish County Code (SCC). Noise limits under SCC 10.01 are based on the District of source and receiver properties, which is assigned according to land-use zoning. The maximum permissible sound levels according to SCC Chapter 10.01 are listed in Table 5-2. TABLE 5-2 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PERMITTED SOUND LEVELS (dBA) District of Receiving District of Noise Source Property Rural Residential Commercial Industrial Rural 49 52 55 57 Residential 52 55 57 60 Commercial 55 57 60 65 Industrial 57 60 65 70 As stated in Section 5.1, the site of the Eagle Creek Substation is zoned P/SP by the City of Arlington and is considered Residential for the purpose of this sound analysis. Properties to the northeast, across Tveit Road, are zoned Residential by Snohomish County. The noise limit for Residential noise sources and receivers is 55 dBA. During nighttime hours, the permitted sound levels listed in Table 5-2 are reduced by 10 dBA for Residential receivers. Furthermore, the permitted sound levels listed in Table 5-2 are reduced by 5 dBA for sound sources which have a pure-tone component and Residential receivers. Electrical substations are exempt from both the reduction in noise limits for nighttime conditions and the reduction for pure-tone components; therefore the noise limit pertaining to sound produced by the transformers and received at residences to the northeast is 55 dBA. For sound sources of short duration, the noise limits are increased as follows: ï‚· By 5 dBA for a total of fifteen minutes in any one-hour period; or, ï‚· By 10 dBA for a total of five minutes in any one-hour period; or, ï‚· By 15 dBA for a total of 1.5 minutes in any one-hour period. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 9 For steady-state sound sources such as transformers, the noise limit of 55 dBA is primarily relevant. The permitted exceedances for short-duration noises ensure that momentary noise from equipment start-up will not exceed Snohomish County noise limits. The noise limits apply to equipment within the substation. The limits do not apply to traffic on public roads or aircraft flyovers. 6. CALCULATED SOUND LEVELS FROM THE PROPOSED SUBSTATION Snohomish County PUD proposes to construct a new double-banked substation on the site of the existing Arlington Pole Yard property. The new Eagle Creek Substation would be constructed during 2017. Two 28-MVA Waukesha power transformers would be installed in the north half of the property. 6.1Reference Sound Levels of Proposed Transformers In order to quantify the sound emissions of the proposed 28-MVA Waukesha transformers, BRC Acoustics conducted measurements of two existing transformers of the same manufacture and model, located at the Snohomish PUD Maplewood and Tulalip Substations. The sound spectrum of the 28-MVA Waukesha transformer (Snohomish PUD K-355) currently located at the Snohomish PUD Maplewood Substation was measured on December 30, 2013, using a Bruel & Kjaer 2270 spectrum analyzer. In order to quantify the noise emissions of the Waukesha transformer at Maplewood Substation, sound levels produced by the transformer were measured in octave bands at reference distances of 8 to 13 feet from the nearest surface of the transformer in four directions surrounding the unit. The load on the transformer was reported by the District’s SCADA network to be 450-550 amperes per phase during the measurements. The sound emissions of the 28-MVA Waukesha transformer (PUD K-355), normalized to sound power levels, are presented in Table 6-1. The sound levels shown in the table include the noise of eight cooling fans operating. The four directions are defined with respect to the principal features of the transformer and also to the proposed orientation at the Eagle Creek Substation. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 10 TABLE 6-1 SOUND POWER LEVELS OF 28-MVA WAUKESHA TRANSFORMER PUD K-355 DIRECTION dBA OCTAVE-BAND CENTER FREQUENCY, Hz 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k I 115 kV bushings 84 76 78 84 87 84 77 71 67 62 and radiators (N) II (E) 85 75 81 95 87 83 77 72 68 64 III 12-kV bushings 84 76 81 90 84 79 78 73 71 64 (S) IV (W) 83 79 83 90 81 82 76 69 64 58 The measurements of transformer sound levels were conducted in close proximity to the unit in order to minimize the effect of other environmental noise sources. Furthermore, the transformer sound levels reported in Table 6-1 are based on the measured Lmin, which is not affected by intermittent ambient noise. However, these precautions did not completely eliminate the effect of background noise sources such as continuous traffic. For this reason, the source levels given in Table 6-1 are considered worst-case (high) estimates of the transformer emissions. In order to update the source emissions data obtained at Maplewood Substation, BRC Acoustics also measured the sound spectrum of the existing 28-MVA, Waukesha transformer installed at the Tulalip Substation. The measurements took place on Tuesday, August 23, 2016, using a Bruel & Kjaer 2250 spectrum analyzer. In order to quantify the noise emissions of the Waukesha transformer at Tulalip Substation, sound levels produced by the transformer were measured in octave bands at reference distances of 15 to 25 feet from the nearest surface of the transformer in four directions surrounding the unit. The load on the transformer was reported to be 279 to 301 amperes per phase during the measurements. The sound emissions of the 28-MVA Waukesha transformer (PUD K-362), normalized to sound power levels, are presented in Table 6-2. The sound levels shown in the table include the noise of eight cooling fans operating. The four directions are defined with respect to the principal features of the transformer and also to the proposed orientation at the Eagle Creek Substation site. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 11 TABLE 6-2 SOUND POWER LEVELS OF 28-MVA WAUKESHA TRANSFORMER PUD K-362 DIRECTION dBA OCTAVE-BAND CENTER FREQUENCY, Hz 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k I 115 kV bushings 78 73 78 83 79 76 73 66 61 61 (N) II (E) 79 87 78 87 82 75 73 66 61 61 III 12-kV bushings 73 84 77 79 72 71 69 61 56 52 (S) IV (W) 77 71 74 80 73 75 73 64 55 50 The measurements of transformer sound levels were conducted in close proximity to the unit in order to minimize the effect of other environmental noise sources. Furthermore, the transformer sound levels reported in Table 6-2 are based on the measured Lmin, which is not affected by intermittent ambient noise. However, these precautions did not completely eliminate the effect of background noise sources such as continuous traffic on Marine Drive NE. For this reason, the source levels given in Table 6-2 are considered worst-case (high) estimates of the transformer emissions for the given load. 6.2 Calculated Sound Levels at Neighboring Properties The sound levels received at surrounding properties from the proposed transformer banks were computed using the CadnaA program, which is based on International Standard ISO 9613 for the prediction of environmental noise. The model takes into account the sound power level, directivity, location, and height of the noise sources, distance, ground cover and topography between the noise source and receiver, atmospheric conditions, and location and height of the receiver. The calculations were conducted using transformer reference data from both Snohomish PUD K- 355 (measured at Maplewood Substation) and K-362 (measured at Tulalip Substation). As stated in Section 6.1, the data derived from K-355 included some interference from continuous traffic and therefore is expected to overestimate the resulting sound levels. The results modeled using K-362 are expected to be more representative of sound levels that will be experienced in the vicinity of the Eagle Creek Substation after the two transformer banks are energized. The sound calculations were executed for the nine Analysis Locations listed in Section 4 and shown in Figure 2-1. The calculated A-weighted sound levels at the Analysis Locations from the Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 12 proposed transformers without additional noise mitigation are shown in Table 6-3. The table also shows the Snohomish County noise limits (applicable at Location E6-1 and E6-2), State of Washington noise limits (applicable at all other Analysis Locations) and the existing measured or derived quietest-hour Leq at the measurement locations. The calculations indicate that, without noise mitigation, A-weighted sound levels produced by the proposed transformers would be below the Snohomish County or State of Washington daytime and nighttime noise limits of 55 dBA at all Analysis Locations. The calculated sound levels based on reference sound emissions of PUD K-362 are also at or below the nighttime noise limit of 45 dBA that applies to commercial source and residential receiver properties. As stated previously, electrical substations are exempt from the nighttime reduction in the noise limits. The calculated sound levels shown in Table 6-3 are also below the existing hourly Leq measured during the quietest nighttime hour at all Analysis Locations with the exception of Location E4-1. The comparison with existing conditions at Location E4-1 is not relevant since the location is currently unoccupied. 7. SOUND MITIGATION MEASURES The calculated sound levels presented in Table 6-3 indicate that the transformer banks proposed for the Eagle Creek Substation would comply with applicable noise limits at all Analysis Locations. Therefore, no additional noise mitigation measures are required. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page 13 TABLE 6-3 CALCULATED SOUND LEVELS FROM THE PROPOSED SUBSTATION A-WEIGHTED DECIBELS (dBA) Sound Source Analysis Location E1-1 E2-1 E2-3 E3-1 E4-1 E5-1 E5-3 E6-1 E6-2 Two Waukesha Transformers 29 28 31 40 51 38 37 28 29 (modeled on PUD K-355)* Two Waukesha Transformers 24 22 25 31 45 32 31 22 23 (modeled on PUD K-362 State of Washington or Snohomish County 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 Permitted Sound Level Existing Quietest-Hour Leq Sound Level 40 36 -- 34 32 34 -- 32 42 *The reference sound emissions of PUD K-355 were overestimated due to interference by traffic. Sound Analysis BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Substation Arlington, WA October 12, 2016 Page A-1 APPENDIX A Graphs of Measured Hourly Sound Levels Figure A-1 Existing Sound Levels Location E1-1 August 24-25, 2016 90 80 70 µPa 60 50 40 Sound Pressure Levels, re 20 30 20 Ldn 03:00:00 PM04:00:00 PM05:00:00 PM06:00:00 PM07:00:00 PM08:00:00 PM09:00:00 PM10:00:00 PM11:00:00 PM12:00:00 AM01:00:00 AM02:00:00 AM03:00:00 AM04:00:00 AM05:00:00 AM06:00:00 AM07:00:00 AM08:00:00 AM09:00:00 AM10:00:00 AM11:00:00 AM12:00:00 PM01:00:00 PM02:00:00 PM Time at Beginning of Hour Ldn Hourly Leq Hourly Lmax Hourly Lmin Figure A-2 Existing Sound Levels Location E3-1 August 23-24, 2016 90 80 70 60 50 Sound Pressure Levels, re 20µPa40 30 20 Ldn 0:00:001:00:002:00:003:00:004:00:005:00:006:00:007:00:008:00:009:00:00 13:00:0014:00:0015:00:0016:00:0017:00:0018:00:0019:00:0020:00:0021:00:0022:00:0023:00:00 10:00:0011:00:0012:00:00 Time at Beginning of Hour Ldn Hourly Leq Hourly Lmax Hourly Lmin Figure A-3 Existing Sound Levels Location E4-1 August 23-24, 2016 90 80 70 µPa 60 50 Sound Pressure Level, re 2040 30 20 Ldn 01:00:00 PM02:00:00 PM03:00:00 PM04:00:00 PM05:00:00 PM06:00:00 PM07:00:00 PM08:00:00 PM09:00:00 PM10:00:00 PM11:00:00 PM12:00:00 AM01:00:00 AM02:00:00 AM03:00:00 AM04:00:00 AM05:00:00 AM06:00:00 AM07:00:00 AM08:00:00 AM09:00:00 AM10:00:00 AM11:00:00 AM12:00:00 PM Time at Beginning of Hour Ldn Hourly Leq Hourly Lmax Hourly Lmin STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW This Stormwater Site Plan has been prepared for the Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Sub‐ station. The subject property is located at 8630 212th St NE, Arlington on tax parcel 31051200300600. This project involves the redevelopment of the existing, PUD Arlington Pole Yard to construct a new sub‐station. The property has a total size of 1.00 acres. See Figure 1: Vicinity Map for graphic location and Figure 3: Developed Site for the proposed site plan. The site is currently developed as a gravel yard for pole and equipment storage. See Figure 2: Existing Conditions. METHODOLOGY The drainage design for the project has been prepared based on the requirements of the 2012/14 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (DOE Manual) as adopted by the City of Arlington. In addition, this report uses design guidelines provided by the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. WWHM2012 as provided by DOE has been used for determining basin runoff and for sizing of the stormwater facilities. Based on the flow charts in Figure 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of the DOE Manual (attached) and the site parameters, the project is subject to Minimum Requirements 1‐9. The project site parameters are: ï‚· The site has greater than 35% existing impervious coverage. Use Figure 2.4.2. ï‚· The project will create more than 2,000 sf of new or replaced hard surface. ï‚· The project will create less than 5,000 sf of new hard surface. ï‚· The project will redevelop greater than 5,000 sf of hard surface. ï‚· It is not a road related project. ï‚· The project exceeds 50% of the assessed (replacement value). Therefore all minimum requirements apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 2 MR 1: PREPARATION OF STORMWATER SITE PLANS DRAINAGE PLAN DESCRIPTION Direct precipitation and tributary upstream slopes are the source of on‐site stormwater. The entire site will be redeveloped with access from 212th Street NE and from the adjacent driveway to the west. Upstream runoff will be bypassed while site runoff will be infiltrated through the substation gravel. Treatment is not proposed as the site will not see customary vehicle traffic. EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The site is located to the south of 212th St NE in the City of Arlington. Eagle Creek lies to the east with buffers that extend onto the site. The ground cover on the site is almost fully gravel surfacing with some areas of weeds along the edges. Equipment and power poles are stored on the site and there are two portable storage structures. Grades generally descend from northwest to southeast and east with the local high elevation of 158 at the northwest corner and the low of 150 at the southeast corner and running half way up the east line. There are no existing storm structures as all runoff sheet flows to the east and southeast, discharging into Eagle Creek. A review of the Department of Ecology 303d listings indicate no local listings of the immediately downstream waters. SOILS DESCRIPTION Zipper Geo Associates, LLC has prepared a geotechnical report for the site titled Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Eagle Creek Substation dated September 15, 2016. To the northwest, their borings and test pits encountered fill lying over outwash material that lies over till. In the southeast, they encountered a large area of peat overlying till at depth. See Appendix B. EXISTING BASIN The existing basin will be the extent of the site gravel and landscaping. An upstream basin has been identified to the west that accounts for some descending slopes in the area of the power transmission lines. WATER QUALITY MEASURES TEMPORARY Following is a list of the proposed construction water quality BMPs. These are discussed fully in the Project Surface Water Pollution Prevention Narrative under separate cover. The proposed BMPs are as follows: BMP C101, Preserving Natural Vegetation BMP C103, High Visibility Fence BMP C105, Construction Entrance P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 3 BMP C107, Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization BMP C120, Temporary and Permanent Seeding BMP C121, Mulching BMP C123, Plastic Covering BMP C125, Topsoiling/Composting BMP C140, Dust Control BMP C150, Materials On Hand BMP C151, Concrete Handling BMP C153, Material Delivery, Storage and Containment BMP C154, Concrete Washout Area BMP C160, Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead BMP C200, Interceptor Dike and Swale BMP C201, Grass‐Lined Channels BMP C207, Checkdams BMP C209, Outlet Protection BMP C220, Storm Inlet Protection BMP C233, Silt Fence PERMANENT SOURCE CONTROL Maintenance of Stormwater Drainage Systems Parking lot sweeping (maintenance of the substation pad) DETENTION SIZING WWHM from the Department of Ecology was used to determine depths of storage in the rock reservoir. Calculations and sizing are discussed further in MR 7. CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONS Conveyance calculations are provided in MR 5. STORMWATER TREATMENT BMP’S No permanent water quality BMP’s are proposed. The site is a substation and will have no regular traffic except for occasional maintenance vehicles. See DOE Volume 1, Appendix G, Vehicle Use. PROTECTION OF WETLANDS Eagle Creek has buffers that extend onto the site. Wetland Resources has prepared a Critical Areas Study to address existing and proposed impacts. Upstream flow will be routed around the site and discharge as sheet flow in the wetland buffer. Site flows will be infiltrated and enter Eagle Creek as part of subsurface flow. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE The specific requirements for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the proposed storm water systems is detailed in Minimum Requirement #10. P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 4 UPSTREAM ANALYSIS There are slopes to the west that descend down to the site. This amounts to 0.46 acres in extent. This area is predominately thick grass and blackberry with an asphalt trail and a gravel driveway running through it. This will be intercepted in a bypass swale and discharged to the east over a level spreader. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS Runoff leaves the site as sheet flow to the east into Eagle Creek. This creek flows north crossing under 212th St NE through a 24” CMP culvert. It continues north in a large wetland corridor, crosses under a boardwalk that allows access to a power pole, and then meanders to the east and then north in a farm ditch before it discharges into an old arm of the Stillaguamish River about 8 tenths of a mile from the site. Given that infiltration is proposed for the site, there will be a decrease in the impact of the site on the flow capacity of the creek. As such, no capacity calculations are proposed for Eagle Creek. P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 5 MR 2: CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION A Department of Ecology Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared under separate cover. MR 3: WATER POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER BMPs Construction source controls are covered under the SWPPP PERMANENT SOURCE CONTROL BMPs The following source controls apply: ï‚· Vegetation management; ï‚· Cleaning of paved surfaces; ï‚· Storm drainage maintenance; MR 4: PRESERVATION OF NATURAL DRAINAGE DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM Currently the site sheet flows east into the woods associated with Eagle Creek. This sheet flow is uncontrolled with no storm drainage system. It is proposed to infiltrate substation runoff through the gravel surfacing. This water will continue to Eagle Creek as subsurface flow. Upstream runoff from the tributary basin to the west will be collected and routed to a level spreader to preserve the discharge and mimic a sheetflow condition. UPSTREAM BASIN There are slopes to the west that descend down to the site. This amounts to 0.46 acres in extent. This area is predominately thick grass and blackberry with an asphalt trail and a gravel driveway running through it (0.1 ac Imp). This flow will be intercepted in a bypass swale and discharged to the east over a level spreader. Located in C soils on Moderate slopes, the basin has an expected 100 year flow of 0.16 cfs. See conveyance caluculations in MR 5. P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 6 MR 5: ON‐SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Being required to meet Minimum Requirements #1‐9 and being a redevelopment site inside a UGA (inside the City limits) with greater than 5,000 sf of redeveloped impervious; the site will need to meet the Low Impact Development Performance Standard or use List #2. Use of List #2 is proposed as follows: Lawn and Landscaped Areas: 1) Post Construction Soil Quality and Depth: BMP T5.13 will be implemented on disturbed and landscaped areas. Roof Areas: There are no roof areas. Pavement Areas: 1) Full Dispersion is not practical on this site due to existing development. 2) Permeable Pavement: It is proposed to use a variant of this method. The Geotechnical Engineer has given infiltration rates and has tested the proposed substation gravel and crushed surfacing for rate and voids. This is detailed in MR 7. The asphalt access pad to the north will be fully infiltrated in an underground rock trench. CONVEYANCE The upstream flow was estimated at 0.16 cfs. In a worst case scenario, the paved apron will also contribute to the flow, adding 0.07 cfs for a total flow of 0.23 cfs. The swale has a bottom width of 2 feet, 3:1 side slopes, and a minimum grade of 1%. Using Flowmasterâ„¢ (see attached), the velocity and depth were found to be: 0.81 feet per second at 0.12 feet depth. Considering that this only counts the actual open portion of the swale and not the drain rock below, the swale has more then adequate capacity. LEVEL SPREADER With a maximum anticpated upstream flow of 0.23 cfs (not this discounts any infiltration into the native soils over the course of the upstream interceptor), a level spreader calcution was preprared. The level spreader acts like a rectangular weir with a simplified equation of: Q = 3.33 * b * h^1.5 Solving for h give – h = (Q/(3.33 * b))^0.67. With Q = 0.23 cfs, b = 20 feet then h = 0.02 feet. Apparent velocity over the weir would then be V = Q/A yielding an excpected velocity of 0.58 f/s. This is a non‐erosive velocity. The level spreader discharges into a stream buffer with no structures or other man made facilities between the spreader and the stream channel. The ground is well vegetated. P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 7 MR 6: RUNOFF TREATMENT The site is a power substation with a gravel surfacing for maintenance. There is no customary traffic or parking requirement. A maintenance vehicle will access the site on a weekly basis. Such minimal use does not warrant runoff treatment. This would be per Volume V, Section 4.1.3 Bullet Point 3. MR 7: FLOW CONTROL According to the Thresholds in Minimum Requirement #7, the following are characteristics of the site: The site has less than 10,000 sf of effective impervious. The only effective impervious is the asphalt apron, approximately 2,500 sf. The substation rock will be pervious, allowing water to flow vertically to the subgrade and infiltrate and thus will be ineffective impervious. The site does not convert vegetative surfaces. The site will not increase runoff by more than 0.1 cfs. The existing site is primarily impervious, crushed rock. That will be replaced with pervious substation rock and landscaping. This will effectively reduce runoff. Based on this assessment, the substation does not require runoff control. The sub station pad will infiltrate through the use of a permeable surface while the asphalt pad will discharge to the upstream conveyance system and be discharged over the level spreader. Zipper Geo Associates, LLC has provided the following recommendations for the substation pad: Infiltration: Uncorrected Infiltration Rate: 4.7 in/hr Reductions: 40% reduction in baseline, 0.8 CFm and 0.9 CFv Final Infiltration Rate: 2 in/hr Surfacing: Zipper Geo Associates, Inc has tested the Iron Mountain crushed surfacing base course and found it to have permeability at 95% compaction of 130 in/hr and a void ratio over 40%. This is the material we propose to lie below the substation surface rock which is open graded and also highly permeable. Groundwater: P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 8 The geotechnical report indicates that groundwater is generally 2.5 to 4 feet below existing grade, ranging in elevation from approximately 147.5 to 151. BASIN The drainage basin is as follows: Basin area: 0.65 acres Substation gravel: 0.56 acres Asphalt apron: 0.05 acres Lawn/Landscape: 0.04 acres The paving section will be 4 inches of substation rock over 6 inches of crushed surfacing. The crushed surfacing will act as the reservoir. Calculations indicate that the water runs into the ground at less than 0.1 ft depth in the reservoir. Understandable as the 2 inch per hour infiltration rate is large compared with storm events. The site was modeled as pervious pavement The result is 100% infiltration of runoff on the substation. When the asphalt apron and landscaped area is included in the calculation (undetained), the site meets flow control requirements. See WWHM2012 output in Appendix B. EMERGENCY OVERFLOW In an emergency condition, collected runoff will gather near the southeast corner of the station and overtop the concrete, fence curb and flow into the upstream conveyance level spreader. CONVEYANCE DISCUSSION There are no conveyance calculations associated with the substation. There is a proposed storm conveyance system; however, this system is to keep standing water out of the transformer vaults. A special, automatic shut off valve is installed downstream of the transformers to protect against a transformer failure that leaks lubrication oil into the vault. MR 8: WETLANDS PROTECTION Eagle Creek and its associated wetlands lie down gradient to the east. Flow from the site will be infiltrated and flow into the creek as part of the regional groundwater. Upstream flow will bypass the site and enter the buffer as sheetflow. With 100% infiltration, the proposed condition is the preferred storm water solution that mimics original site conditions of forest. MR 9: BASIN/WATERSHED PLANNING The City of Arlington uses the 2012/14 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. There are no other site specific requirements. The City’s 2010 Final Stormwater Comprehensive Plan was reviewed for the Eagle Creek Basin. Through the use of infiltration, the proposed development is not expected to have an impact on identified problems and should have an overall benefit. P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 9 MR 10: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE See Operations and Maintenance Manual provided under separate cover. P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc Worksheet Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Worksheet Trapezoidal Channe Flow Element Trapezoidal Channe Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.040 Channel Slope 010000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 3.00 H : V Right Side Slope 3.00 H : V Bottom Width 2.00 ft Discharge 0.23 cfs Results Depth 0.12 ft Flow Area 0.3 ft² Wetted Perime 2.76 ft Top Width 2.72 ft Critical Depth 0.07 ft Critical Slope 0.058025 ft/ft Velocity 0.81 ft/s Velocity Head 0.01 ft Specific Energ 0.13 ft Froude Numbe 0.45 Flow Type Subcritical Project Engineer: Steve Mason untitled.fm2 Harmsen & Associates Inc FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 03/08/17 10:01:27 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ Project Name: EaglePUD Site Name: Site Address: City : Report Date: 3/8/2017 Gage : Everett Data Start : 1948/10/01 Data End : 2009/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.20 Version Date: 2016/02/25 Version : 4.2.12 ___________________________________________________________________ Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year ___________________________________________________________________ High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year ___________________________________________________________________ PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Mod .65 Pervious Total 0.65 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 0.65 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Permeable Pavement 1 Pavement Area: 0.5601 ft. Pavement Length: 200.00 ft. Pavement Width: 122.00 ft. Pavement slope 1: 0.015 To 1 Pavement thickness: 0.5 Pour Space of Pavement: 0.3 Material thickness of second layer: 0.5 Pour Space of material for second layer: 0.3 Material thickness of third layer: 0 Pour Space of material for third layer: 0 Infiltration On Infiltration rate: 2 Infiltration safety factor: 1 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): 101.668 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 0 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): 101.668 Percent Infiltrated: 100 Total Precip Applied to Facility: 0 Total Evap From Facility: 6.778 Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 ___________________________________________________________________ Permeable Pavement Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.560 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0167 0.560 0.002 0.000 1.129 0.0333 0.560 0.005 0.000 1.129 0.0500 0.560 0.008 0.000 1.129 0.0667 0.560 0.011 0.000 1.129 0.0833 0.560 0.014 0.000 1.129 0.1000 0.560 0.016 0.000 1.129 0.1167 0.560 0.019 0.000 1.129 0.1333 0.560 0.022 0.000 1.129 0.1500 0.560 0.025 0.000 1.129 0.1667 0.560 0.028 0.000 1.129 0.1833 0.560 0.030 0.000 1.129 0.2000 0.560 0.033 0.000 1.129 0.2167 0.560 0.036 0.000 1.129 0.2333 0.560 0.039 0.000 1.129 0.2500 0.560 0.042 0.000 1.129 0.2667 0.560 0.044 0.000 1.129 0.2833 0.560 0.047 0.000 1.129 0.3000 0.560 0.050 0.000 1.129 0.3167 0.560 0.053 0.000 1.129 0.3333 0.560 0.056 0.000 1.129 0.3500 0.560 0.058 0.000 1.129 0.3667 0.560 0.061 0.000 1.129 0.3833 0.560 0.064 0.000 1.129 0.4000 0.560 0.067 0.000 1.129 0.4167 0.560 0.070 0.000 1.129 0.4333 0.560 0.072 0.000 1.129 0.4500 0.560 0.075 0.000 1.129 0.4667 0.560 0.078 0.000 1.129 0.4833 0.560 0.081 0.000 1.129 0.5000 0.560 0.084 0.000 1.129 0.5167 0.560 0.086 0.000 1.129 0.5333 0.560 0.089 0.000 1.129 0.5500 0.560 0.092 0.000 1.129 0.5667 0.560 0.095 0.000 1.129 0.5833 0.560 0.098 0.000 1.129 0.6000 0.560 0.100 0.000 1.129 0.6167 0.560 0.103 0.000 1.129 0.6333 0.560 0.106 0.000 1.129 0.6500 0.560 0.109 0.000 1.129 0.6667 0.560 0.112 0.000 1.129 0.6833 0.560 0.114 0.000 1.129 0.7000 0.560 0.117 0.000 1.129 0.7167 0.560 0.120 0.000 1.129 0.7333 0.560 0.123 0.000 1.129 0.7500 0.560 0.126 0.000 1.129 0.7667 0.560 0.128 0.000 1.129 0.7833 0.560 0.131 0.000 1.129 0.8000 0.560 0.134 0.000 1.129 0.8167 0.560 0.137 0.000 1.129 0.8333 0.560 0.140 0.000 1.129 0.8500 0.560 0.142 0.000 1.129 0.8667 0.560 0.145 0.000 1.129 0.8833 0.560 0.148 0.000 1.129 0.9000 0.560 0.151 0.000 1.129 0.9167 0.560 0.154 0.000 1.129 0.9333 0.560 0.156 0.000 1.129 0.9500 0.560 0.159 0.000 1.129 0.9667 0.560 0.162 0.000 1.129 0.9833 0.560 0.165 0.000 1.129 1.0000 0.560 0.174 0.000 1.129 1.0167 0.560 0.183 0.087 1.129 1.0333 0.560 0.193 0.247 1.129 1.0500 0.560 0.202 0.454 1.129 1.0667 0.560 0.211 0.699 1.129 1.0833 0.560 0.221 0.977 1.129 1.1000 0.560 0.230 1.284 1.129 1.1167 0.560 0.240 1.618 1.129 1.1333 0.560 0.249 1.977 1.129 1.1500 0.560 0.258 2.360 1.129 1.1667 0.560 0.268 2.764 1.129 1.1833 0.560 0.277 3.189 1.129 1.2000 0.560 0.286 3.633 1.129 1.2167 0.560 0.296 4.097 1.129 1.2333 0.560 0.305 4.579 1.129 1.2500 0.560 0.314 5.078 1.129 1.2667 0.560 0.324 5.594 1.129 1.2833 0.560 0.333 6.127 1.129 1.3000 0.560 0.342 6.675 1.129 1.3167 0.560 0.352 7.239 1.129 1.3333 0.560 0.361 7.818 1.129 1.3500 0.560 0.370 8.412 1.129 1.3667 0.560 0.380 9.020 1.129 1.3833 0.560 0.389 9.642 1.129 1.4000 0.560 0.398 10.27 1.129 1.4167 0.560 0.408 10.92 1.129 1.4333 0.560 0.417 11.58 1.129 1.4500 0.560 0.426 12.26 1.129 1.4667 0.560 0.436 12.95 1.129 1.4833 0.560 0.445 13.65 1.129 1.5000 0.560 0.454 14.36 1.129 ___________________________________________________________________ Name : Basin 1 Bypass: Yes GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Mod .04 Pervious Total 0.04 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.05 Impervious Total 0.05 Basin Total 0.09 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ANALYSIS RESULTS Stream Protection Duration ___________________________________________________________________ Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.65 Total Impervious Area:0 ___________________________________________________________________ Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.04 Total Impervious Area:0.610147 ___________________________________________________________________ Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.030312 5 year 0.048474 10 year 0.062926 25 year 0.084115 50 year 0.102139 100 year 0.122179 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.02787 5 year 0.038078 10 year 0.045444 25 year 0.055463 50 year 0.063458 100 year 0.071918 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.034 0.028 1950 0.034 0.034 1951 0.029 0.033 1952 0.024 0.025 1953 0.019 0.032 1954 0.120 0.053 1955 0.036 0.036 1956 0.032 0.014 1957 0.044 0.028 1958 0.038 0.061 1959 0.030 0.024 1960 0.029 0.025 1961 0.060 0.079 1962 0.029 0.030 1963 0.049 0.039 1964 0.039 0.021 1965 0.024 0.023 1966 0.014 0.023 1967 0.028 0.052 1968 0.035 0.027 1969 0.112 0.055 1970 0.020 0.021 1971 0.037 0.029 1972 0.023 0.037 1973 0.023 0.031 1974 0.061 0.037 1975 0.023 0.030 1976 0.025 0.021 1977 0.018 0.021 1978 0.021 0.016 1979 0.069 0.042 1980 0.032 0.023 1981 0.020 0.021 1982 0.026 0.022 1983 0.056 0.028 1984 0.027 0.026 1985 0.036 0.037 1986 0.081 0.040 1987 0.037 0.031 1988 0.019 0.025 1989 0.024 0.029 1990 0.026 0.020 1991 0.026 0.026 1992 0.020 0.025 1993 0.019 0.019 1994 0.018 0.022 1995 0.027 0.019 1996 0.051 0.031 1997 0.101 0.040 1998 0.017 0.034 1999 0.022 0.016 2000 0.019 0.055 2001 0.007 0.019 2002 0.025 0.018 2003 0.020 0.025 2004 0.033 0.047 2005 0.023 0.022 2006 0.079 0.035 2007 0.058 0.032 2008 0.068 0.022 2009 0.021 0.022 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.1199 0.0791 2 0.1122 0.0605 3 0.1006 0.0553 4 0.0811 0.0552 5 0.0791 0.0526 6 0.0687 0.0518 7 0.0679 0.0467 8 0.0613 0.0421 9 0.0601 0.0405 10 0.0584 0.0397 11 0.0557 0.0390 12 0.0507 0.0373 13 0.0491 0.0373 14 0.0440 0.0365 15 0.0387 0.0360 16 0.0383 0.0353 17 0.0373 0.0345 18 0.0367 0.0340 19 0.0363 0.0330 20 0.0361 0.0323 21 0.0347 0.0322 22 0.0342 0.0308 23 0.0337 0.0307 24 0.0329 0.0305 25 0.0322 0.0305 26 0.0318 0.0299 27 0.0299 0.0289 28 0.0291 0.0288 29 0.0290 0.0285 30 0.0290 0.0285 31 0.0284 0.0278 32 0.0271 0.0274 33 0.0269 0.0260 34 0.0264 0.0256 35 0.0262 0.0253 36 0.0257 0.0253 37 0.0250 0.0251 38 0.0246 0.0247 39 0.0244 0.0246 40 0.0239 0.0242 41 0.0236 0.0233 42 0.0234 0.0232 43 0.0230 0.0232 44 0.0229 0.0225 45 0.0227 0.0217 46 0.0219 0.0216 47 0.0207 0.0216 48 0.0207 0.0215 49 0.0202 0.0214 50 0.0202 0.0211 51 0.0198 0.0210 52 0.0196 0.0209 53 0.0193 0.0205 54 0.0191 0.0201 55 0.0191 0.0193 56 0.0190 0.0190 57 0.0183 0.0186 58 0.0178 0.0181 59 0.0168 0.0160 60 0.0140 0.0158 61 0.0066 0.0141 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0152 14780 741 5 Pass 0.0160 12358 603 4 Pass 0.0169 10220 502 4 Pass 0.0178 8553 401 4 Pass 0.0187 7129 348 4 Pass 0.0195 5965 305 5 Pass 0.0204 5018 248 4 Pass 0.0213 4261 209 4 Pass 0.0222 3593 185 5 Pass 0.0231 3074 167 5 Pass 0.0239 2633 146 5 Pass 0.0248 2254 127 5 Pass 0.0257 1919 104 5 Pass 0.0266 1645 92 5 Pass 0.0275 1467 84 5 Pass 0.0283 1304 78 5 Pass 0.0292 1178 69 5 Pass 0.0301 1077 65 6 Pass 0.0310 1001 56 5 Pass 0.0318 921 54 5 Pass 0.0327 837 47 5 Pass 0.0336 782 40 5 Pass 0.0345 718 34 4 Pass 0.0354 672 27 4 Pass 0.0362 635 23 3 Pass 0.0371 610 19 3 Pass 0.0380 582 16 2 Pass 0.0389 551 16 2 Pass 0.0398 518 13 2 Pass 0.0406 498 12 2 Pass 0.0415 480 11 2 Pass 0.0424 455 10 2 Pass 0.0433 436 9 2 Pass 0.0442 416 9 2 Pass 0.0450 396 9 2 Pass 0.0459 382 9 2 Pass 0.0468 363 8 2 Pass 0.0477 348 7 2 Pass 0.0485 336 7 2 Pass 0.0494 323 7 2 Pass 0.0503 312 7 2 Pass 0.0512 299 7 2 Pass 0.0521 288 6 2 Pass 0.0529 276 5 1 Pass 0.0538 265 5 1 Pass 0.0547 245 5 2 Pass 0.0556 235 3 1 Pass 0.0565 221 3 1 Pass 0.0573 210 3 1 Pass 0.0582 197 3 1 Pass 0.0591 187 3 1 Pass 0.0600 174 3 1 Pass 0.0608 164 2 1 Pass 0.0617 153 2 1 Pass 0.0626 146 2 1 Pass 0.0635 135 2 1 Pass 0.0644 125 2 1 Pass 0.0652 111 2 1 Pass 0.0661 94 2 2 Pass 0.0670 79 1 1 Pass 0.0679 66 1 1 Pass 0.0688 61 1 1 Pass 0.0696 54 1 1 Pass 0.0705 46 1 2 Pass 0.0714 41 1 2 Pass 0.0723 39 1 2 Pass 0.0731 37 1 2 Pass 0.0740 32 1 3 Pass 0.0749 29 1 3 Pass 0.0758 20 1 5 Pass 0.0767 18 1 5 Pass 0.0775 14 1 7 Pass 0.0784 8 1 12 Pass 0.0793 7 0 0 Pass 0.0802 5 0 0 Pass 0.0811 5 0 0 Pass 0.0819 4 0 0 Pass 0.0828 4 0 0 Pass 0.0837 4 0 0 Pass 0.0846 4 0 0 Pass 0.0854 4 0 0 Pass 0.0863 4 0 0 Pass 0.0872 4 0 0 Pass 0.0881 3 0 0 Pass 0.0890 3 0 0 Pass 0.0898 3 0 0 Pass 0.0907 3 0 0 Pass 0.0916 3 0 0 Pass 0.0925 3 0 0 Pass 0.0934 3 0 0 Pass 0.0942 3 0 0 Pass 0.0951 3 0 0 Pass 0.0960 3 0 0 Pass 0.0969 3 0 0 Pass 0.0977 3 0 0 Pass 0.0986 3 0 0 Pass 0.0995 3 0 0 Pass 0.1004 3 0 0 Pass 0.1013 2 0 0 Pass 0.1021 2 0 0 Pass _____________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. ___________________________________________________________________ LID Report LID Technique Used for Total Volumn Volumn Infiltration Cumulative Percent Water Quality Percent Comment Treatment? Needs Through Volumn Volumn Volumn Water Quality Treatment Facility (ac-ft.) Infiltration Infiltrated Treated (ac-ft) (ac-ft) Credit Permeable Pavement 1 POC N 92.59 N 99.92 Total Volume Infiltrated 92.59 0.00 0.00 99.92 0.00 0% No Treat. Credit Compliance with LID Standard 8 Duration Analysis Result = Passed ___________________________________________________________________ Perlnd and Implnd Changes No changes have been made. ___________________________________________________________________ This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2017; All Rights Reserved. STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW This Stormwater Site Plan has been prepared for the Snohomish County PUD Eagle Creek Sub‐ station. The subject property is located at 8630 212th St NE, Arlington on tax parcel 31051200300600. This project involves the redevelopment of the existing, PUD Arlington Pole Yard to construct a new sub‐station. The property has a total size of 1.00 acres. See Figure 1: Vicinity Map for graphic location and Figure 3: Developed Site for the proposed site plan. The site is currently developed as a gravel yard for pole and equipment storage. See Figure 2: Existing Conditions. METHODOLOGY The drainage design for the project has been prepared based on the requirements of the 2012/14 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (DOE Manual) as adopted by the City of Arlington. In addition, this report uses design guidelines provided by the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. WWHM2012 as provided by DOE has been used for determining basin runoff and for sizing of the stormwater facilities. Based on the flow charts in Figure 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of the DOE Manual (attached) and the site parameters, the project is subject to Minimum Requirements 1‐9. The project site parameters are: ï‚· The site has greater than 35% existing impervious coverage. Use Figure 2.4.2. ï‚· The project will create more than 2,000 sf of new or replaced hard surface. ï‚· The project will create less than 5,000 sf of new hard surface. ï‚· The project will redevelop greater than 5,000 sf of hard surface. ï‚· It is not a road related project. ï‚· The project exceeds 50% of the assessed (replacement value). Therefore all minimum requirements apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 2 MR 1: PREPARATION OF STORMWATER SITE PLANS DRAINAGE PLAN DESCRIPTION Direct precipitation and tributary upstream slopes are the source of on‐site stormwater. The entire site will be redeveloped with access from 212th Street NE and from the adjacent driveway to the west. Upstream runoff will be bypassed while site runoff will be infiltrated through the substation gravel. Treatment is not proposed as the site will not see customary vehicle traffic. EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The site is located to the south of 212th St NE in the City of Arlington. Eagle Creek lies to the east with buffers that extend onto the site. The ground cover on the site is almost fully gravel surfacing with some areas of weeds along the edges. Equipment and power poles are stored on the site and there are two portable storage structures. Grades generally descend from northwest to southeast and east with the local high elevation of 158 at the northwest corner and the low of 150 at the southeast corner and running half way up the east line. There are no existing storm structures as all runoff sheet flows to the east and southeast, discharging into Eagle Creek. A review of the Department of Ecology 303d listings indicate no local listings of the immediately downstream waters. SOILS DESCRIPTION Zipper Geo Associates, LLC has prepared a geotechnical report for the site titled Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Eagle Creek Substation dated September 15, 2016. To the northwest, their borings and test pits encountered fill lying over outwash material that lies over till. In the southeast, they encountered a large area of peat overlying till at depth. See Appendix B. EXISTING BASIN The existing basin will be the extent of the site gravel and landscaping. An upstream basin has been identified to the west that accounts for some descending slopes in the area of the power transmission lines. WATER QUALITY MEASURES TEMPORARY Following is a list of the proposed construction water quality BMPs. These are discussed fully in the Project Surface Water Pollution Prevention Narrative under separate cover. The proposed BMPs are as follows: BMP C101, Preserving Natural Vegetation BMP C103, High Visibility Fence BMP C105, Construction Entrance P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 3 BMP C107, Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization BMP C120, Temporary and Permanent Seeding BMP C121, Mulching BMP C123, Plastic Covering BMP C125, Topsoiling/Composting BMP C140, Dust Control BMP C150, Materials On Hand BMP C151, Concrete Handling BMP C153, Material Delivery, Storage and Containment BMP C154, Concrete Washout Area BMP C160, Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead BMP C200, Interceptor Dike and Swale BMP C201, Grass‐Lined Channels BMP C207, Checkdams BMP C209, Outlet Protection BMP C220, Storm Inlet Protection BMP C233, Silt Fence PERMANENT SOURCE CONTROL Maintenance of Stormwater Drainage Systems Parking lot sweeping (maintenance of the substation pad) DETENTION SIZING WWHM from the Department of Ecology was used to determine depths of storage in the rock reservoir. Calculations and sizing are discussed further in MR 7. CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONS Conveyance calculations are provided in MR 5. STORMWATER TREATMENT BMP’S No permanent water quality BMP’s are proposed. The site is a substation and will have no regular traffic except for occasional maintenance vehicles. See DOE Volume 1, Appendix G, Vehicle Use. PROTECTION OF WETLANDS Eagle Creek has buffers that extend onto the site. Wetland Resources has prepared a Critical Areas Study to address existing and proposed impacts. Upstream flow will be routed around the site and discharge as sheet flow in the wetland buffer. Site flows will be infiltrated and enter Eagle Creek as part of subsurface flow. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE The specific requirements for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the proposed storm water systems is detailed in Minimum Requirement #10. P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 4 UPSTREAM ANALYSIS There are slopes to the west that descend down to the site. This amounts to 0.46 acres in extent. This area is predominately thick grass and blackberry with an asphalt trail and a gravel driveway running through it. This will be intercepted in a bypass swale and discharged to the east over a level spreader. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS Runoff leaves the site as sheet flow to the east into Eagle Creek. This creek flows north crossing under 212th St NE through a 24” CMP culvert. It continues north in a large wetland corridor, crosses under a boardwalk that allows access to a power pole, and then meanders to the east and then north in a farm ditch before it discharges into an old arm of the Stillaguamish River about 8 tenths of a mile from the site. Given that infiltration is proposed for the site, there will be a decrease in the impact of the site on the flow capacity of the creek. As such, no capacity calculations are proposed for Eagle Creek. P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 5 MR 2: CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION A Department of Ecology Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared under separate cover. MR 3: WATER POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER BMPs Construction source controls are covered under the SWPPP PERMANENT SOURCE CONTROL BMPs The following source controls apply: ï‚· Vegetation management; ï‚· Cleaning of paved surfaces; ï‚· Storm drainage maintenance; MR 4: PRESERVATION OF NATURAL DRAINAGE DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM Currently the site sheet flows east into the woods associated with Eagle Creek. This sheet flow is uncontrolled with no storm drainage system. It is proposed to infiltrate substation runoff through the gravel surfacing. This water will continue to Eagle Creek as subsurface flow. Upstream runoff from the tributary basin to the west will be collected and routed to a level spreader to preserve the discharge and mimic a sheetflow condition. UPSTREAM BASIN There are slopes to the west that descend down to the site. This amounts to 0.46 acres in extent. This area is predominately thick grass and blackberry with an asphalt trail and a gravel driveway running through it (0.1 ac Imp). This flow will be intercepted in a bypass swale and discharged to the east over a level spreader. Located in C soils on Moderate slopes, the basin has an expected 100 year flow of 0.16 cfs. See conveyance caluculations in MR 5. P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 6 MR 5: ON‐SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Being required to meet Minimum Requirements #1‐9 and being a redevelopment site inside a UGA (inside the City limits) with greater than 5,000 sf of redeveloped impervious; the site will need to meet the Low Impact Development Performance Standard or use List #2. Use of List #2 is proposed as follows: Lawn and Landscaped Areas: 1) Post Construction Soil Quality and Depth: BMP T5.13 will be implemented on disturbed and landscaped areas. Roof Areas: There are no roof areas. Pavement Areas: 1) Full Dispersion is not practical on this site due to existing development. 2) Permeable Pavement: It is proposed to use a variant of this method. The Geotechnical Engineer has given infiltration rates and has tested the proposed substation gravel and crushed surfacing for rate and voids. This is detailed in MR 7. The asphalt access pad to the north will be fully infiltrated in an underground rock trench. CONVEYANCE The upstream flow was estimated at 0.16 cfs. In a worst case scenario, the paved apron will also contribute to the flow, adding 0.07 cfs for a total flow of 0.23 cfs. The swale has a bottom width of 2 feet, 3:1 side slopes, and a minimum grade of 1%. Using Flowmasterâ„¢ (see attached), the velocity and depth were found to be: 0.81 feet per second at 0.12 feet depth. Considering that this only counts the actual open portion of the swale and not the drain rock below, the swale has more then adequate capacity. LEVEL SPREADER With a maximum anticpated upstream flow of 0.23 cfs (not this discounts any infiltration into the native soils over the course of the upstream interceptor), a level spreader calcution was preprared. The level spreader acts like a rectangular weir with a simplified equation of: Q = 3.33 * b * h^1.5 Solving for h give – h = (Q/(3.33 * b))^0.67. With Q = 0.23 cfs, b = 20 feet then h = 0.02 feet. Apparent velocity over the weir would then be V = Q/A yielding an excpected velocity of 0.58 f/s. This is a non‐erosive velocity. The level spreader discharges into a stream buffer with no structures or other man made facilities between the spreader and the stream channel. The ground is well vegetated. P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 7 MR 6: RUNOFF TREATMENT The site is a power substation with a gravel surfacing for maintenance. There is no customary traffic or parking requirement. A maintenance vehicle will access the site on a weekly basis. Such minimal use does not warrant runoff treatment. This would be per Volume V, Section 4.1.3 Bullet Point 3. MR 7: FLOW CONTROL According to the Thresholds in Minimum Requirement #7, the following are characteristics of the site: The site has less than 10,000 sf of effective impervious. The only effective impervious is the asphalt apron, approximately 2,500 sf. The substation rock will be pervious, allowing water to flow vertically to the subgrade and infiltrate and thus will be ineffective impervious. The site does not convert vegetative surfaces. The site will not increase runoff by more than 0.1 cfs. The existing site is primarily impervious, crushed rock. That will be replaced with pervious substation rock and landscaping. This will effectively reduce runoff. Based on this assessment, the substation does not require runoff control. The sub station pad will infiltrate through the use of a permeable surface while the asphalt pad will discharge to the upstream conveyance system and be discharged over the level spreader. Zipper Geo Associates, LLC has provided the following recommendations for the substation pad: Infiltration: Uncorrected Infiltration Rate: 4.7 in/hr Reductions: 40% reduction in baseline, 0.8 CFm and 0.9 CFv Final Infiltration Rate: 2 in/hr Surfacing: Zipper Geo Associates, Inc has tested the Iron Mountain crushed surfacing base course and found it to have permeability at 95% compaction of 130 in/hr and a void ratio over 40%. This is the material we propose to lie below the substation surface rock which is open graded and also highly permeable. Groundwater: P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 8 The geotechnical report indicates that groundwater is generally 2.5 to 4 feet below existing grade, ranging in elevation from approximately 147.5 to 151. BASIN The drainage basin is as follows: Basin area: 0.65 acres Substation gravel: 0.56 acres Asphalt apron: 0.05 acres Lawn/Landscape: 0.04 acres The paving section will be 4 inches of substation rock over 6 inches of crushed surfacing. The crushed surfacing will act as the reservoir. Calculations indicate that the water runs into the ground at less than 0.1 ft depth in the reservoir. Understandable as the 2 inch per hour infiltration rate is large compared with storm events. The site was modeled as pervious pavement The result is 100% infiltration of runoff on the substation. When the asphalt apron and landscaped area is included in the calculation (undetained), the site meets flow control requirements. See WWHM2012 output in Appendix B. EMERGENCY OVERFLOW In an emergency condition, collected runoff will gather near the southeast corner of the station and overtop the concrete, fence curb and flow into the upstream conveyance level spreader. CONVEYANCE DISCUSSION There are no conveyance calculations associated with the substation. There is a proposed storm conveyance system; however, this system is to keep standing water out of the transformer vaults. A special, automatic shut off valve is installed downstream of the transformers to protect against a transformer failure that leaks lubrication oil into the vault. MR 8: WETLANDS PROTECTION Eagle Creek and its associated wetlands lie down gradient to the east. Flow from the site will be infiltrated and flow into the creek as part of the regional groundwater. Upstream flow will bypass the site and enter the buffer as sheetflow. With 100% infiltration, the proposed condition is the preferred storm water solution that mimics original site conditions of forest. MR 9: BASIN/WATERSHED PLANNING The City of Arlington uses the 2012/14 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. There are no other site specific requirements. The City’s 2010 Final Stormwater Comprehensive Plan was reviewed for the Eagle Creek Basin. Through the use of infiltration, the proposed development is not expected to have an impact on identified problems and should have an overall benefit. P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc STORMWATER SITE PLAN MARCH 8, 2017 EAGLE CREEK SUB-STATION PAGE 9 MR 10: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE See Operations and Maintenance Manual provided under separate cover. P:\Work\Projects\2016\16-124 SnoCoPUD - Arlington Substations CE\CE\DOCS\Eagle Creek Substation Drainage Report.doc Worksheet Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Worksheet Trapezoidal Channe Flow Element Trapezoidal Channe Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.040 Channel Slope 010000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 3.00 H : V Right Side Slope 3.00 H : V Bottom Width 2.00 ft Discharge 0.23 cfs Results Depth 0.12 ft Flow Area 0.3 ft² Wetted Perime 2.76 ft Top Width 2.72 ft Critical Depth 0.07 ft Critical Slope 0.058025 ft/ft Velocity 0.81 ft/s Velocity Head 0.01 ft Specific Energ 0.13 ft Froude Numbe 0.45 Flow Type Subcritical Project Engineer: Steve Mason untitled.fm2 Harmsen & Associates Inc FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 03/08/17 10:01:27 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ Project Name: EaglePUD Site Name: Site Address: City : Report Date: 3/8/2017 Gage : Everett Data Start : 1948/10/01 Data End : 2009/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.20 Version Date: 2016/02/25 Version : 4.2.12 ___________________________________________________________________ Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year ___________________________________________________________________ High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year ___________________________________________________________________ PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Mod .65 Pervious Total 0.65 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 0.65 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Permeable Pavement 1 Pavement Area: 0.5601 ft. Pavement Length: 200.00 ft. Pavement Width: 122.00 ft. Pavement slope 1: 0.015 To 1 Pavement thickness: 0.5 Pour Space of Pavement: 0.3 Material thickness of second layer: 0.5 Pour Space of material for second layer: 0.3 Material thickness of third layer: 0 Pour Space of material for third layer: 0 Infiltration On Infiltration rate: 2 Infiltration safety factor: 1 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): 101.668 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 0 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): 101.668 Percent Infiltrated: 100 Total Precip Applied to Facility: 0 Total Evap From Facility: 6.778 Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 ___________________________________________________________________ Permeable Pavement Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.560 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0167 0.560 0.002 0.000 1.129 0.0333 0.560 0.005 0.000 1.129 0.0500 0.560 0.008 0.000 1.129 0.0667 0.560 0.011 0.000 1.129 0.0833 0.560 0.014 0.000 1.129 0.1000 0.560 0.016 0.000 1.129 0.1167 0.560 0.019 0.000 1.129 0.1333 0.560 0.022 0.000 1.129 0.1500 0.560 0.025 0.000 1.129 0.1667 0.560 0.028 0.000 1.129 0.1833 0.560 0.030 0.000 1.129 0.2000 0.560 0.033 0.000 1.129 0.2167 0.560 0.036 0.000 1.129 0.2333 0.560 0.039 0.000 1.129 0.2500 0.560 0.042 0.000 1.129 0.2667 0.560 0.044 0.000 1.129 0.2833 0.560 0.047 0.000 1.129 0.3000 0.560 0.050 0.000 1.129 0.3167 0.560 0.053 0.000 1.129 0.3333 0.560 0.056 0.000 1.129 0.3500 0.560 0.058 0.000 1.129 0.3667 0.560 0.061 0.000 1.129 0.3833 0.560 0.064 0.000 1.129 0.4000 0.560 0.067 0.000 1.129 0.4167 0.560 0.070 0.000 1.129 0.4333 0.560 0.072 0.000 1.129 0.4500 0.560 0.075 0.000 1.129 0.4667 0.560 0.078 0.000 1.129 0.4833 0.560 0.081 0.000 1.129 0.5000 0.560 0.084 0.000 1.129 0.5167 0.560 0.086 0.000 1.129 0.5333 0.560 0.089 0.000 1.129 0.5500 0.560 0.092 0.000 1.129 0.5667 0.560 0.095 0.000 1.129 0.5833 0.560 0.098 0.000 1.129 0.6000 0.560 0.100 0.000 1.129 0.6167 0.560 0.103 0.000 1.129 0.6333 0.560 0.106 0.000 1.129 0.6500 0.560 0.109 0.000 1.129 0.6667 0.560 0.112 0.000 1.129 0.6833 0.560 0.114 0.000 1.129 0.7000 0.560 0.117 0.000 1.129 0.7167 0.560 0.120 0.000 1.129 0.7333 0.560 0.123 0.000 1.129 0.7500 0.560 0.126 0.000 1.129 0.7667 0.560 0.128 0.000 1.129 0.7833 0.560 0.131 0.000 1.129 0.8000 0.560 0.134 0.000 1.129 0.8167 0.560 0.137 0.000 1.129 0.8333 0.560 0.140 0.000 1.129 0.8500 0.560 0.142 0.000 1.129 0.8667 0.560 0.145 0.000 1.129 0.8833 0.560 0.148 0.000 1.129 0.9000 0.560 0.151 0.000 1.129 0.9167 0.560 0.154 0.000 1.129 0.9333 0.560 0.156 0.000 1.129 0.9500 0.560 0.159 0.000 1.129 0.9667 0.560 0.162 0.000 1.129 0.9833 0.560 0.165 0.000 1.129 1.0000 0.560 0.174 0.000 1.129 1.0167 0.560 0.183 0.087 1.129 1.0333 0.560 0.193 0.247 1.129 1.0500 0.560 0.202 0.454 1.129 1.0667 0.560 0.211 0.699 1.129 1.0833 0.560 0.221 0.977 1.129 1.1000 0.560 0.230 1.284 1.129 1.1167 0.560 0.240 1.618 1.129 1.1333 0.560 0.249 1.977 1.129 1.1500 0.560 0.258 2.360 1.129 1.1667 0.560 0.268 2.764 1.129 1.1833 0.560 0.277 3.189 1.129 1.2000 0.560 0.286 3.633 1.129 1.2167 0.560 0.296 4.097 1.129 1.2333 0.560 0.305 4.579 1.129 1.2500 0.560 0.314 5.078 1.129 1.2667 0.560 0.324 5.594 1.129 1.2833 0.560 0.333 6.127 1.129 1.3000 0.560 0.342 6.675 1.129 1.3167 0.560 0.352 7.239 1.129 1.3333 0.560 0.361 7.818 1.129 1.3500 0.560 0.370 8.412 1.129 1.3667 0.560 0.380 9.020 1.129 1.3833 0.560 0.389 9.642 1.129 1.4000 0.560 0.398 10.27 1.129 1.4167 0.560 0.408 10.92 1.129 1.4333 0.560 0.417 11.58 1.129 1.4500 0.560 0.426 12.26 1.129 1.4667 0.560 0.436 12.95 1.129 1.4833 0.560 0.445 13.65 1.129 1.5000 0.560 0.454 14.36 1.129 ___________________________________________________________________ Name : Basin 1 Bypass: Yes GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Mod .04 Pervious Total 0.04 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.05 Impervious Total 0.05 Basin Total 0.09 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ANALYSIS RESULTS Stream Protection Duration ___________________________________________________________________ Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.65 Total Impervious Area:0 ___________________________________________________________________ Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.04 Total Impervious Area:0.610147 ___________________________________________________________________ Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.030312 5 year 0.048474 10 year 0.062926 25 year 0.084115 50 year 0.102139 100 year 0.122179 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.02787 5 year 0.038078 10 year 0.045444 25 year 0.055463 50 year 0.063458 100 year 0.071918 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.034 0.028 1950 0.034 0.034 1951 0.029 0.033 1952 0.024 0.025 1953 0.019 0.032 1954 0.120 0.053 1955 0.036 0.036 1956 0.032 0.014 1957 0.044 0.028 1958 0.038 0.061 1959 0.030 0.024 1960 0.029 0.025 1961 0.060 0.079 1962 0.029 0.030 1963 0.049 0.039 1964 0.039 0.021 1965 0.024 0.023 1966 0.014 0.023 1967 0.028 0.052 1968 0.035 0.027 1969 0.112 0.055 1970 0.020 0.021 1971 0.037 0.029 1972 0.023 0.037 1973 0.023 0.031 1974 0.061 0.037 1975 0.023 0.030 1976 0.025 0.021 1977 0.018 0.021 1978 0.021 0.016 1979 0.069 0.042 1980 0.032 0.023 1981 0.020 0.021 1982 0.026 0.022 1983 0.056 0.028 1984 0.027 0.026 1985 0.036 0.037 1986 0.081 0.040 1987 0.037 0.031 1988 0.019 0.025 1989 0.024 0.029 1990 0.026 0.020 1991 0.026 0.026 1992 0.020 0.025 1993 0.019 0.019 1994 0.018 0.022 1995 0.027 0.019 1996 0.051 0.031 1997 0.101 0.040 1998 0.017 0.034 1999 0.022 0.016 2000 0.019 0.055 2001 0.007 0.019 2002 0.025 0.018 2003 0.020 0.025 2004 0.033 0.047 2005 0.023 0.022 2006 0.079 0.035 2007 0.058 0.032 2008 0.068 0.022 2009 0.021 0.022 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.1199 0.0791 2 0.1122 0.0605 3 0.1006 0.0553 4 0.0811 0.0552 5 0.0791 0.0526 6 0.0687 0.0518 7 0.0679 0.0467 8 0.0613 0.0421 9 0.0601 0.0405 10 0.0584 0.0397 11 0.0557 0.0390 12 0.0507 0.0373 13 0.0491 0.0373 14 0.0440 0.0365 15 0.0387 0.0360 16 0.0383 0.0353 17 0.0373 0.0345 18 0.0367 0.0340 19 0.0363 0.0330 20 0.0361 0.0323 21 0.0347 0.0322 22 0.0342 0.0308 23 0.0337 0.0307 24 0.0329 0.0305 25 0.0322 0.0305 26 0.0318 0.0299 27 0.0299 0.0289 28 0.0291 0.0288 29 0.0290 0.0285 30 0.0290 0.0285 31 0.0284 0.0278 32 0.0271 0.0274 33 0.0269 0.0260 34 0.0264 0.0256 35 0.0262 0.0253 36 0.0257 0.0253 37 0.0250 0.0251 38 0.0246 0.0247 39 0.0244 0.0246 40 0.0239 0.0242 41 0.0236 0.0233 42 0.0234 0.0232 43 0.0230 0.0232 44 0.0229 0.0225 45 0.0227 0.0217 46 0.0219 0.0216 47 0.0207 0.0216 48 0.0207 0.0215 49 0.0202 0.0214 50 0.0202 0.0211 51 0.0198 0.0210 52 0.0196 0.0209 53 0.0193 0.0205 54 0.0191 0.0201 55 0.0191 0.0193 56 0.0190 0.0190 57 0.0183 0.0186 58 0.0178 0.0181 59 0.0168 0.0160 60 0.0140 0.0158 61 0.0066 0.0141 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0152 14780 741 5 Pass 0.0160 12358 603 4 Pass 0.0169 10220 502 4 Pass 0.0178 8553 401 4 Pass 0.0187 7129 348 4 Pass 0.0195 5965 305 5 Pass 0.0204 5018 248 4 Pass 0.0213 4261 209 4 Pass 0.0222 3593 185 5 Pass 0.0231 3074 167 5 Pass 0.0239 2633 146 5 Pass 0.0248 2254 127 5 Pass 0.0257 1919 104 5 Pass 0.0266 1645 92 5 Pass 0.0275 1467 84 5 Pass 0.0283 1304 78 5 Pass 0.0292 1178 69 5 Pass 0.0301 1077 65 6 Pass 0.0310 1001 56 5 Pass 0.0318 921 54 5 Pass 0.0327 837 47 5 Pass 0.0336 782 40 5 Pass 0.0345 718 34 4 Pass 0.0354 672 27 4 Pass 0.0362 635 23 3 Pass 0.0371 610 19 3 Pass 0.0380 582 16 2 Pass 0.0389 551 16 2 Pass 0.0398 518 13 2 Pass 0.0406 498 12 2 Pass 0.0415 480 11 2 Pass 0.0424 455 10 2 Pass 0.0433 436 9 2 Pass 0.0442 416 9 2 Pass 0.0450 396 9 2 Pass 0.0459 382 9 2 Pass 0.0468 363 8 2 Pass 0.0477 348 7 2 Pass 0.0485 336 7 2 Pass 0.0494 323 7 2 Pass 0.0503 312 7 2 Pass 0.0512 299 7 2 Pass 0.0521 288 6 2 Pass 0.0529 276 5 1 Pass 0.0538 265 5 1 Pass 0.0547 245 5 2 Pass 0.0556 235 3 1 Pass 0.0565 221 3 1 Pass 0.0573 210 3 1 Pass 0.0582 197 3 1 Pass 0.0591 187 3 1 Pass 0.0600 174 3 1 Pass 0.0608 164 2 1 Pass 0.0617 153 2 1 Pass 0.0626 146 2 1 Pass 0.0635 135 2 1 Pass 0.0644 125 2 1 Pass 0.0652 111 2 1 Pass 0.0661 94 2 2 Pass 0.0670 79 1 1 Pass 0.0679 66 1 1 Pass 0.0688 61 1 1 Pass 0.0696 54 1 1 Pass 0.0705 46 1 2 Pass 0.0714 41 1 2 Pass 0.0723 39 1 2 Pass 0.0731 37 1 2 Pass 0.0740 32 1 3 Pass 0.0749 29 1 3 Pass 0.0758 20 1 5 Pass 0.0767 18 1 5 Pass 0.0775 14 1 7 Pass 0.0784 8 1 12 Pass 0.0793 7 0 0 Pass 0.0802 5 0 0 Pass 0.0811 5 0 0 Pass 0.0819 4 0 0 Pass 0.0828 4 0 0 Pass 0.0837 4 0 0 Pass 0.0846 4 0 0 Pass 0.0854 4 0 0 Pass 0.0863 4 0 0 Pass 0.0872 4 0 0 Pass 0.0881 3 0 0 Pass 0.0890 3 0 0 Pass 0.0898 3 0 0 Pass 0.0907 3 0 0 Pass 0.0916 3 0 0 Pass 0.0925 3 0 0 Pass 0.0934 3 0 0 Pass 0.0942 3 0 0 Pass 0.0951 3 0 0 Pass 0.0960 3 0 0 Pass 0.0969 3 0 0 Pass 0.0977 3 0 0 Pass 0.0986 3 0 0 Pass 0.0995 3 0 0 Pass 0.1004 3 0 0 Pass 0.1013 2 0 0 Pass 0.1021 2 0 0 Pass _____________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. ___________________________________________________________________ LID Report LID Technique Used for Total Volumn Volumn Infiltration Cumulative Percent Water Quality Percent Comment Treatment? Needs Through Volumn Volumn Volumn Water Quality Treatment Facility (ac-ft.) Infiltration Infiltrated Treated (ac-ft) (ac-ft) Credit Permeable Pavement 1 POC N 92.59 N 99.92 Total Volume Infiltrated 92.59 0.00 0.00 99.92 0.00 0% No Treat. Credit Compliance with LID Standard 8 Duration Analysis Result = Passed ___________________________________________________________________ Perlnd and Implnd Changes No changes have been made. ___________________________________________________________________ This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2017; All Rights Reserved. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan For Eagle Creek Substation Prepared For Public Utility District #1 of Snohomish County (SnoPUD) 1802 75th Street SW, Everett, WA 98203 425‐783‐5022 Owner Developer Operator/Contractor Snohomish PUD Snohomish PUD Snohomish PUD 1802 75th Street SW, 1802 75th Street SW, 1802 75th Street SW, Everett, WA 98203 Everett, WA 98203 Everett, WA 98203 Project Site Location Eagle Creek Substation 8630 212th St NE Arlington, WA 98203 Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead Pending SWPPP Prepared By David Harmsen, PE Harmsen & Associates, Inc 840 SE 8th Avenue Monroe, WA 98272 360‐794‐7811 SWPPP Preparation Date 10/18/16 Approximate Project Construction Dates Start Date: 3‐27‐17 End Date: 7‐30‐17 i Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Site Description 3 2.1 Existing Conditions 3 2.2 Proposed Construction Activities 3 3.0 Construction Stormwater BMPs 5 3.1 The 12 BMP Elements 5 3.1.1 Element #1 – Mark Clearing Limits 5 3.1.2 Element #2 – Establish Construction Access 5 3.1.3 Element #3 – Control Flow Rates 6 3.1.4 Element #4 – Install Sediment Controls 7 3.1.5 Element #5 – Stabilize Soils 8 3.1.6 Element #6 – Protect Slopes 10 3.1.7 Element #7 – Protect Drain Inlets 11 3.1.8 Element #8 – Stabilize Channels and Outlets 11 3.1.9 Element #9 – Control Pollutants 12 3.1.10 Element #10 – Control Dewatering 13 3.1.11 Element #11 – Maintain BMPs 13 3.1.12 Element #12 – Manage the Project 13 3.1.13 Element #13 – Protect LID BMPs 13 3.2 Site Specific BMPs 17 3.3 Additional Advanced BMPs 17 4.0 Construction Phasing and BMP Implementation 19 5.0 Pollution Prevention Team 21 5.1 Roles and Responsibilities 21 5.2 Team Members 22 6.0 Site Inspections and Monitoring 23 6.1 Site Inspection 23 6.1.1 Site Inspection Frequency 24 6.1.2 Site Inspection Documentation 24 6.2 Stormwater Quality Monitoring 24 6.2.1 Turbidity Sampling 24 6.2.2 pH Sampling 25 7.0 Reporting and Recordkeeping 27 ii 7.1 Recordkeeping 27 7.1.1 Site Log Book 27 7.1.2 Records Retention 27 7.1.3 Access to Plans and Records 27 7.1.4 Updating the SWPPP 27 7.2 Reporting 28 7.2.1 Discharge Monitoring Reports 28 7.2.2 Notification of Noncompliance 28 7.2.3 Permit Application and Changes 28 Appendix A Site plans  Vicinity map (with all discharge points)  Site plan with TESC measures Appendix B Construction BMPs  Copies of selected BMP’s. Appendix C Alternative Construction BMP list  List of BMPs not selected, but can be referenced if needed in each of the 12 elements Appendix D General Permit Appendix E Site Log and Inspection Forms Appendix F Engineering Calculations  Flows, ponds, etc… iii Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 1.0 Introduction This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared as part of the NPDES stormwater permit requirements for the Eagle Creek Substation located at 8630 212th St NE, Arlington. It lies to the southwest of the intersection of 212th St NE and 87th Ave NE. The site is a 1‐acre parcel that currently contains the PUD Arlington Pole Yard. The proposed development consists of the removal of the pole yard and its replacement with a new substation. Construction activities will include grading, erosion control and the installation of drainage features. The purpose of this SWPPP is to describe the proposed construction activities and all temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures, pollution prevention measures, inspection/monitoring activities, and recordkeeping that will be implemented during the proposed construction project. The objectives of the SWPPP are to: 1. Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and sedimentation, and to identify, reduce, eliminate or prevent stormwater contamination and water pollution from construction activity. 2. Prevent violations of surface water quality, ground water quality, or sediment management standards. 3. Prevent, during the construction phase, adverse water quality impacts including impacts on beneficial uses of the receiving water by controlling peak flow rates and volumes of stormwater runoff at the Permittee’s outfalls and downstream of the outfalls. This SWPPP was prepared using the Ecology SWPPP Template downloaded from the Ecology website on May 20, 2014. This SWPPP was prepared based on the requirements set forth in the Construction Stormwater General Permit, Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW 2012/14). The report is divided into seven main sections with several appendices that include stormwater related reference materials. The topics presented in the each of the main sections are:  Section 1 – INTRODUCTION. This section provides a summary description of the project, and the organization of the SWPPP document.  Section 2 – SITE DESCRIPTION. This section provides a detailed description of the existing site conditions, proposed construction activities, and calculated stormwater flow rates for existing conditions and post–construction conditions. 1 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan  Section 3 – CONSTRUCTION BMPs. This section provides a detailed description of the BMPs to be implemented based on the 12 required elements of the SWPPP (SWMMEW 2004).  Section 4 – CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND BMP IMPLEMENTATION. This section provides a description of the timing of the BMP implementation in relation to the project schedule.  Section 5 – POLLUTION PREVENTION TEAM. This section identifies the appropriate contact names (emergency and non‐emergency), monitoring personnel, and the onsite temporary erosion and sedimentation control inspector  Section 6 – INSPECTION AND MONITORING. This section provides a description of the inspection and monitoring requirements such as the parameters of concern to be monitored, sample locations, sample frequencies, and sampling methods for all stormwater discharge locations from the site.  Section 7 – RECORDKEEPING. This section describes the requirements for documentation of the BMP implementation, site inspections, monitoring results, and changes to the implementation of certain BMPs due to site factors experienced during construction. Supporting documentation and standard forms are provided in the following Appendices: Appendix A – Site plans Appendix B – Construction BMPs Appendix C – Alternative Construction BMP list Appendix D – General Permit Appendix E – Site Log and Inspection Forms Appendix F – Engineering Calculations 2 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 2.0 Site Description 2.1 Existing Conditions The site is located to the south of 212th St NE in the City of Arlington. Eagle Creek lies with the east with buffers that extend onto the site. The ground cover on the site is almost fully gravel surfacing with some areas of weeds along the edges. Equipment and power poles are stored on the site and there are two portable storage structures. Grades generally descend from northwest to southeast and east with the local high elevation of 158 at the northwest corner and the low of 150 at the southeast corner and running half way up the east line. Typical slopes range from 2‐10%, there are no natural slopes left on the site. There are no existing storm structures as all flow sheet flows to the east and southeast, discharging into Eagle Creek. A review of the Department of Ecology 303d listings indicates no local water quality issues. Adjacent to the south is a single family residence, to the east is Eagle Creek, to the west is a power right of way, and to the north is 212th Street NE. Upstream runoff will be discharged to the east while on‐site runoff is proposed to be infiltrated. The site will have no impact on adjacent properties. There are no erosion or slope hazards associated with the project. Zipper Geo Associates, LLC has prepared a geotechnical report for the site titled Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Eagle Creek Substation dated September 15, 2016. To the northwest, their borings and test pits encountered fill lying over outwash material that lies over till. In the southeast, they encountered a large area of peat overlying till at depth. 2.2 Proposed Construction Activities The proposal is to construct a substation on the site with two transformers. Upstream flow will bypass the development and be discharged to the wetland buffer to the east over a level spreader. On‐site runoff will be infiltrated through the substation gravel surfacing. In general, the site will slope from northwest to southeast with an asphalt apron providing access to the site from the north and a gravel access from the existing gravel driveway to the west. The site will be enclosed in a security fence. Construction activities will include site preparation, TESC installation, grading, and storm drainage appurtenances, utility installation, paving and landscaping. The schedule and phasing of BMPs during construction is provided in Section 4.0. 3 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan The following summarizes details regarding site areas:  Total site area: 1.00 acre  Percent impervious area before construction: 87%  Percent impervious area after construction: 64%  Disturbed area during construction: 0.95 acres  Disturbed area that is characterized as impervious (i.e., access roads, staging, parking): 0.67 acres  2‐year stormwater runoff peak flow prior to construction (existing): 0.31 cfs  10‐year stormwater runoff peak flow prior to construction (existing): 0.50 cfs  2‐year stormwater runoff peak flow during construction: 0.31 cfs  10‐year stormwater runoff peak flow during construction: 0.51 cfs  2‐year stormwater runoff peak flow after construction: 0.0 cfs  10‐year stormwater runoff peak flow after construction: 0.0 cfs All stormwater flow calculations are provided in Appendix F. 4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3.0 Construction Stormwater BMPs 3.1 The 12 BMP Elements 3.1.1 Element #1 – Mark Clearing Limits To protect adjacent properties and to reduce the area of soil exposed to construction, the limits of construction will be clearly marked before land‐disturbing activities begin. The site is largely developed as a gravel pad without native vegetation to protect. The BMPs relevant to marking the clearing limits that will be applied for this project include: ï‚· Preserving Natural Vegetation (BMP C101) ï‚· High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP C103) Preserving Natural Vegetation (BMP C101) This BMP will be implemented immediately after mobilization and prior to any grading or clearing activities. The purpose will be to prevent disturbance of areas outside the construction zone. These areas will be marked per BMP 103. High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP C103) This BMP will be implemented prior to clearing and grading. This will provide the protection for Preserving Natural Vegetation, as well as provide site security. Alternate BMPs for marking clearing limits are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.2 Element #2 – Establish Construction Access Construction access or activities occurring on unpaved areas shall be minimized, yet where necessary, access points shall be stabilized to minimize the tracking of sediment onto public roads, and street sweeping, and street cleaning shall be employed to prevent sediment from entering state waters. All wash wastewater shall be controlled on site. The specific BMPs related to establishing construction access that will be used on this project include: ï‚· Stabilized Construction Entrance (BMP C105) ï‚· Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization (BMP C107) 5 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Stabilized Construction Entrance (BMP C105) A construction entrance will be placed at the current access from 212th St NE. Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization (BMP C107) On‐site haul routes and staging areas will be stabilized with crushed rock. Alternate construction access BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.3 Element #3 – Control Flow Rates In order to protect the properties and waterways downstream of the project site, stormwater discharges from the site will be controlled. The specific BMPs for flow control that shall be used on this project include: Temporary Excavation The southeastern portion of the site is underlain by peat to a depth of 10‐15 feet. This material will need to be excavated and then backfilled with riprap. The excavation will cover the entire southeast corner of the site and will ultimately be backfilled with quarry spalls. During construction, storm water will flow into this excavation and ultimately infiltrate into the groundwater. No other sedimentation settling facility is proposed. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, the project must comply with Minimum Requirement 7 (Ecology 2005). The temporary excavation will provide this protection through the initial stages of construction. Alternate flow control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 6 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3.1.4 Element #4 – Install Sediment Controls All stormwater runoff from disturbed areas shall pass through an appropriate sediment removal BMP before leaving the construction site. The specific BMPs to be used for controlling sediment on this project include: ï‚· Silt Fence ï‚· Temporary Pond Silt Fence Silt fence will be placed along the east boundary of disturbance. Temporary Excavation The excavation will occur early in the construction following site demolition of the existing pole yard. Alternate sediment control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. In addition, sediment will be removed from paved areas in and adjacent to construction work areas manually or using mechanical sweepers, as needed, to minimize tracking of sediments on vehicle tires away from the site and to minimize washoff of sediments from adjacent streets in runoff. Whenever possible, sediment laden water shall be discharged into onsite, relatively level, vegetated areas (BMP C240 paragraph 5, page 4‐102). In some cases, sediment discharge in concentrated runoff can be controlled using permanent stormwater BMPs (e.g., infiltration swales, ponds, trenches). Sediment loads can limit the effectiveness of some permanent stormwater BMPs, such as those used for infiltration or biofiltration; however, those BMPs designed to remove solids by settling (wet ponds or detention ponds) can be used during the construction phase. When permanent stormwater BMPs will be used to control sediment discharge during construction, the structure will be protected from excessive sedimentation with adequate erosion and sediment control BMPs. Any accumulated sediment shall be removed after construction is complete and the permanent stormwater BMP will be restabilized with vegetation per applicable design requirements once the remainder of the site has been stabilized. 7 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3.1.5 Element #5 – Stabilize Soils Exposed and unworked soils shall be stabilized with the application of effective BMPs to prevent erosion throughout the life of the project. The specific BMPs for soil stabilization that shall be used on this project include: ï‚· Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120) ï‚· Mulching (BMP C121) ï‚· Plastic Covering (BMP C123) ï‚· Topsoiling (BMP C125) ï‚· Dust Control (BMP C140) ï‚· Construction Road Stabilization (BMP C107) ï‚· Materials on Hand (BMP C150). Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120) Temporary seeding will be used on those areas disturbed but not completed or for areas brought to final grades that are not ready for the permanent seeding. The construction documents indicate a seeding mix. Permanent seeding will follow the requirements of the final planting plan and specifications. Mulching (BMP C121) (compost) Placed in support of the temporary seeding (BMP C120) and used as a temporary cover. The compost proposed can then be tilled into the surface in preparation of Permanent Seeding. Plastic Covering (BMP C123) Proposed for immediate stabilization of threatened areas and for stockpiles. Provide sand bags and rope to anchor plastic. Topsoiling (BMP C125) Stockpile topsoil for use in support of permanent vegetation according to landscape specifications and BMP T5.13. Dust Control (BMP C140) Depending on weather conditions, surface protections such as mulching and surface watering will control the wind transport of sediment. Timing of this BMP is weather dependent throughout the construction process. Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization (BMP C107) On‐site haul routes will be stabilized with crushed rock. Materials on Hand (BMP C150) Due to construction activity occurring during the wet season (October through March) the contractor shall stockpile additional erosion 8 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan control material on site. Offsite stockpiling is allowed if the location is within one (1) hour from the construction area. A list of materials to stockpile on‐site follows: Clear Plastic (6mil) 2 ‐ 100 ft rolls Drain pipe (8” diameter) 6 ‐ 20’ sections Sandbags (filled) 15 Straw Bales 20 (20 lb min.) Quarry Spalls 4 ton Geotextile Fabric 2 ‐ 100 ft rolls Catch Basin Inserts 24 Steel T Posts 50 Alternate soil stabilization BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. In general, cut and fill slopes will be stabilized as soon as possible and soil stockpiles will be temporarily covered with plastic sheeting. All stockpiled soils shall be stabilized from erosion, protected with sediment trapping measures, and where possible, be located away from storm drain inlets, waterways, and drainage channels. 3.1.6 Element #6 – Protect Slopes All cut and fill slopes will be designed, constructed, and protected in a manner that minimizes erosion. The site will not contain slopes steeper than 3:1. The following specific BMPs will be used to protect slopes for this project: Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120) Temporary seeding will be used on those areas disturbed but not completed or for areas brought to final grades that are not ready for the permanent seeding. The construction documents indicate a seeding mix. Permanent seeding will follow the requirements of the final planting plan and specifications. 9 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Mulching (BMP C121) (compost) Placed in support of the temporary seeding (BMP C120) and used as a temporary cover. The compost proposed can then be tilled into the surface in preparation of Permanent Seeding. Alternate slope protection BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.7 Element #7 – Protect Drain Inlets ï‚· Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220) Storm Drain Inlet Protect (BMP C220) Place catchbasin inserts into existing inlets in 212th St NE that are downstream of the site access and in new inlets on‐site as they are constructed. See plan detail. If the BMP options listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D), or if no BMPs are listed above but deemed necessary during construction, the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall implement one or more of the alternative BMP inlet protection options listed in Appendix C. 3.1.8 Element #8 – Stabilize Channels and Outlets Where site runoff is to be conveyed in channels efforts will be taken to prevent downstream erosion. The specific BMPs for channel and outlet stabilization that shall be used on this project include: ï‚· Grass‐Lined Swales (BMP C201) ï‚· Check Dams (BMP C207) ï‚· Outlet Protection (BMP C209) Grass‐Lined Swales (BMP C201) Channels with slopes less than 5% shall be grass lined either by seeding or sod. Check Dams (BMP C207) Checkdams will be placed in the channels to reduce velocities. They are detailed and located on the plans. They will be installed with the channels. 10 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Outlet Protection (BMP C209) All pipe outlets to open channels will discharge to rock pads as detailed and located on the plans. These pads will be installed at the time of the pipe installation. Alternate channel and outlet stabilization BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.9 Element #9 – Control Pollutants All pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, that occur onsite shall be handled and disposed of in a manner that does not cause contamination of stormwater. Good housekeeping and preventative measures will be taken to ensure that the site will be kept clean, well organized, and free of debris. If required, BMPs to be implemented to control specific sources of pollutants are discussed below. Vehicles, construction equipment, and/or petroleum product storage/dispensing:  All vehicles, equipment, and petroleum product storage/dispensing areas will be inspected regularly to detect any leaks or spills, and to identify maintenance needs to prevent leaks or spills.  On‐site fueling tanks and petroleum product storage containers shall include secondary containment.  Spill prevention measures, such as drip pans, will be used when conducting maintenance and repair of vehicles or equipment.  In order to perform emergency repairs on site, temporary plastic will be placed beneath and, if raining, over the vehicle.  Contaminated surfaces shall be cleaned immediately following any discharge or spill incident. Chemical storage:  Any chemicals stored in the construction areas will conform to the appropriate source control BMPs listed in Volume IV of the Ecology stormwater manual. In Western WA, all chemicals shall have cover, 11 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan containment, and protection provided on site, per BMP C153 for Material Delivery, Storage and Containment in SWMMWW 2005  Application of agricultural chemicals, including fertilizers and pesticides, shall be conducted in a manner and at application rates that will not result in loss of chemical to stormwater runoff. Manufacturers’ recommendations for application procedures and rates shall be followed. Demolition:  Process water and slurry resulting from sawcutting and surfacing operations will be prevented from entering the waters of the State by implementing Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention measures (BMP C152). Concrete and grout:  Process water and slurry resulting from concrete work will be prevented from entering the waters of the State by implementing Concrete Handling measures (BMP C151). See plan notes for additional details. Sanitary wastewater:  Portable sanitation facilities will be firmly secured, regularly maintained, and emptied when necessary. Solid Waste:  Solid waste will be stored in secure, clearly marked containers. Other:  Other BMPs will be administered as necessary to address any additional pollutant sources on site. The facility will not require a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan under the Federal regulations of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Petroleum based products stored on site shall be covered from rainfall, limited to 1,000 gallons total of all products, and have spill containment measures immediately available and stored at the same location on site as the petroleum based products. 3.1.10 Element #10 – Control Dewatering The peat excavation will occur under the groundwater surface but any water excavated with the material will be discharged back into the excavation. Site grading and utilities are not 12 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan expected to need dewatering. If such dewatering is required, water will either be discharged to the peat excavation or, once the peat excavation is backfilled, pumped to pre‐manufactured filter tanks and released via the level spreader (BMP C206). See geotechnical report from Zipper Geo Associates pages 12 and 15 for more information. 3.1.11 Element #11 – Maintain BMPs All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Maintenance and repair shall be conducted in accordance with each particular BMPs specifications (attached). Visual monitoring of the BMPs will be conducted at least once every calendar week and within 24 hours of any stormwater or non‐stormwater discharge from the site. If the site becomes inactive, and is temporarily stabilized, the inspection frequency will be reduced to once every month. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be removed within 30 days after the final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary BMPs are no longer needed. Trapped sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil resulting from removal of BMPs or vegetation shall be permanently stabilized. 3.1.12 Element #12 – Manage the Project Erosion and sediment control BMPs for this project have been designed based on the following principles:  Design the project to fit the existing topography, soils, and drainage patterns.  Emphasize erosion control rather than sediment control.  Minimize the extent and duration of the area exposed.  Keep runoff velocities low.  Retain sediment on site.  Thoroughly monitor site and maintain all ESC measures.  Schedule major earthwork during the dry season. In addition, project management will incorporate the key components listed below: As this project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest, the project will be managed according to the following key project components: 13 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Phasing of Construction  The construction project is being phased to the extent practicable in order to prevent soil erosion, and, to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment from the site during construction.  Revegetation of exposed areas and maintenance of that vegetation shall be an integral part of the clearing activities during each phase of construction, per the Scheduling BMP (C 162). Seasonal Work Limitations  From October 1 through April 30, clearing, grading, and other soil disturbing activities shall only be permitted if shown to the satisfaction of the local permitting authority that silt‐laden runoff will be prevented from leaving the site through a combination of the following:  Site conditions including existing vegetative coverage, slope, soil type, and proximity to receiving waters; and  Limitations on activities and the extent of disturbed areas; and  Proposed erosion and sediment control measures.  Based on the information provided and/or local weather conditions, the local permitting authority may expand or restrict the seasonal limitation on site disturbance.  The following activities are exempt from the seasonal clearing and grading limitations:  Routine maintenance and necessary repair of erosion and sediment control BMPs;  Routine maintenance of public facilities or existing utility structures that do not expose the soil or result in the removal of the vegetative cover to soil; and  Activities where there is 100 percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities. 14 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Coordination with Utilities and Other Jurisdictions  Care has been taken to coordinate with utilities, other construction projects, and the local jurisdiction in preparing this SWPPP and scheduling the construction work. Inspection and Monitoring  All BMPs shall be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Site inspections shall be conducted by a person who is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. This person has the necessary skills to:  Assess the site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater, and  Assess the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges.  A Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall be on‐site or on‐call at all times.  Whenever inspection and/or monitoring reveals that the BMPs identified in this SWPPP are inadequate, due to the actual discharge of or potential to discharge a significant amount of any pollutant, appropriate BMPs or design changes shall be implemented as soon as possible. Maintaining an Updated Construction SWPPP  This SWPPP shall be retained on‐site or within reasonable access to the site.  The SWPPP shall be modified whenever there is a change in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the construction site that has, or could have, a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state.  The SWPPP shall be modified if, during inspections or investigations conducted by the owner/operator, or the applicable local or state regulatory authority, it is determined that the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site. The SWPPP shall be modified as necessary to include additional or modified BMPs designed to correct problems 15 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan identified. Revisions to the SWPPP shall be completed within seven (7) days following the inspection. ‐‐‐  3.1.13 Element #13 – Protect Low Impact Development BMP’s ï‚· The site subgrades shall be prepared under the direction of the geotechnical testing agency prior to placement of gravel surfacing. ï‚· Prevent compacting BMPs by excluding construction equipment and foot traffic. ï‚· Protect completed lawn and landscaped areas from compaction due to construction equipment. ï‚· Keep all heavy equipment off existing soils under LID facilities that have been excavated to final grade to retain the infiltration rate of the soils. 3.2 Site Specific BMPs Site specific BMPs are shown on the TESC Plan Sheets and Details in Appendix A. These site specific plan sheets will be updated annually. 3.3 Additional Advanced BMPs The BMP implementation schedule will be driven by the construction schedule. The following provides a sequential list of the proposed construction schedule milestones and the corresponding BMP implementation schedule. The list contains key milestones such as wet season construction. The BMP implementation schedule listed below is keyed to proposed phases of the construction project, and reflects differences in BMP installations and inspections that relate to wet season construction. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, the dry season is considered to be from May 1 to September 30 and the wet season is considered to be from October 1 to April 30.  Estimate of Construction start date: 03/27/17  Estimate of Construction finish date: 11/17/17  Mobilize equipment on site: 03/27/17  Mobilize and store all ESC and soil stabilization products (store materials on hand BMP C150): 03/27/17 16 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan  Install perimeter ESC controls prior to any earth disturbing activities: 03/28/17  Clear and grub. 04/03/17  Commence grading. 04/03/17  Begin utilities. 05/02/17  Complete site work 07/12/17  Landscaping. 07/21/17  Remove remaining TESC facilities 07/28/17  Electrical Assembly Complete 10/06/17  Wet Season starts: 10/01/17  Energize site: 11/17/17 17 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 5.0 Pollution Prevention Team 5.1 Roles and Responsibilities The pollution prevention team consists of personnel responsible for implementation of the SWPPP, including the following:  Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) – primary contractor contact, responsible for site inspections (BMPs, visual monitoring, sampling, etc.); to be called upon in case of failure of any ESC measures.  Resident Engineer – For projects with engineered structures only (sediment ponds/traps, sand filters, etc.): site representative for the owner that is the project's supervising engineer responsible for inspections and issuing instructions and drawings to the contractor's site supervisor or representative  Emergency Ecology Contact – individual to be contacted at Ecology in case of emergency.  Emergency Owner Contact – individual that is the site owner or representative of the site owner to be contacted in the case of an emergency.  Non‐Emergency Ecology Contact – individual that is the site owner or representative of the site owner than can be contacted if required.  Monitoring Personnel – personnel responsible for conducting water quality monitoring; for most sites this person is also the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead. 18 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 5.2 Team Members Names and contact information for those identified as members of the pollution prevention team are provided in the following table. Title Name(s) Phone Number Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) Pending Project Bid Resident Engineer David Harmsen, PE 360‐794‐7811 Emergency Ecology Contact Northwest Region 425‐649‐7000 Emergency Owner Contact Tom Hendricks 425‐783‐5022 Non‐Emergency Ecology Contact Pending Project Bid Monitoring Personnel Pending Project Bid 19 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 6.0 Site Inspections and Monitoring Monitoring includes visual inspection, monitoring for water quality parameters of concern, and documentation of the inspection and monitoring findings in a site log book. A site log book will be maintained for all on‐site construction activities and will include:  A record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit requirements;  Site inspections; and,  Stormwater quality monitoring. For convenience, the inspection form and water quality monitoring forms included in this SWPPP include the required information for the site log book. This SWPPP may function as the site log book if desired, or the forms may be separated and included in a separate site log book. However, if separated, the site log book but must be maintained on‐site or within reasonable access to the site and be made available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. 6.1 Site Inspection All BMPs will be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. The inspector will be a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) per BMP C160. The name and contact information for the CESCL is provided in Section 5 of this SWPPP. Site inspection will occur in all areas disturbed by construction activities and at all stormwater discharge points. Stormwater will be examined for the presence of suspended sediment, turbidity, discoloration, and oily sheen. The site inspector will evaluate and document the effectiveness of the installed BMPs and determine if it is necessary to repair or replace any of the BMPs to improve the quality of stormwater discharges. All maintenance and repairs will be documented in the site log book or forms provided in this document. All new BMPs or design changes will be documented in the SWPPP as soon as possible. 6.1.1 Site Inspection Frequency Site inspections will be conducted at least once a week and within 24 hours following any discharge from the site. For temporary stabilization inactive sites, inspection can be reduced to once per month. 6.1.2 Site Inspection Documentation The site inspector will record each site inspection using the site log inspection forms provided in Appendix E. The site inspection log forms may be separated from this SWPPP document, but 21 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be maintained on‐site or within reasonable access to the site and be made available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. 6.2 Stormwater Quality Monitoring 6.2.1 Turbidity Site discharge during construction will drain to the north ditch line of SR20 south of the site. The downstream eventually leads to Puget Sound. No waters in the downstream are on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list The two sample locations will be: Sample Location A. Stormwater along the gutter of 212th St NE. This will represent upstream background turbidity. Sample Location B. The discharge point from the level spreader. This sample location represents turbidity downstream of the discharge point. Monitoring requirements for the proposed project will include either turbidity or water transparency sampling to monitor site discharges for water quality compliance with the 2005 Construction Stormwater General Permit (Appendix D). Sampling will be conducted at all discharge points at least once per calendar week. Turbidity or transparency monitoring will follow the analytical methodologies described in Section S4 of the 2005 Construction Stormwater General Permit (Appendix D). The key benchmark values that require action are 25 NTU for turbidity (equivalent to 32 cm transparency) and 250 NTU for turbidity (equivalent to 6 cm transparency). If the 25 NTU benchmark for turbidity (equivalent to 32 cm transparency) is exceeded, the following steps will be conducted: 1. Ensure all BMPs specified in this SWPPP are installed and functioning as intended. 2. Assess whether additional BMPs should be implemented, and document revisions to the SWPPP as necessary. 3. Sample discharge location daily until the analysis results are less than 25 NTU (turbidity) or greater than 32 cm (transparency). If the turbidity is greater than 25 NTU (or transparency is less than 32 cm) but less than 250 NTU (transparency greater than 6 cm) for more than 3 days, additional treatment BMPs will be implemented within 24 hours of the third consecutive sample that exceeded the benchmark 22 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan value. Additional treatment BMPs to be considered will include, but are not limited to, off‐site treatment, infiltration, filtration and chemical treatment. If the 250 NTU benchmark for turbidity (or less than 6 cm transparency) is exceeded at any time, the following steps will be conducted: 1. Notify Ecology by phone within 24 hours of analysis (see Section 5.0 of this SWPPP for contact information). 2. Continue daily sampling until the turbidity is less than 25 NTU (or transparency is greater than 32 cm). 3. Initiate additional treatment BMPs such as off‐site treatment, infiltration, filtration and chemical treatment within 24 hours of the first 250 NTU exceedance. 4. Implement additional treatment BMPs as soon as possible, but within 7 days of the first 250 NTU exceedance. 5. Describe inspection results and remedial actions taken in the site log book and in monthly discharge monitoring reports as described in Section 7.0 of this SWPPP. 6.2.2 pH Sampling 1. The work does not involve the placement of concrete. 23 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 7.0 Reporting and Recordkeeping 7.1 Recordkeeping 7.1.1 Site Log Book A site log book will be maintained for all on‐site construction activities and will include:  A record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit requirements;  Site inspections; and,  Stormwater quality monitoring. For convenience, the inspection form and water quality monitoring forms included in this SWPPP include the required information for the site log book. 7.1.2 Records Retention Records of all monitoring information (site log book, inspection reports/checklists, etc.), this Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and any other documentation of compliance with permit requirements will be retained during the life of the construction project and for a minimum of three years following the termination of permit coverage in accordance with permit condition S5.C. 7.1.3 Access to Plans and Records The SWPPP, General Permit, Notice of Authorization letter, and Site Log Book will be retained on site or within reasonable access to the site and will be made immediately available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. A copy of this SWPPP will be provided to Ecology within 14 days of receipt of a written request for the SWPPP from Ecology. Any other information requested by Ecology will be submitted within a reasonable time. A copy of the SWPPP or access to the SWPPP will be provided to the public when requested in writing in accordance with permit condition S5.G. 7.1.4 Updating the SWPPP In accordance with Conditions S3, S4.B, and S9.B.3 of the General Permit, this SWPPP will be modified if the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site or there has been a change in design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the site that has a significant effect on the discharge, or potential 25 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for discharge, of pollutants to the waters of the State. The SWPPP will be modified within seven days of determination based on inspection(s) that additional or modified BMPs are necessary to correct problems identified, and an updated timeline for BMP implementation will be prepared. 7.2 Reporting 7.2.1 Discharge Monitoring Reports 7.2.2 Notification of Noncompliance If any of the terms and conditions of the permit are not met, and it causes a threat to human health or the environment, the following steps will be taken in accordance with permit section S5.F: 1. Ecology will be immediately notified of the failure to comply. 2. Immediate action will be taken to control the noncompliance issue and to correct the problem. If applicable, sampling and analysis of any noncompliance will be repeated immediately and the results submitted to Ecology within five (5) days of becoming aware of the violation. 3. A detailed written report describing the noncompliance will be submitted to Ecology within five (5) days, unless requested earlier by Ecology. 7.2.3 Permit Application and Changes In accordance with permit condition S2.A, a complete application form will be submitted to Ecology and the appropriate local jurisdiction (if applicable) to be covered by the General Permit. 26 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix A – Site Plans 27 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix B – Construction BMPs The following list of BMPs for each of the 12 elements are proposed for use on the site. More information on each BMP is available on the Department of Ecology Website in the 2014 drainage manual. Element #1 ‐ Mark Clearing Limits BMP C101 Preserving Natural Vegetation BMP C103 High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence Element #2 ‐ Establish Construction Access BMP C105 Stabilized Construction Access BMP C107 Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization Element #3 ‐ Control Flow Rates Element #4 ‐ Install Sediment Controls BMP C233 Silt Fence Element #5 ‐ Stabilize Soils BMP C120 Temporary and Permanent Seeding BMP C121 Mulching BMP C125 Topsoiling BMP C140 Dust Control BMP C107 Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization BMP C150 Materials On Hand Element #6 ‐ Protect Slopes BMP C120 Temporary and Permanent Seeding BMP C121 Mulching Element #7 – Protect Drain Inlets BMP C220 Strom Drain Inlet Protection Element #8 ‐ Stabilize Channels and Outlets BMP C201 Grass Lined Swales BMP C207 Check Dams BMP C209 Outlet Protection 28 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Element #9 – Control Pollutants Element #10 ‐ Control Dewatering Element #11 – Maintain BMP’s Element #12 – Manage the Project Element #13 – Protect Low Impact Development 29 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix C – Alternative BMPs The following includes a list of possible alternative BMPs for each of the 12 elements not described in the main SWPPP text. This list can be referenced in the event a BMP for a specific element is not functioning as designed and an alternative BMP needs to be implemented. Element #1 ‐ Mark Clearing Limits BMP C102 Buffer Zones Element #2 ‐ Establish Construction Access BMP C106 Wheel Wash Element #3 ‐ Control Flow Rates BMP C203 Water Bars BMP C235 Wattles BMP C240 Sediment Trap BMP C241 Sediment Pond Element #4 ‐ Install Sediment Controls BMP C231 Brush Barrier BMP C232 Gravel Filter Berm BMP C234 Vegetated Strip BMP C235 Wattles BMP C240 Sediment Trap BMP C241 Sediment Pond BMP C251 Construction Stormwater Filtration Element #5 ‐ Stabilize Soils BMP C122 Nets & Blankets BMP C124 Sodding BMP C126 Polyacrylamides for Soil Erosion Protection BMP C130 Surface Roughening BMP C131 Gradient Terraces Element #6 ‐ Protect Slopes BMP C122 Nets & Blankets BMP C130 Surface Roughening BMP C131 Gradient Terraces Element #7 – Protect Drain Inlets Element #8 ‐ Stabilize Channels and Outlets BMP C122 Nets & Blankets BMP C202 Channel Lining 30 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan BMP C208 Triangular Silt Dike Element #9 – Control Pollutants BMP C154 Concrete Washout Area Element #10 ‐ Control Dewatering BMP C203 Water Bars BMP C206 Level Spreader BMP C236 Vegetated Filtration Element #11 – Maintain BMP’s Element #12 – Manage the Project Element #13 – Protect Low Impact Development BMP C102 Buffer Zones BMP C208 Triangular Silt Dike BMP C231 Brush Barrier BMP C234 Vegetated Strip 31 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix D – General Permit 33 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix E – Site Inspection Forms (and Site Log) The results of each inspection shall be summarized in an inspection report or checklist that is entered into or attached to the site log book. It is suggested that the inspection report or checklist be included in this appendix to keep monitoring and inspection information in one document, but this is optional. However, it is mandatory that this SWPPP and the site inspection forms be kept onsite at all times during construction, and that inspections be performed and documented as outlined below. At a minimum, each inspection report or checklist shall include: a. Inspection date/times b. Weather information: general conditions during inspection, approximate amount of precipitation since the last inspection, and approximate amount of precipitation within the last 24 hours. c. A summary or list of all BMPs that have been implemented, including observations of all erosion/sediment control structures or practices. d. The following shall be noted: i. locations of BMPs inspected, ii. locations of BMPs that need maintenance, iii. the reason maintenance is needed, iv. locations of BMPs that failed to operate as designed or intended, and v. locations where additional or different BMPs are needed, and the reason(s) why e. A description of stormwater discharged from the site. The presence of suspended sediment, turbid water, discoloration, and/or oil sheen shall be noted, as applicable. f. A description of any water quality monitoring performed during inspection, and the results of that monitoring. g. General comments and notes, including a brief description of any BMP r repairs, maintenance or installations made as a result of the inspection. h. A statement that, in the judgment of the person conducting the site inspection, the site is either in compliance or out of 34 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan compliance with the terms and conditions of the SWPPP and the NPDES permit. If the site inspection indicates that the site is out of compliance, the inspection report shall include a summary of the remedial actions required to bring the site back into compliance, as well as a schedule of implementation. i. Name, title, and signature of person conducting the site inspection; and the following statement: “I certify under penalty of law that this report is true, accurate, and complete, to the best of my knowledge and belief”. When the site inspection indicates that the site is not in compliance with any terms and conditions of the NPDES permit, the Permittee shall take immediate action(s) to: stop, contain, and clean up the unauthorized discharges, or otherwise stop the noncompliance; correct the problem(s); implement appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), and/or conduct maintenance of existing BMPs; and achieve compliance with all applicable standards and permit conditions. In addition, if the noncompliance causes a threat to human health or the environment, the Permittee shall comply with the Noncompliance Notification requirements in Special Condition S5.F of the permit. 35 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Site Inspection Form General Information Project Name: Inspector Name: Title: CESCL # : Date: Time: Inspection Type: □ After a rain event   □ Weekly   □ Turbidity/transparency benchmark exceedance   □ Other Weather Precipitation Since last inspection In last 24 hours Description of General Site Conditions: Inspection of BMPs Element 1: Mark Clearing Limits BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP Element 2: Establish Construction Access BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP 36 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Element 3: Control Flow Rates BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP Element 4: Install Sediment Controls BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP 37 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Element 5: Stabilize Soils BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP Element 6: Protect Slopes BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP 38 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Element 7: Protect Drain Inlets BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP Element 8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP 39 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Element 9: Control Pollutants BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP Element 10: Control Dewatering BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP 40 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Stormwater Discharges From the Site Observed? Problem/Corrective Action Y N Location Turbidity Discoloration Sheen Location Turbidity Discoloration Sheen 41 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Water Quality Monitoring Was any water quality monitoring â–¡ Yes □  No conducted? If water quality monitoring was conducted, record results here: If water quality monitoring indicated turbidity 250 NTU or greater; or transparency 6 cm or less, was Ecology notified by phone within 24 hrs? â–¡ Yes □  No If Ecology was notified, indicate the date, time, contact name and phone number below: Date: Time: Contact Name: Phone #: General Comments and Notes Include BMP repairs, maintenance, or installations made as a result of the inspection. Were Photos Taken? â–¡ Yes □  No If photos taken, describe photos below: 42 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix F – Engineering Calculations There are no calculations associated with this SWPPP. 43 R E IV R TWIN RIVERS COUNTY PARK H N IS O M A R U T AG H L IL T S FORK N NORTH E N 530 E V A H T 7 E RMD 8 RLMD N 210TH ST NE V TVEIT RD A 212TH ST NE H ARLINGTON P/SP T 6 6 RHD SR E N 204TH ST NE E N CEM E B V N U A R 201ST ST N T NE V S V 1 A A 7 H H T T 4 7 7 R 6 D PROJECT SITE ARLINGTON 8630 212TH ST NE AIRPORT 9 ARLINGTON, WA 98223 VICINITY MAP SW ‚, SEC 12, TWP 31N, RGE 5E, WM Providing quality water, power and service at a competitive price that our customers value February 10, 2017 Ms. Amy Rusko and Mr. Marc Hayes Community & Economic Development Dept. 18204 59 Avenue NE Arlington, WA 98223 Good Afternoon, Enclosed are the following permit package items that pertain to the new Eagle Creek Substation: 1. Land Use Application Zoning Permit and Site Plan Review Auxiliary Sheet – ($2,325.00 fee) 2. Construction Permit Application – Civil (Type I) and Construction Plan Review & Inspection Fee Worksheet 3. Eagle Creek Substation Project Description and Vicinity Map 4. SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) 5. Stormwater Site Plan prepared by Harmsen & Associates (5 copies) 6. Storm Drainage Operations & Maintenance Manual prepared by Harmsen & Associates (4 copies) 7. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Harmsen & Associates (4 copies) 8. Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Zipper Geo Associates (5 copies) 9. Critical Area Determination Report prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc. (2 copies) 10. Sound Analysis Report prepared by BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design (2 copies) 11. Cultural Resources Assessment Report prepared by Tierra Right of Way Services (2 copies) 12. Site Construction, Landscaping, and Irrigation Drawing Sets (4 complete sets & 1 Site Construction drawings only) 13. Thumb drive of all electronic files in the permit submittal After the review has been performed and the final permit fees calculated, please send me an invoice for the total permit fee, so a check can be prepared and submitted for payment. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Tom Hendricks, P.E. Substation Engineering Public Utility District No.1 of Snohomish County (425)-783-5022 tdhendricks@snopud.com Cc: Bob Anderson, Interim Manager Substation Engineering; and Substation File 5.1, WO#100001443 – Eagle Creek Substation 2320 California Street • Everett, WA • 98201 / Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1107 • Everett, WA • 98206-1107 425-783-1000 • Toll-free in Western Washington at 1-877-783-1000 • www.snopud.com GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED EAGLE CREEK SUBSTATION 8630 Tveit Road Arlington, Washington Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Prepared for: Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Prepared by: ZGA Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D Lynnwood, WA 98036 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT INFORMATION .....................................................................................................................1 Site Location and Description .........................................................................................................1 Project Description .........................................................................................................................1 SITE CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................................................2 Surface Conditions .........................................................................................................................2 Subsurface Conditions ....................................................................................................................2 Groundwater .................................................................................................................................3 Environmental Considerations ........................................................................................................4 CONCLUSIONS AND ............................................................................................................................5 RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................................5 Geotechnical Considerations ..........................................................................................................5 Geologically Hazardous Areas .........................................................................................................6 Consolidation Settlement Considerations .......................................................................................9 Earthwork .................................................................................................................................... 12 Site Preparation ........................................................................................................................... 12 Structural Fill ................................................................................................................................ 13 Utility Installation Recommendations ........................................................................................... 15 Below-grade Vault Recommendations .......................................................................................... 17 Foundations ................................................................................................................................. 18 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations ............................................................................. 18 Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations .......................................................................... 18 Seismic Design Parameters ........................................................................................................... 19 Concrete Slab Subgrade Preparation Recommendations ............................................................... 20 Drilled Pier Foundation / Direct Burial Recommendations ............................................................. 20 Open Shaft Construction Considerations ....................................................................................... 23 IBC Non-constrained Pole Design Recommendations ..................................................................... 23 Stormwater Management Considerations ..................................................................................... 24 Driveway Flexible Pavement Section Recommendations ............................................................... 26 West Side Driveway Improvements .............................................................................................. 27 Erosion Control ............................................................................................................................ 27 CLOSURE .......................................................................................................................................... 28 FIGURES Figure 1 – Site and Exploration Plan Figure 2 – Cross Section A-A’ Figure 3 – Cross Section B-B’ Figure 4 – Settlement Plate Detail APPENDICES Appendix A – Subsurface Exploration Procedures and Logs Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Procedures and Results GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED EAGLE CREEK SUBSTATION 8630 TVEIT ROAD ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 INTRODUCTION The geotechnical engineering exploration and analysis have been completed for the proposed Eagle Creek Substation project in Arlington, Washington. Six exploratory borings were completed to depths ranging from approximately 19 to 46 feet below the existing ground surface, and two test pits were excavated to approximately 15 feet, to evaluate subsurface conditions. Descriptive logs of the explorations are included in Appendix A. PROJECT INFORMATION Site Location and Description The project site is located at 8630 Tveit Road in Arlington, Washington. The site, which is currently used by the District as a storage yard for materials and vehicles, is trapezoidal and has approximate dimensions of 290 feet (north-south) by 130 to 170 feet (east-west). The substation is bordered to the east by undeveloped wooded property that contains Eagle Creek and a wetland, to the west by a transmission line easement, to the north by Tveit Road and the East Arlington substation, and to the south by a developed residential lot. The project site is illustrated on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. Project Description The proposed project consists of converting the site to a double bank substation. Site improvements are expected to include: ï‚· Dead end towers at the north; ï‚· Circuit breakers, disconnect switches, neutral reactors, and bus supports; ï‚· Two slab-supported switchgear enclosures at the south; ï‚· Two slab-supported transformers; ï‚· Below-grade conduits and pre-cast concrete vaults; Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 ï‚· A stormwater infiltration system consisting of a perforated pipe and washed rock-filled trenches along with catch basins; ï‚· The placement of about 2 to 4 feet of structural fill in the lower southeastern portion of the site. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The project site has an overall gentle slope downward from northwest to southeast with ground surface elevations ranging from approximately 150 to 158 feet. A fill slope with a height of about 1 to 4 feet extends down to the east just outside of the site’s perimeter fence. The storage yard is surfaced with crushed rock and pit run sand and gravel. Materials are stored along the sides and in the middle of the site with a loop drive for vehicle access. Vehicle and trailer parking is located along the southern end of the site. A small restroom building is located in the northwestern portion of the site. We did not observe standing or flowing surface water in the fenced portion of the site. A wetland is located immediately east of the fenced area and standing water was present a few feet east of the fence during our site visits. A single-lane, gravel-surfaced driveway extends north-south immediately outside of the west perimeter fence. Subsurface Conditions The publication Geologic Map of the Arlington East Quadrangle, Snohomish County, Washington (US Geological Survey Map MF-1739, dated 1985) describes the site as underlain by the Marysville Sand member of recessional outwash deposits. However, based upon the conditions disclosed by borings completed on the site, it appears that the native soils are more representative of the glacial till which has been mapped to the southeast and northwest of the site and underlies the recessional deposits. Specifically, we have interpreted that much of the native soil is consistent with ablation till which was formed during retreat of the last glacial ice mass that covered western Washington. We also observed above the till fine grained silty sand and sandy silt with peat and fine organics representative of lacustrine and bog deposits. The developed nature of the site suggests that fill material is present as well. The subsurface exploration program completed for this study included advancing six hollow stem auger borings (B-1 through B-6) and excavating two test pits (TP-1 and TP-2) at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. Details of the field exploration program completed for this study, along with the logs of the explorations, are presented in Appendix A. Details of the geotechnical laboratory testing program and the results of the laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B and on the logs in Appendix A as appropriate. The soil descriptions presented below have been generalized for ease of report interpretation. Please refer to the exploration logs for detailed soil descriptions at the exploration locations. Variations in subsurface conditions may exist between the exploration locations and the nature and extent of variations Page 2 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 between the explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear, it may be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. Subsurface conditions as disclosed by the explorations are summarized below. Generalized subsurface conditions are also illustrated on Cross Section A-A’ and Cross Section B-B’, Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Fill Fill material that largely consisted of medium dense to very dense gravelly sand with a variable silt content was observed at each of the exploration locations. The fill thickness ranged from approximately 2 to 4.5 feet. About a foot of very stiff silt fill was observed below the granular fill at the boring B-3 location, and about 18 inches of very stiff, black and dark brown silt with some fine organics mixed with the granular fill was observed at the boring B-5 location (we have interpreted this material as probably relic topsoil left in place when the site was filled). A perforated corrugated plastic drain pipe embedded in coarse gravel fill was observed on the south sidewall of test pit TP-2 at the far south end of the site It should be noted that the character and depth of fill may vary over relatively short distances. Lacustrine and Bog Deposits Lacustrine and bog deposits consisting of silty sand and sandy silt with some organic silt, peat, fine organics, and wood pieces was observed at the locations of borings B-1, B-4, and B-6, and also in both of the test pits. These soils were very loose to loose and very soft to soft and are considered highly compressible under applied loads. The bottom of these soils, where observed, ranged from approximately 10 to 14 feet below existing site grade. Large pieces of wood were observed to a depth of approximately 6 feet in these deposits at the test pit TP-2 location, and approximately 1 to 1.5 feet of compressible organic silt and silt with fine organics and wood was observed directly below fill at the test pit locations. Recessional Outwash Medium dense to dense sand and gravel with a variable silt content was observed below the fill and above the ablation till at the locations of borings B-2, B-3, and B-5. Glacial Till The ablation till soils generally consisted of gravelly silty sand and gravelly sandy silt, although some horizons of clean gravelly sand were observed within the siltier soils. The material ranged in density from medium dense to dense and medium stiff to hard. Groundwater Groundwater was observed at depths of approximately 2 to 4.5 feet at each of the borings while drilling. We also measured groundwater at a depth of 2.5 feet below existing grade in a monitoring well installed Page 3 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 at the boring B-1 location approximately six hours after the well was installed. The groundwater was measured at approximately 3.8 feet in the well in late August. Groundwater conditions should be expected to fluctuate due to changes in seasonal precipitation, site utilization, and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater may also be influenced by the level of water in the wetland immediately east of the site. Subsurface conditions observed at the boring locations are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Subsurface Conditions Summary Exploration Approx. Ground Approx. Fill Approx. Organic Approx. Surface Elev. Thickness (feet) Soil Depth Range Groundwater (feet) (feet) Depth / Elevation (feet) B-1 2 2 - 10 2.5**/150.5 (1 June 16) 153 3.8**/149.2 (25 August 2016) B-2 154 4.5 NE 4* / 150 B-3 155 2.5 NE 4.5* / 150.5 B-4 153 2 2 - 14 2* / 151 B-5 154 2 NE 3* / 151 B-6 151 3 3 - 14 3.5* / 147.5 Ground surface elevations were derived from topographic survey, dated 11 July 2016, by Harmsen & Associates, Inc. NE: Not encountered at the time of exploration *Groundwater observed at time of drilling **Groundwater measured in monitoring well Environmental Considerations Headspace measurements were made of each of the containerized soil samples recovered from the borings using a photoionization detector (PID). The PID is a screening tool that can be used to initially assess the potential for soils to contain petroleum hydrocarbons. However, it should be noted that water vapor can also influence the measurements taken with a PID, and that analytical testing of suspect soils should be completed to determine the type and concentration of hydrocarbons that may be present in soils. The measurements observed for each sample are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. The headspace measurements were low and do not reflect the presence of hydrocarbons, in our opinion. Page 4 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Geotechnical Considerations Based on information gathered during the field exploration, laboratory testing, and analysis, we conclude that construction of the proposed improvements is feasible from the geotechnical perspective provided that the recommendations presented herein are followed during design and construction. Selected aspects of the site conditions that should be considered during design and construction are summarized below. ï‚· The explorations disclosed up to about 4.5 feet of fill consisting of sand with a variable gravel, silt, and organic content. The fill is underlain by variable soils conditions, with highly compressible peat and organic-rich soil in the southeastern portion of the site (as disclosed by borings B-1, B-4, and B-6 and test pit TP-1 and TP-2). Less load-sensitive and non-organic soils were disclosed by borings B-2, B-3, and B-5 in the northwestern portion of the site. Excavation of the load-sensitive organic soils and backfilling of the excavations with compacted structural fill is recommended in order to provide adequate support for both switchgear enclosures, the Bank 1 transformer, and associated conduits, vaults, and other settlement-sensitive substation elements located in the area where the organic soils were observed. ï‚· The soft organic and fine grained soils and loose granular soils observed at the boring B-1, B-4, and B-5 locations to a maximum depth of approximately 14 feet are potentially liquefiable under the IBC design seismic event, and we calculated that from 1-1/2 to 3 inches of settlement may occur. Mitigation of this settlement potential could be achieved by supporting settlement- sensitive substation elements on piles that extend into denser/stiff soils at depth, or by ground improvement, such as excavating the potentially liquefiable soils and replacing them with compacted structural fill. ï‚· Based upon our conversations with the District, excavation of the load-sensitive organic and fine grained soils and potentially liquefiable soils disclosed by borings B-1, B-4, and B-6 is the preferred method of mitigating potential future static or seismically-induced settlements. ï‚· Borings B-2, B-3, and B-5 disclosed medium dense to dense granular soils below the surficial fill and it will be feasible to support the Bank 2 transformer and associated Bank 1 and Bank 2 substation elements above these soils without the need for subgrade improvement. Soils disclosed by borings B-3 and B-5 are well-suited for the use of drilled pier foundations or direct burial for the proposed Bank 1 and Bank 2 dead end structures. ï‚· The site is characterized by a shallow groundwater table and dewatering of excavations should be expected. The shallow groundwater combined with the granular soils in the northwestern portion of the site is such that caving in excavations and drilled shafts may occur. Page 5 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Geotechnical engineering recommendations for site grading, drainage, foundations, and other geotechnically-related aspects of the project are presented in the following sections. The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of and the field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed switching station design. ASTM and WSDOT specification codes cited herein refer to the current manual published by the American Society for Testing & Materials and the 2010 edition of the WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (Publication M41-10). Geologically Hazardous Areas The City of Arlington regulates geologically hazardous areas via Chapter 20.88 of the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). Geologically hazardous areas “…include areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, seismic activity, or other geological events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when used as sites for incompatible commercial, residential or industrial development”. Geologically hazardous areas relative to the project site are discussed below. Erosion Hazard The AMC defines an erosion hazard as a landform or soil type subject to being worn away by the action of water, wind, freeze-thaw or ice. The site is mantled with granular fill material and the overall slope of the site is quite low. We observed only minor erosion of the granular fill embankment along its east edge. It is our opinion that the use of conventional Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) measures approved by the City of Arlington during construction will reduce the potential for sediment generation and off-site sediment transport. Erosion control recommendations are presented subsequently in this report. Landslide Hazard The AMC defines a landslide hazard as an area potentially subject to risk of mass movement due to a combination of factors, including historic failures. The site and immediately surrounding area are either very gently sloping or level, so the risk of landsliding on the site or immediately adjacent to it is negligible. The exploratory borings did not disclose landslide deposits or landslide debris. Based upon our current understanding of site conditions, it is our opinion that the site does not meet the AMC definition of a landslide hazard area. Page 6 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Seismic Hazard Area The AMC defines seismic hazard areas as areas that include areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a result of seismic induced settlement, shaking, slope failure or soil liquefaction. These conditions occur in areas underlain by cohesionless soils of low density usually in association with a shallow groundwater table. The tectonic setting of western Washington is dominated by the Cascadia Subduction Zone formed by the Juan de Fuca plate subducting beneath the North American Plate. This setting leads to intraplate, crustal, and interplate earthquake sources. Seismic hazards relate to risks of injury to people and damage to property resulting from these three principle earthquake sources. The seismic performance of the site was evaluated relative to seismic hazards resulting from ground shaking associated with the Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration in accordance with the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). Conformance to the above criteria for seismic excitation does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a maximum considered earthquake occurs. The primary goal of the IBC seismic design procedure is to protect life and not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Following a major earthquake, a building or structure may be damaged beyond repair, yet not collapse. The results of our seismic hazard analyses and recommended seismic design parameters are presented in the following sections. Ground Surface Rupture: According to the US Geological Survey on-line fault map database, the site is approximately 8 miles southwest of the Devils Mountain fault. The north-dipping fault zone of the Devils Mountain fault extends westward for more than 75 miles from the Cascade Range foothills to offshore Vancouver Island. At its east end, the Devils Mountain fault intersects or merges with the Darrington fault zone. At its west end, the Devils Mountain fault may merge with the Leech River and/or San Juan faults on Vancouver Island. Quaternary strata are deformed on nearly all seismic-reflection profiles crossing the fault in the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca, and onshore subsurface data suggest offset of upper Pleistocene strata across the fault. The most recent significant displacement along the fault is thought to have occurred over 130,000 years ago, and data suggest that the slip rate is less than 0.2 millimeters per year. The USGS on-line Quaternary fault mapping may be viewed at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/map/. Based up the proximity of the site to the referenced mapped fault, it is our opinion that the risk of ground surface rupture at the site is low. Landsliding: Based on the gentle topography of the site and surrounding vicinity, the risk of earthquake- induced landsliding is low. Soil Liquefaction: Liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein saturated cohesionless soils build up excess pore water pressures during earthquake loading. Liquefaction typically occurs in loose soils, but may Page 7 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 occur in denser soils if the ground shaking is sufficiently strong. ZGA completed a liquefaction analysis in general accordance with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2012 IBC and Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7-10. Specifically, our analysis used the following primary seismic ground motion parameters. ï‚· A Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.422g, based on Figure 22-7 of ASCE 7-10. ï‚· A Modified Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) of 0.380g based on Site Class E, per Section 11.8.3 of ASCR7-10 (Site Class modification to MCEG without regard to liquefaction in accordance with Sections 11.4.7 and 20.3.1 of ASCE 7-10). ï‚· A Geometric Mean Magnitude of 6.7 based on 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project deaggregation data for a seismic event with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (2,475-year return period) and a geometric mean peak ground acceleration of 0.422g. Our liquefaction analysis was completed using the computer program LiquefyPro Version 5.8. Our evaluation used a fines content correction per Idriss and Seed (1997) and saturated soil settlement calculation procedure per Ishihara and Yoshimine (1990). Our analysis was based on the deeper site explorations (borings B-4 through B-6) completed at the locations proposed substation elements in the southeastern portion of the site and laboratory test data. The borings extended about 41½ to 46 feet below grade. The approximate exploration locations are shown on the enclosed Site and Exploration Plans, Figure 1. Our analysis indicates the potential for liquefaction within sandy interbeds located within the near surface organic silt and peat deposits encountered in the southeastern portion of the site to depths up to about 14 feet below existing grade. Liquefaction Settlement: Based on our analyses, we estimate total seismic settlements within the interbedded organic silt and peat deposits encountered in the southeastern portion of the site of approximately 1½ to 3 inches. Given the shallow nature of these deposits and their compositional variability, we anticipate that differential seismic settlements could approach the total settlement value over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. Soil liquefaction may be expressed at the ground surface as sand boils, ground cracks, vertical settlements, and lateral displacements. If these levels of seismic induced liquefaction settlement are not acceptable, we recommend that deep foundations or ground improvement mitigative measures be considered as discussed in subsequent sections of this report. Lateral Spread: Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which soil deposits which underlie a site can experience significant lateral displacements associated with the reduction in soil strength caused by soil liquefaction. This phenomenon tends to occur most commonly at sites where the soil deposits can flow toward a “free-face”, such as a water body. Given the site geometry and lack of a free-face condition, it Page 8 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 is our opinion that the potential for distress at the site from lateral spreading is low for the 2012 IBC design seismic event. Slopes The AMC also regulates some slopes as follows: ï‚· Moderate slopes shall include any slope greater than or equal to fifteen percent and less than thirty-three percent. ï‚· Steep slopes shall include any slope greater than or equal to thirty-three percent. The project site has an approximate inclination of approximately 3 percent from northwest to southeast and does not contain slopes regulated under the AMC. Consolidation Settlement Considerations Peat and organic-rich lacustrine and bog deposits were disclosed in the southeastern portion of the site by borings B-1, B-4, and B-5 and at the locations of test pits TP-1 and TP-2 near the southern fence. This section addresses static settlement associated with consolidation of fine-grained and organic-rich soils encountered in the southeastern portion of the site. The native organic silt and peat deposit encountered below the existing fill soils in the southeastern portion of the site will tend to consolidate in response to new loads imposed by fill used to raise site grades. Based on our preliminary discussions with the District, we have considered that the Bank 1 and Bank 2 switchgear enclosures and the Bank 1 transformer will be supported on new structural fill replacing the existing organic silt and peat deposits as discussed subsequently in the Foundations section of this report, and significant consolidation settlement from these elements is, therefore, not expected. Settlement of these fine-grained and organic deposits associated with raising site grades will result from primary and secondary consolidation, which are relatively slow processes. Primary Consolidation: A grading plan was not available at the time this report was prepared. However, we understand that a southward thickening wedge of fill may be placed in order to reduce the overall slope of the site. We have considered that the maximum fill thickness in the southern portion of the site may approach 3 to 4 feet. Our estimates of primary consolidation settlements are presented in the table below and were calculated using the thickest section of organic silt and peat encountered on site of about 11 feet in boring B-6. Lesser amounts of primary consolidation settlement would be expected for thinner deposits of compressible soils. Page 9 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Table 2: Primary Consolidation for an 11-foot Thick Peat and Silt Deposit Thickness of New Fill (feet) Estimated Primary Settlement (inches) 1 3 to 4 2 6-1/2 to 7-1/2 3 9-1/2 to 10-1/2 4 12 to 13 Settlements resulting from the weight of new fill could impact the performance of settlement-sensitive improvements which are not supported on adequate density native soils or above compacted structural fill placed in areas where the organic soils have been excavated. This is of particular concern in regard to differential settlement between elements not supported by adequate native soils or structural fill and those that are underlain by the load-sensitive organic and fine-grained soils. For example, in the event that a switchgear enclosure is supported on adequate native soils or structural fill but the conduits attached to the enclosure or not, it would be necessary to address the connection between the conduits and the enclosure due to the potential for differential settlement. In general, we recommend that the grading plan be developed to minimize the thickness of new fills, to the extent feasible. We recommend that new fill be placed as early as possible in the construction schedule to allow the organic soils to consolidate before constructing on-grade or below grade (underground utilities) elements which are settlement-sensitive. To the extent possible, we recommend allowing sufficient time for substantial completion of primary consolidation settlements to occur before constructing on-grade settlement-sensitive facilities or underground utilities. We estimate that about 90 percent of the expected settlements presented in the table above will occur within about 3 to 5 weeks after fill placement. If this settlement period is not acceptable, ZGA is available to develop a surcharge loading plan to reduce the primary consolidation settlement period to an acceptable level. Consolidation settlement associated with raising site grade will extend beyond the perimeter of the fill. The magnitude of settlement may be assumed to decrease linearly from the values presented in the table above near the edge of the fill to zero at a horizontal distance from the fill roughly equal to half of the depth to the base of the compressible zone. Based on a maximum compressible soil zone thickness of about 11 feet with 3 feet of overlying existing fill, we anticipate that consolidation settlement should be negligible at distance of about 7 to 8 feet from the edge of new fills. We recommend that existing surface drainages, existing utilities, or other existing settlement sensitive features located near the site be evaluated relative to the estimated settlement. Secondary Consolidation: Due to the organic nature of the silt and peat soils, those portions of the site underlain by these soils will be subject to long-term secondary consolidation under static loading. Our estimates of secondary consolidation are presented in the table below. This would occur after primary consolidations listed above are complete and would be additive to the primary consolidation values. For Page 10 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 example, total settlement (primary and secondary consolidation) for 2 feet of new fill placed over an 11- foot-thick zone of organic silt and peat at 10 years would be about 9½ to 13½ inches. Table 3: Secondary Consolidation Estimates Time Estimated Secondary Settlement (inches) 3 months ¾ to 1-1/2 1 year 1-1/2 to 3 10 years 3 to 6 30 years 3-1/2 to 7 The primary and secondary settlement estimates presented above are based upon conditions observed at the boring locations. Conditions observed at the locations of test pits TP-1 and TP-2, which were excavated at the south end of the site along what is expected to be, or near, the new south fence line varied somewhat from those observed to the north in that the compressible organic materials were less prevalent. In order to reduce the potential for settlement affecting the new fence, we recommend excavating the existing fill material and organic soils as described above for the area to the north, followed by structural fill placement and compaction. If some degree of settlement of the new fence can be tolerated, we recommend at least excavating the fill material and the compressible organic soils immediately below. These excavations should subsequently be filled with compacted structural fill. Removal of the upper load-sensitive organic materials will reduce, but not eliminate, the magnitude of post-construction consolidation of the lacustrine and bog deposits, given that the deeper deposits will remain. If not excavated to the full extent, we estimate that settlements would be approximately half of those presented in the tables above. In the event that this degree of settlement is too great to be accommodated by the new security fence, we recommend supporting the fence posts by driven pin piles. On a preliminary basis, 2-inch inside-diameter pin piles driven to “refusal” with a minimum 90-pound jackhammer (1 inch or less of penetration over one minute of sustained driving) could be designed for an allowable axial compressive load of 4 kips. Additional recommendations regarding pin pile support for the security fence can be provided on request. Settlement Monitoring: We recommend that a series of monitoring plates be installed prior to placing fill used to raise site grades. An example of a suitable monitoring plate and a description of monitoring procedures are presented in the enclosed Settlement Plate Detail, Figure 4. We recommend that settlement plates be installed at about 25 to 50 feet spacing in settlement sensitive areas where more than 1 foot of new fill will be placed. ZGA should be consulted to provide a recommended layout of settlement plates, if needed, when grading plans are finalized. Initial elevation readings of the settlement plates must be obtained when they are set in place and before any fill is placed if subsequent readings are to be meaningful. Elevations of the plates and the average Page 11 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 adjacent ground surface should then be determined on a twice-weekly basis during fill placement and weekly thereafter so that settlement progress can be defined. Review of the survey data provides important information regarding the site performance and construction schedule. The presence of the measurement rods which extend above the settlement plates and through the fill will inhibit the mobility of earthmoving equipment to some extent and the contractor must exercise care to avoid damaging or displacing the rods. The construction documents should emphasize the importance of protecting settlement plates and measuring rods from disturbance. Earthwork The following sections present recommendations for site preparation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fills on the project. The recommendations presented in this report for design and construction of foundations and slabs are contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section. Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by a ZGA representative. Evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of structural fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, deep foundations, and subsurface drainage installations. Site Preparation Lacustrine and Bog Deposit Soil Excavation and Filling: We recommend removing the load-sensitive fine grained soils, peat, and organic-rich soils disclosed by borings B-1, B-4, and B-6 in the southeastern portion of the site. In order to reduce the potential for differential settlement, we recommend removing these soils from not only the Bank 1 and Bank 2 switchgear enclosures and the Bank 1 transformer, but also from below vaults, conduit runs, and other elements in this portion of the site. The excavation should extend to the granular soils below these deposits and the excavated material should be wasted from the site. The excavations should extend laterally from the base of structures a distance equal to the excavation depth. The excavation will extend below groundwater, so the need for dewatering should be expected, as is discussed subsequently. We recommend filling the excavation with quarry spalls (WSDOT 9-13.7) or ballast (WSDOT 9-03.9(1) to above the level of water that may be in the excavation. Clean granular structural fill may be placed above the coarse rock in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section. Demolition: The site contains some electrical conduits, a water service line, and a small building. We recommend backfilling excavations resultant from removal of these features with structural fill placed and compacted per the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. Page 12 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Structural Fill We anticipate that structural fill will be placed to raise grade in the lower southern portion of the site and for conduit and vault installations, storm drainage piping and structures, and below and adjacent to new foundations and slabs. All fill material should be placed in accordance with the recommendations herein for structural fill. Prior to placement, the surfaces to receive structural fill should be observed by a ZGA representative in order to assess the subgrade adequacy. The fill subgrade soils should be compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition prior to placing structural fill. In the event that the soils cannot be adequately compacted, they should be removed as necessary and replaced with at least 1 foot of compacted granular fill material. The suitability of soils for use as structural fill depends primarily on the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (that soil fraction passing the US No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult, or impossible, to achieve. Generally, soils containing more than about 5 percent fines by weight (based on that soil fraction passing the US No. 4 sieve) cannot be compacted to a firm, non-yielding condition when the moisture content is more than a few percent from optimum. The optimum moisture content is that which yields the greatest soil density under a given compactive effort. The native soils below the existing fill material at the locations of borings B-1, B-4, and B-6, as well as the lower 1 to 1.5 feet of fill observed at the boring B-3 and B-5 locations, have a high fines content and should be considered highly moisture sensitive. Re-use of On-site Soils: Soil expected to be encountered in excavations include the existing fill material, most of which consists of sand and gravel with a variable silt content, and both granular and fine grained native soils. We anticipate that it will be feasible to re-use the existing granular fill soils and the granular native soils disclosed by borings B-2, B-3, and B-5 under a relatively wide variety of weather conditions, but use of the native fine grained soils will depend on the weather conditions at the time of placement and compaction. It will not be feasible to place and compact the native fine grained soils during wet weather. We do not recommend using the native soils with more than 3 percent organics as structural fill. We collected a composite sample of shallow fill soils to a depth of approximately 2 feet from the cuttings generated while advancing the borings. Laboratory testing showed this material to consist of silty gravelly sand with a maximum dry density of 136.2 lbs/ft3 and an optimum moisture content of 6.9 percent. The fines content of the shallow soils will render them moisture-sensitive. Imported Structural Fill: We recommend that imported soils for use as general structural fill material consist of a well-graded sand and gravel with a low fines content, such as the District’s standard substation fill, the gradation of which is presented in the table below. Alternatively, material meeting the gradation criteria for Crushed Surfacing - Base Course per WSDOT 9-03.9(3) may be used as structural fill. Page 13 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Table 4: Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Substation Import Granular Fill Gradation US Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing by Dry Weight Basis 2 inch 100 ½ inch 56 - 100 ¼ inch 40 - 78 No. 10 22 - 57 No. 40 8 - 32 No. 200 < 5 The use of other fill types should be reviewed and approved by ZGA prior to their use on site. Compaction Recommendations: Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition using equipment and procedures that will produce the recommended moisture content and densities throughout the fill. Fill lifts should generally not exceed 10 inches in loose thickness, although the nature of the compaction equipment in use and its effectiveness will influence functional fill lift thicknesses. Recommended compaction criteria for structural fill materials, including trench backfill, are as follows: Table 5: Recommended Soil Compaction Levels Location Minimum Percent Compaction* All fill below and adjacent to slabs and shallow foundations 95 General fill embankments and utility trench backfill 95 Conduit trench backfill above bedding sand or CDF 95 Landscaping areas 85 - 90 * ASTM D 1557 Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density Earthwork may be difficult or impossible during periods of elevated soil moisture and wet weather. If soils are stockpiled for future use and wet weather is anticipated, the stockpile should be protected with plastic sheeting that is securely anchored. Subgrade soils that become disturbed due to elevated moisture conditions should be overexcavated to expose firm, non-yielding, non-organic soils and backfilled with compacted structural fill. We recommend that the earthwork portion of this project be completed during extended periods of dry weather if possible. If earthwork is completed during the wet season (typically November through June) it will be necessary to take extra precautionary measures to protect subgrade soils. Wet season earthwork may require additional mitigative measures beyond that which would be expected during the drier summer and fall months. This could include diversion of surface runoff around exposed soils and draining of ponded water. Once subgrades are established, it will be necessary to protect the exposed subgrade soils Page 14 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 from construction traffic during wet weather. Placing quarry spalls, ballast, or crushed recycled concrete over these areas would further protect the soils from construction traffic. If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, we recommend allowing the exposed subgrade to thaw and then recompacting the subgrade prior to placing subsequent lifts of engineered fill. Frozen soil should not be used as structural fill. We recommend that a ZGA representative be present during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork operations and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation, placement and compaction of structural fill, backfilling of excavations, and prior to construction of foundations and slabs. Drainage: Uncontrolled movement of water into trenches or foundation and slab excavations during construction should be prevented. Dewatering: Groundwater was observed at depths of less than 3 feet while advancing the borings and in the monitoring well installed at the boring B-1 location. This will likely require dewatering of the excavation made in the southeastern portion of the site for removal of the native fine grained and organic soils as discussed previously, as well as for excavations completed for the installation of conduits, vaults, the stormwater management system, and some shallow foundations. The contractor should be responsible for preparing a dewatering plan and provide it to the District for review prior to implementation. Additional Considerations: It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed improvements can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. Excavation Quantities: It has been our experience that grading calculations need to accommodate a “shrink or swell” factor when comparing in-place soil volumes to truck volumes. We recommend considering that the in-place volume of soil removed from excavations will increase by approximately 25 to 40 percent when measured on a loose cubic yards basis (truck yards). Likewise, loose truck yards delivered to the site will shrink on the order of 25 to 30 percent when compared to the in-place compacted volume of the soil. Truck yards are also subject to other discrepancies when correlating to bank yards, including “rounding errors” that can be significant. Utility Installation Recommendations Below-grade utilities are expected to include conduits and storm sewer piping and structures. We recommend that utility trenching conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, such as OSHA and WISHA, for open excavations. The existing shallow soils in the northwestern portion of the site are expected to be adequate for support of conduits, storm drainage piping, and associated vaults and catch basins. However, installing utilities above the very soft to soft fine grained and organic soils in the Page 15 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 southeastern portion of the site will result in post-construction settlement as discussed previously. For this reason, we recommend removing the load-sensitive lacustrine and bog deposits from below utilities and replacing them with compacted structural fill. The site soils with a higher fines content may be easily disturbed by excavation and construction equipment, particularly during wet weather, and may need to be compacted prior to utility installation. Subgrade soils that cannot be compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition should be removed and replaced with clean granular structural fill that can be compacted to the density recommended in the Structural Fill section of this report. All trenches should be wide enough to allow for compaction around the haunches of the pipe. If water is encountered in the excavations, it should be removed prior to fill placement. Materials, placement and compaction of utility trench backfill exclusive of CDF should be in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. In our opinion, the initial lift thickness should not exceed 1 foot unless recommended by the manufacturer to protect utilities from damage by compacting equipment. Light, hand operated compaction equipment may be utilized directly above utilities if damage resulting from heavier compaction equipment is of concern. Temporary Excavation Slopes: We recommend that utility trenching, installation, and backfilling conform to all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations such as WISHA and OSHA regulations for open excavations. In order to maintain the function of any existing utilities that may be located near excavations, we recommend that temporary excavations not encroach upon the bearing splay of existing utilities, foundations, or slabs. The bearing splay of structures and utilities should be considered to begin at the edge of the utility, foundation, or slab and extend downward at a 1H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) slope. If, due to space constraints, an open excavation cannot be completed without encroaching on a utility, we recommend shoring the new utility excavation with a slip box or other suitable means that provide for protection of workers and that maintain excavation sidewall integrity to the depth of the excavation. Temporary slope stability is a function of many factors, including the following: ï‚· The presence and abundance of groundwater; ï‚· The type and density of the various soil strata; ï‚· The depth of cut; ï‚· Surcharge loadings adjacent to the excavation; ï‚· The length of time the excavation remains open. Page 16 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 It is exceedingly difficult under the variable circumstances presented by uncontrolled fill material to pre- establish a safe and “maintenance-free” temporary cut slope angle. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations since the contractor is continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and groundwater conditions encountered. It may be necessary to drape temporary slopes with plastic or to otherwise protect the slopes from the elements and minimize sloughing and erosion. We do not recommend vertical slopes or cuts deeper than 4 feet if worker access is necessary. The cuts should be adequately sloped or supported to prevent injury to personnel from local sloughing and spalling. The excavation should conform to applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. Based upon our review of WAC 296-155-66401 (Appendix A – Soil Classification), we have interpreted the existing soils disclosed by the explorations to meet the Type C definition. The contractor should be responsible for determining soil types in all excavations and should be prepared to adequately shore or slope all excavations. Please note that some of the granular soils have a low fines content and that unsupported excavation sidewalls in these soils may slough or cave readily. Below-grade Vault Recommendations Bearing Conditions: Below-grade conduit vaults will be installed as part of the project. Based upon our experience with other District facilities, and depending on the orientation of the new conduit sweeps, the vault bases may be up to approximately 6 feet below grade. Based upon conditions disclosed by the explorations, we anticipate that vault subgrades in the northwestern portion of the site will generally consist of medium dense granular soils, while very soft to soft fine grained and organic soils are expected in the southeastern portion of the site. Some variation in soil type and density at vault subgrade locations should be expected. In order to reduce the potential for post-construction settlement, we recommend removing the very soft to soft fine grained and organic soils from below vaults. The vaults will exert a relatively low bearing pressure. We recommend placing a minimum 6-inch compacted thickness of crushed rock below the vaults as a leveling course. The crushed rock should conform to the quality and gradation requirements for Crushed Surfacing – Base Course per WSDOT Specification 9-03.9(3). Buoyancy Considerations: The site is characterized by a shallow groundwater condition and this may subject the vaults to buoyant forces. Potential buoyant forces acting on the vaults may be calculated by multiplying the volume of the portion of the vault below the water table (in cubic feet) by 62.4 pcf. Buoyant forces may be resisted by the weight of a vault and its contents. Additional resistance to buoyant forces may be achieved by installing flanges on the vault base. The weight of the soil backfill placed above the flanges will assist in counteracting buoyant forces. We recommend using a soil density of 125 pcf for backfill above the water table, and 60 pcf for backfill below the water table. Page 17 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Foundations We anticipate that some of the new structures will be supported by drilled pier foundations, but that shallow foundations may be used for smaller structures such as switches or neutral reactors. The foundation net vertical bearing pressures are expected to be relatively low, and the foundations are typically about 4 feet deep, based upon our experience with other District facilities. The native medium dense to dense granular soils disclosed by borings B-2, B-3, and B-5 are adequate for support of shallow foundations. We do not recommend constructing shallow foundations above the load-sensitive lacustrine and bog deposits disclosed by borings B-1, B-4, and B-6. As previously discussed, we recommend removing these soils and replacing them with compacted structural fill. Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations It will be feasible to use conventional shallow foundations bearing upon undisturbed native at least medium dense granular soil and new structural fill placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. Recommended criteria for shallow foundations are summarized below. Net allowable bearing pressure: 3,000 psf for undisturbed native medium dense granular soil or structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557. This value incorporates a factor of safety of 3. A one-third increase may be applied for short-term wind or seismic loading. Minimum dimensions: 4 feet Minimum embedment for frost protection: 18 inches Estimated total settlement: Less than 1 inch Estimated differential settlement: One half of total settlement Ultimate passive resistance: 425 psf. This value assumes that foundations are backfilled with granular backfill compacted to 95 percent density and does not include a factor of safety. Neglect the upper 18 inches of embedment when calculating passive resistance. Ultimate coefficient of base friction: 0.55 Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water, disturbed soil, or debris prior to placing concrete. Placement and compaction of minimum 8-inch thickness of crushed rock below foundations is recommended, and this material should be placed soon after excavating in order to reduce the likelihood of bearing soil disturbance. Should the soils at bearing level become excessively dry, disturbed, saturated, Page 18 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 or frozen, the affected soil should be removed prior to placing crushed rock. It is recommended that a ZGA representative evaluate foundation subgrades prior to placing the crushed rock and prior to form and reinforcing steel placement. If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered in footing excavations, the excavation should be extended deeper to suitable soils. The footings could bear directly on suitable soils at the lower level or on lean concrete or CDF backfill placed in the excavations. As an alternative, the footings could also bear on properly compacted backfill extending down to the suitable soils. Overexcavation for compacted backfill placement below footings should extend laterally beyond all edges of the footings a distance of 1 foot per foot of overexcavation depth below footing base elevation. The overexcavation should then be backfilled up to the footing base elevation with imported crushed rock placed in lifts of 10 inches or less in loose thickness and compacted to at least 95 percent of the material's modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). If excavations are backfilled with lean mix concrete or CDF, we recommend the material has a minimum compressive strength of 55 psi. In this case, the overexcavation need only be as wide as the foundation. Seismic Design Parameters As described in the previous discussion regarding liquefaction, the lacustrine and bog deposits meet the Site Class E characterization per the 2012 IBC. However, we have considered that these soils will be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill and, therefore, the overall soil profile may be considered Class D, as summarized in the table below. Table 6: Seismic Design Parameters Category Designation or Value 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 1 D2 Ss Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.051g, Site Class B S1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.408g, Site Class B SMs Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.051g, Site Class D SM1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.568g, Site Class D 1. In general accordance with the 2012 International Building Code, Table 1613.5.2. 2. The 2012 International Building Code requires a site soil profile determination extending a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope requested did not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination. The borings reviewed as part of our evaluation extended to a maximum depth of approximately 45.8 feet and this seismic site class definition considers that at least stiff soils as noted on the published geologic mapping exist below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to greater depths could be considered to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration. Page 19 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Concrete Slab Subgrade Preparation Recommendations Concrete slabs will be constructed to support the transformers, for the transformer spill containment systems, and to support the switchgear enclosures. The native medium dense granular soils and medium dense and very stiff fill soils disclosed at the locations of borings B-2, B-3, and B-5 are adequate for support of slabs. Constructing slabs above the very soft to soft lacustrine and bog deposits disclosed by borings B-1, B-4, and B-6 will result in post-construction settlement and is not recommended. We recommend removing these load-sensitive soils and replacing them with structural fill placed and compacted per the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section. Conclusions and recommendations regarding slabs are summarized below. We recommend constructing slabs above an 8-inch thickness of crushed rock compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. Drilled Pier Foundation / Direct Burial Recommendations We anticipate that drilled piers will be used to support some of the structures to the north of the transformers, including the dead end structures. In addition, we understand that the dead end structures may be installed via direct burial. The soils disclosed in the northeastern portion of the site at the locations of borings B-3 and B-5 to the north of the transformers are well-suited for support of drilled piers or for direct burial. We understand that the District will design the foundations in-house. The tables below provide recommended soil values for incorporation into the District’s design. We have not incorporated factors of safety into the listed values. The depth intervals referenced in the tables are relative to the existing ground surface elevation at the specific boring locations. Cohesion values are not provided as the soils are granular. The pressuremeter elastic modulus values are based upon published correlations with Standard Penetration Test values (N) published in “Estimating Foundation Settlements in Residual Soils”, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 103, No. 3, March 1977. The soil wet density values listed do not consider buoyancy effects of soils below groundwater. Page 20 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Table 7A: Recommended Soil Parameters Based on ZGA Boring B-3 Depth interval Soil Condition Averaged Correlated Soil Wet Internal Friction in feet below Standard Pressuremeter Density Angle existing grade Penetration Elastic Modulus (pcf) (Ø, in degrees) Resistance (N) (kips/in2)1 0 – 2.5 Med. dense 21 2.64 125 33 gravelly sand and very stiff silt (fill) 2.5 – 6.5 Dense sand 39 4.17 135 38 6.5 – 34 Med. dense silty 17 2.5 130 32 sand with some gravel 1. The pressuremeter modulus values are based upon published correlations between Standard Penetration Test values (N) and the pressuremeter modulus; a factor of safety does not apply. Table 7B: Recommended Soil Parameters Based on ZGA Boring B-3 Depth Soil Condition Relative Ultimate Ultimate Moisture Rankine interval in Density Friction Friction Content Coefficient feet below (D 1 2 3 r as percent) Factor Factor (percent by Active / Passive existing dry weight grade basis) 0 – 2.5 Med. dense 50 0.4 0.25 23 0.29/3.39 (neglect gravelly, silty 0-1.5 ft.) sand and very stiff silt (fill) 2.5 – 6.5 Dense sand 65 0.55 0.3 12 0.24/4.2 6.5 - 34 Med. dense 45 0.5 0.25 13 0.31/3.25 silt sandy with some gravel 1. The ultimate friction factors are based upon published values for adhesion between concrete and the applicable soil type. 2. The ultimate friction factors are based upon published values for adhesion between steel and the applicable soil type. 3. Passive resistance in the upper 1.5 feet should be neglected entirely. Page 21 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Table 8A: Recommended Soil Parameters Based on ZGA Boring B-5 Depth interval Soil Condition Average Correlated Soil Wet Internal Friction in feet below Standard Elastic Density Angle existing grade Penetration Pressuremeter (pcf) (Ø, in degrees) Resistance (N) Modulus (kips/in2)1 0 – 2 Med. dense 16 2.22 125 32 gravelly sand (fill) with relic topsoil 2 – 9.5 Med. dense to 28 2.78 130 35 dense, gravelly, silty sand 9.5 – 19.5 Med. dense 17 2.5 132 32 gravelly, silty sand 19.5 – 21.5 Dense gravelly 30 2.92 140 36 sand 1. The pressuremeter modulus values are based upon published correlations between Standard Penetration Test values (N) and the pressuremeter modulus; a factor of safety does not apply. Table 8B: Recommended Soil Parameters Based on ZGA Boring B-5 Depth Soil Condition Relative Ultimate Ultimate Moisture Rankine interval in Density Friction Friction Content Coefficient feet below (D 1 2 3 r as percent) Factor Factor (percent by Active / Passive existing dry weight grade basis) 0 - 2 Med. dense 45 0.5 0.25 19 0.31/3.25 (neglect gravelly sand 0 – 1.5 feet) (fill) with relic topsoil 2 – 9.5 Med. dense to 63 0.5 0.25 14 0.27/3.69 dense, gravelly, silty sand 9.5 – 19.5 Med. dense 45 0.5 0.25 11 0.31/3.69 gravelly, silty sand 19.5 – 21.5 Dense gravelly 65 0.57 0.4 10 0.26/3.85 sand 1. The ultimate friction factors are based upon published values for adhesion between concrete and the applicable soil type. 2. The ultimate friction factors are based upon published values for adhesion between steel and the applicable soil type. 3. Passive resistance in the upper 1.5 feet should be neglected entirely. Drilled Pier End Bearing Considerations: When calculating drilled pier end bearing values, it will be necessary to consider the density of the soils to a depth below the shaft that is a function of the shaft Page 22 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 diameter. We can provide specific end bearing capacity recommendations once preliminary design efforts for the drilled pier foundations have identified likely drilled pier diameters and depths. Open Shaft Construction Considerations Given the soil conditions encountered at the exploratory boring locations, we anticipate that construction of the shafts can be accomplished with standard drilling equipment. Though not recovered as part of the sampling process, the drilling and sampling process periodically suggested the presence of coarse gravel and/or cobbles within the native soils, and boulders may also be present in the native soils as well. The contractor should be prepared to deal with the presence of coarse gravel, cobbles, and boulders over the drilled depth interval, as well as obstructions within the alluvial deposits, such as logs. We recommend that the contractor be prepared to case drilled boreholes to reduce sidewall sloughing. We recommend that the contractor be required to have on site sufficient material to case the entire drilled depth. We recommend that the drilling contractor have a cleanout bucket on site to remove loose soils from the bottom of the borings. We recommend that the foundation concrete be tremied from the bottom of the hole to displace water and to reduce the risk of contaminating or segregating the concrete mix should any accumulate in the shafts. A minimum 5-foot head of concrete should be maintained above the tremie. The Drilled Shaft Manual published by the Federal Highway Administration recommends that concrete be placed by tremie methods if more than 3 inches of water has accumulated in the excavation. IBC Non-constrained Pole Design Recommendations Section 1805.7.2.1 of the 2003 the International Building Code (IBC) describes the methodology for determining a drilled pier foundation or pole depth of embedment in cases where no constraint is provided at the surface to resist lateral forces. As per your request, we have evaluated the equivalent passive soil pressure per foot of depth for use in the IBC method. Recommended lateral bearing pressures as a function of pole depth are listed in the table below. We recommend neglecting resistance in the upper 1.5 feet of embedment. Table 9: IBC Non-constrained Pole Lateral Bearing Pressure Recommended Lateral Bearing Pressure (lbs/ft2/ft) of ZGA Boring Embedment Depth1,2 B-3 1.5 to 2.5 feet: 170 2.5 to 6.5 feet: 225 6.5 to 34 feet: 170 Page 23 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Table 9: IBC Non-constrained Pole Lateral Bearing Pressure B-5 1.5 to 2 feet: 160 2 to 9.5 feet: 190 9.5 to 19.5 feet: 195 19.5 to 21.5 feet: 215 1. Values incorporate a factor of safety = 2.5 2. Neglect upper 1.5 feet Stormwater Management Considerations The District’s substations are frequently equipped with a perforated pipe installed around the yard perimeter or in other applicable locations that serves to allow infiltration of stormwater collected from the yard and impervious surfaces. Our scope of services did not include field infiltration testing. However, conclusions regarding stormwater infiltration can be drawn from subsurface conditions disclosed by the subsurface explorations and laboratory testing completed to date. We understand that surface water management for the project will be addressed in accordance with the design criteria presented in the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2012, amended in 2014) as adopted by the City of Arlington. The Ecology manual allows establishing a preliminary infiltration rate (saturated hydraulic conductivity) for normally consolidated soils based upon the grain size distribution of the site soils utilizing methods presented in Section 3.3.6 of the manual. Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity The manual allows a determination of a stormwater receptor soil saturated hydraulic conductivity to be estimated based on grain size distribution characteristics in accordance with the following formula: Log10 (Ksat, initial) = -1.57 + 1.9D10 + 0.015D60 – 0.013D90 -2.08ffines where: D10 = grain size diameter (mm) for which 10 percent of the sample by weight is finer D60 = grain size diameter (mm) for which 60 percent of the sample by weight is finer D90 = grain size diameter (mm) for which 90 percent of the sample by weight is finer ffines = fraction of the sample by weight that passes the US No. 200 sieve. The calculated hydraulic conductivity values for four representative samples of the site soils are listed in the table below. Page 24 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Table 10: Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Summary Boring / Sample Approximate sample depth Approximate Saturated Hydraulic (feet) Conductivity (centimeters per second / inches per hour) B-2 / S-2 2.5 - 4 8 X 10-2 / 113 B-2 / S-3 5 – 6.5 3.3 X 10-3 / 4.7 B-3 / S-4 7.5 - 9 3.3 X 10-3 / 4.7 The saturated hydraulic conductivity values of the site’s granular soils may be considered favorable for stormwater infiltration. Please note that the actual design infiltration rate may need to be based upon the results of field testing completed in accordance with the current stormwater manual adopted by the City of Arlington. Also, it should be noted that infiltration will be affected by discrete fine-grained soil horizons within otherwise granular soils. On a preliminary basis, we recommend that a baseline saturated hydraulic conductivity of 3.3 X 10-3 cm/sec (4.7 inches per hour) be considered when evaluating infiltration system design. The manual requires applying correction factors to the baseline infiltration rate, whether determined by the grain size method or via field infiltration testing. Table 3.3.1 Correction Factors to be Used with In-Situ Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements to Estimate Design Rates of the manual calls for 40 percent reduction of the baseline rate. Table 3.3.1 also requires applying correction factors for site variability and number of locations tested (CFM) and the degree of influent control to prevent siltation and bio-buildup (CFv). Given the variability of the shallow soil conditions at the site we recommend applying CFM and CFv factors of 0.8 and 0.9, respectively. Groundwater Considerations Groundwater was observed at depths of less than 3 feet below existing grade at each of the boring locations. The shallow depth to groundwater will influence performance of an infiltration system. It would be advantageous to site the infiltration system in the southern portion of the site where grades will be raised to take advantage of the increased separation between the infiltration system and the shallow groundwater table. Depending on the amount of water introduced to the system and the separation between the system and groundwater, a groundwater mounding analysis may be required to assess the adequacy of the system. Storage Considerations In the event that it becomes necessary to provide some storage capacity to the yard given the low hydraulic conductivity of the shallow silt and fine sand deposit, it would be feasible to include a layer of imported crushed rock with a high void ratio below the yard rock. We collected a sample of processed material meeting the gradation specification for Crushed Surfacing – Base Course Gradation as described Page 25 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 in WSDOT 9-03.9(3) from Cal Portland of Everett, Washington and completed a permeability test in order to determine its usefulness in terms of providing benefits in terms of stormwater management. The sample was compacted to approximately 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density in order to replicate its condition in the substation and tested for permeability via the ASTM D 2434 methodology. The sample was found to have saturated hydraulic conductivity of 2.2 X 10-2 cm/sec (30.8 inches/hour). In the past the District has had laboratory testing completed on crushed surfacing base course sourced from the Iron Mountain Quarry in Granite Falls, Washington. Samples of this material have been shown to have a permeability of 130 inches/hour and void ratio of over 40 percent. The Iron Mountain Quarry products are 100 percent crushed rock and no naturally occurring sand is blended with crushed rock to produce the finished product. Consequently, the crushed products from Iron Mountain Quarry tend to have a high permeability and void ratio compared to other vendor products that combine crushed rock and naturally occurring sand. Driveway Flexible Pavement Section Recommendations The substation driveway may be paved with asphalt and is expected to generally accommodate light to moderate service vehicle loading although occasional heavier loads may be present during future maintenance and construction activity. The District typically requires that the pavement section be able to accommodate H20 loading. Pavement Life and Maintenance: It should be realized that asphaltic pavements are not maintenance- free. The following pavement sections represent our minimum recommendations for an average level of performance during a 20-year design life; therefore, an average level of maintenance will likely be required. Thicker asphalt, base, and subbase courses would offer better long-term performance, but would cost more initially. Conversely, thinner courses would be more susceptible to “alligator” cracking and other failure modes. As such, pavement design can be considered a compromise between a high initial cost and low maintenance costs versus a low initial cost and higher maintenance costs. Soil Design Values: Pavement subgrade soils are anticipated to consist of gravelly sand with a moderately high fines content. Our analysis assumes the pavement section subgrade will have a minimum California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 10. Recommended Pavement Section: We recommend that the pavement section, at a minimum, consist of 3 inches of asphalt concrete over either 6 inches (compacted thickness) of crushed surfacing base course or 3 inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB). We recommend the following regarding asphalt pavement materials and pavement construction. Page 26 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Subgrade Preparation and Compaction: The upper 12 inches of native stripped subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Subgrade Preparation section of this report, and all fill should be compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. Asphalt Concrete: We recommend that the asphalt concrete conform to Section 9-02.1(4) for PG 58-22 or PG 64-22 Performance Graded Asphalt Binder as presented in the 2014 WSDOT Standard Specifications. We also recommend that the gradation of the asphalt aggregate conform to the aggregate gradation control points for ½-inch mixes as presented in Section 9-03.8(6), HMA Proportions of Materials. Base Course: We recommend that the crushed surfacing base course conform to Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Compaction and Paving: We recommend that asphalt be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the Rice (theoretical maximum) density. Placement and compaction of asphalt should conform to requirements of Section 5-04 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. West Side Driveway Improvements We understand that the existing driveway outside the west perimeter fence will likely be used for vehicle and equipment access during construction. We recommend improving the traffic carrying capability of the road by placing a foot of well-compacted crushed surfacing base course above the existing surface in preparation for construction. We recommend consulting with the project civil engineer in regard to methods of grading, as necessary, to allow for continued surface water drainage from the road once the grade is raised. Maintenance of the access drive during construction should be expected, particularly during wet weather. Erosion Control Construction phase erosion control activities are recommended to include measures intended to reduce erosion and subsequent sediment transport. We recommend that the project incorporate the following erosion and sedimentation control measures during construction: ï‚· Erosion control BMP inspection and maintenance: The contractor should be aware that inspection and maintenance of erosion control BMPs is critical toward their satisfactory performance. Repair and/or replacement of dysfunctional erosion control elements should be anticipated. ï‚· Undertake site preparation, excavation, and filling during periods of little or no rainfall. Page 27 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 ï‚· Cover excavation surfaces with anchored plastic sheeting if surfaces will be left exposed during wet weather. ï‚· Cover soil stockpiles with anchored plastic sheeting. ï‚· Provide an all-weather quarry spall construction site entrance. ï‚· Provide for street cleaning on an as-needed basis. ï‚· Protect exposed soil surfaces that will be subject to vehicle traffic with crushed rock or crushed recycled concrete to reduce the likelihood of subgrade disturbance and sediment generation during wet weather or wet site conditions. Keeping the existing granular fill material in place will help in this regard. ï‚· Install perimeter siltation control fencing on the lower perimeter of work areas. ï‚· If grounding wells are installed, containment of the cuttings produced during the drilling process will reduce the likelihood of off-site sediment migration. Cuttings with a high fines content should be removed from the site following completion of drilling. CLOSURE The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations completed for this study. The number, location, and depth of the explorations were completed within the constraints of budget and site access so as to yield the information to formulate our recommendations. Project plans were in the preliminary stage at the time this report was prepared. We therefore recommend we be provided an opportunity to review the final plans and specifications when they become available in order to assess that the recommendations and design considerations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented into the project design. The performance of earthwork, structural fill, foundations, and pavements depend greatly on proper site preparation and construction procedures. We recommend that Zipper Geo Associates, LLC be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during the earthwork-related construction phases of the project. If variations in subsurface conditions are observed at that time, a qualified geotechnical engineer could provide additional geotechnical recommendations to the contractor and design team in a timely manner as the project construction progresses. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Snohomish County PUD No. 1, and its agents, in accordance with locally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. Page 28 B A B-5 B-3 LEGEND B-1 BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION TP-1 TEST PIT NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION B-2 40 0 20 40 B-4 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET B-1 A A' B-6 APPROXIMATE CROSS B' A' SECTION LOCATION PROPOSED EAGLE CREEK SUBSTATION 8630 TVEIT RD ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON TP-2 TP-1 SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2016 Job No. 1643.01 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC FIGURE 19023 36th Ave. W.,Suite D 1 FIGURE TAKEN FROM PRELIMINARY DRAWING S-126-P10, DATED 25 MAY 2016, PROVIDED BY SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD NO.1 AND ZGA FIELD MEASUREMENTS Lynnwood, WA, 98036 SHT. of1 1 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES AND LOGS FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES AND LOGS Our field exploration program for this project included completing a visual reconnaissance of the site, advancing six exploratory borings (B-1 through B-6), and excavating two test pits (TP-1, TP-2) at the approximate exploration locations shown on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Exploration locations were determined in the field using steel and fiberglass tapes by measuring distances from existing site features shown on preliminary Drawing S-126-P10 (dated 25 May 2016), provided by the District. As such, the exploration locations should be considered accurate to the degree implied by the measurement method. The ground surface elevation at each exploration location was interpolated from contours shown on the Topographic Map, New Eagle Creek Sub Stat., dated 11 July 2016, prepared by Harmsen & Associates, Inc. The following sections describe our procedures associated with the explorations. Descriptive logs of the explorations are enclosed in this appendix. Boring Procedures The borings were advanced using a track-mounted drill rig operated by an independent drilling company working under subcontract to ZGA. The borings were advanced using hollow stem auger drilling methods. An engineering geologist from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the subsurface conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in moisture- tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation and testing. Samples were generally obtained by means of the Standard Penetration Test at 2.5-foot to 5-foot intervals throughout the drilling operation. The Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D 1586) procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or “blow count” (N value). If a total of 50 blows are struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily upon our field classifications. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the boring. If groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth and date of observation are depicted on the log. A groundwater observation well was installed at the boring B-1 location following completion of drilling and sampling. The well consists of a 10-foot long section of 2-inch inside-diameter PVC screen with machined 0.020-inch wide slots. Washed silica sand was placed in the annular space between the screen and the borehole. A non-machined riser was installed to the ground surface, and bentonite clay was placed around the riser. The well as finished with a flush-mount metal monument set in concrete. Test Pit Procedures A District employee excavated the test pits through the use of a tracked excavator. An engineering geologist form our firm continuously observed the test pit excavations, logged the subsurface conditions, and obtained representative soil samples. The samples were stored in moisture tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and testing. The enclosed test pit logs indicate the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each test pit, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational or undulating, our logs indicate the average contact depth. We estimated the relative density and consistency of in situ soils by means of the excavation characteristics and by the sidewall stability. Our logs also indicate the approximate depths of any sidewall caving or groundwater seepage observed in the test pits, as well as all sample numbers and sampling locations. Sample Screening The boring logs also include the results of sample container headspace measurements taken with a RAE Systems photoionization detector (PID). The measurements indicate the relative concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons in the headspace air, but do not identify the type of hydrocarbon. The sample headspace readings, recorded as hydrocarbon concentration in parts per million (ppm) are presented on the logs in this appendix. Conclusions regarding the headspace measurements are presented in the report text. Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 153 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-1 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Groundwater0 20 40 60 0 Very dense, damp, gray-brown, silty, gravelly SAND (Fill) S-1 14 57 26.7 Very loose, wet, dark brown, silty SAND with wood pieces and 1-inch thick organic silt horizons 6.1.16 S-2 10 MC = 3 0.7 81% 5 S-3 0 3 Very soft, saturated, brown, sandy SILT with scattered wood fibers S-4 12 3 1.7 10 Stiff to very stiff, wet, green-gray grading to gray, sandy SILT S-5 18 12 1.3 with some gravel S-6 16 11 0.7 15 S-7 8 13 0.8 Grades with scattered wood fibers S-8 12 17 1 Boring terminated at 19 feet. Groundwater measured at 2.5 20 feet in monitoring well 6 hours after drilling, and at 3.8 feet on 8.25.16. 25 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-1 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 154 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-2 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Groundwater0 20 40 60 0 Dense, damp, gray-brown, sandy GRAVEL with some silt and fine sand horizons (Fill) S-1 14 31 0.5 S-2 18 44 1.3 ATD 5 Medium dense, wet to saturated, rusty gray-brown grading to gray, gravelly, silty SAND S-3 18 15 7.4 S-4 18 12 1.2 10 S-5 16 14 0.7 Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine SAND with trace gravel S-6 15 29 3.9 15 Stiff, wet, gray SILT with gravel and sandy silt interbeds S-7 18 9 0.8 20 S-8 18 14 0.6 25 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-2 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 2 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 154 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-2 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Ground Water0 20 40 60 25 Very stiff, wet, gray SILT with gravel and sandy silt interbeds S-9 18 26 0.6 Boring terminated at 26.5 feet. Groundwater observed at approximately 4 feet ATD. 30 35 40 45 50 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-2 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 2 of 2 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 155 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-3 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Groundwater0 20 40 60 0 Medium dense, moist, gray-brown, gravelly SAND (Fill) S-1 15 21 4.6 Very stiff, moist, mottled gray-brown, SILT (Fill) Dense, moist grading to wet, brown, fine to coarse SAND S-2 16 35 1.7 5 ATD S-3 11 43 4.8 Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel S-4 18 14 2.9 10 S-5 18 21 3.8 S-6 18 17 1.8 15 S-7 14 15 1.6 20 S-8 18 25 1.8 25 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-3 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 2 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 155 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-3 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Ground Water0 20 40 60 25 Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel S-9 18 21 1.4 30 S-10 16 12 2.9 S-11 18 10 1 Boring terminated at 34 feet. Groundwater observed at 35 approximately 4.5 feet ATD. 40 45 50 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-3 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 2 of 2 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 153 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-4 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Groundwater0 20 40 60 0 Very dense, damp, brown, gravelly SAND (Fill) S-1 15 44 0.4 Very loose, wet, brown and dark brown, silty SAND with soft ATD sandy SILT interbeds, organic silt interbeds, and scattered wood pieces S-2 15 3 2.8 5 Very soft to soft, wet, dark brown, organic SILT with interbeds of peat, gray silt, and fine sand. Organic content S-3 = 21% S-3 18 2 0.8 S-4 18 MC = 3 0.9 72% 10 S-5 18 MC= 4 0.7 125% S-6 18 11 0.8 Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND/stiff, wet, sandy SILT with trace gravel, 0.5-inch thick peat interbed at 14 feet 15 S-7 16 11 1.1 20 S-8 18 10 0.8 25 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-4 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 2 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 153 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-4 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Ground Water0 20 40 60 25 Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND/stiff, wet, sandy SILT with trace gravel S-9 18 11 1.4 30 Grades to loose/medium stiff S-10 12 6 1.2 35 S-11 18 10 0.5 Medium dense, wet, gray, silty fine SAND with fine gravel and silt interbeds. Drilling action suggests the presence of coarse gravel. Hard, moist to wet, gray, sandy SILT with some gravel 40 S-12 18 61 2.3 45 S-13 10 50/4 2.6 Boring terminated at 45.8 feet. Groundwater observed at approximately 2 feet ATD. 50 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-4 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 2 of 2 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 154 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-5 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Groundwater0 20 40 60 0 6 inches medium dense, damp, gray-brown, gravelly SAND (Fill) above very stiff, moist, black and dark brown, SILT some S-1 14 16 0.8 some fine organics, sand, and gravel Medium dense to dense, wet, rust brown, gravelly, silty SAND with 2-inch thick silt horizon at 4 feet S-2 13 ATD 12 0.7 5 S-3 12 40 2.1 S-4 18 32 3.2 10 Medium dense, moist to wet, gray, gravelly, silty SAND S-5 14 17 2.9 S-6 15 21 1.8 15 Blowcount for sample S-7 is overstated S-7 9 50 3.4 S-8 18 11 1.4 20 Dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, medium to coarse SAND S-9 18 30 0.2 Boring terminated at 21.5 feet. Groundwater observed at approximately 3 feet ATD. 25 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-5 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 151 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-6 Date Drilled: 6.2.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Groundwater0 20 40 60 0 Very dense, damp, gray-brown, gravelly SAND (Fill) S-1 14 47 1.9 S-2 14 6 1.7 Stiff grading to very soft, wet to saturated, dark brown, organic SILT and PEAT with gray-brown silt and fine sand interbeds 5 ATD S-3 18 MC = 2 1 PP = 0.25 tsf @ 6 feet, organic content S-3 = 3.4% 67% S-4 18 MC = 2 0.9 85% 10 S-5 18 MC = 2 4.9 320% PP = 0.2 tsf @ 13 feet S-6 18 MC = 5 1.6 191% Loose, saturated, gray, fine gravelly SAND 15 S-7 8 8 0.5 Medium dense, wet, gray, gravelly, silty SAND and silty SAND with trace to some gravel S-8 18 13 1.1 20 S-9 10 13 2.7 25 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-6 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 2 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 151 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-6 Date Drilled: 6.2.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Ground Water0 20 40 60 25 Medium dense, moist to wet, gray, gravelly, silty SAND and silty SAND with trace to some gravel S-10 12 12 0.8 30 S-11 1 13 0.8 Hard, wet, gray, sandy SILT with some gravel to gravelly, sandy SILT 35 S-12 18 34 1.3 40 S-13 12 34 2.7 Boring terminated at 41.5 feet. Groundwater observed at approximately 3.5 feet ATD 45 50 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-6 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 2 of 2 Test Pit TP-1 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Project No: 1643.01A Location: See Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1A Date Excavated: 25 August 2016 Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: 151 feet Depth Material Description Sample NC %M Pocket (ft.) Penetr. Loose, damp, brown, gravelly SAND with some cobbles and boulders up to 4-foot maximum dimension (Fill) 1 2 3 Very soft, wet, dark brown, ORGANIC SILT with fine to medium roots 4 5 Very soft, wet, gray with rust inclusions, SILT with trace gravel, fine sand interbeds, and fine root casts, 6 0.25 tsf 7 8 9 10 S-1 @ 10 ft. 11 12 S-2 @ 12 ft. 0.5 tsf 13 Very soft, wet, dark brown, fibrous PEAT with sand pockets and trace gravel and interbeds of ORGANIC SILT S-3 @ 13.5 ft. 0.7 tsf 14 Loose, wet, gray, silty fine SAND with cobble 15 Test pit completed at approximately 15 feet. Slight groundwater 16 seepage observed between 6 and 7 feet at time of excavation. Slight sidewall caving observed. 17 18 Nc is the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer blow count averaged over three 1.75 inch intervals measured in accordance with ASTM Special Technical Publication #399. Test Pit TP-2 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Project No: 1643.01A Location: See Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1A Date Excavated: 25 August 2016 Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: 152 feet Depth Material Description Sample NC %M Pocket (ft.) Penetr. Loose, damp, brown, gravelly SAND with some cobbles and boulders up to 18-inch maximum dimension (Fill) 1 2 Loose, moist, red-brown, coarse GRAVEL (Fill) with an 8-inch 3 diameter corrugated plastic pipe on south side of test pit 4 Very soft, wet, brown, SILT with abundant fine organics, partial stump wood up to 4 feet long 5 Very soft, wet, gray with rust inclusions, SILT with some fine sand interbeds, fine rootlets, and large wood pieces in upper 6 feet 6 7 8 0.75 tsf 9 10 S-1 @ 10 ft. 11 Very soft, wet, dark brown, fine and fibrous PEAT 12 S-2 @ 12 ft. 0.5 tsf 13 S-3 @ 13.5 ft. 14 Loose, wet, gray, silty fine SAND with cobbles or boulder 15 Test pit completed at approximately 15 feet. Slight groundwater 16 seepage observed between 6 and 7 feet at time of excavation. Significant sidewall caving above 6 feet observed. 17 18 Nc is the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer blow count averaged over three 1.75 inch intervals measured in accordance with ASTM Special Technical Publication #399. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS LABORATORY PROCEDURES A series of laboratory tests were performed during the course of this study to evaluate the index and geotechnical engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Descriptions of the types of tests performed are given below. Visual Classification Samples recovered from the exploration locations were visually classified in the field during the exploration program. Representative portions of the samples were carefully packaged in moisture tight containers and transported to our laboratory where the field classifications were verified or modified as required. Visual classification was generally done in accordance with ASTM D 2488. Visual soil classification includes evaluation of color, relative moisture content, soil type based upon grain size, and accessory soil types included in the sample. Soil classifications are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A. Moisture Content Determinations Moisture content determinations were performed on representative samples obtained from the explorations in order to aid in identification and correlation of soil types. The determinations were made in general accordance with the test procedures described in ASTM D 2216. The results are shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A. Grain Size Analysis A grain size analysis indicates the range in diameter of soil particles included in a particular sample. Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The results of the grain size determinations for the samples were used in classification of the soils, and are presented in this appendix. Laboratory Maximum Density Test The laboratory maximum density represents the highest degree of density which can be obtained from a particular soil type by imparting a predetermined compaction effort. The test determines the “optimum” moisture content of the soil at the laboratory maximum density. The laboratory maximum density test was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1557 on a bulk composite sample of shallow soils collected from below the substation yard rock at the boring locations. The test result is shown in this appendix and presented as a plot of compacted soil dry density as a function of moisture content. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a sample of crushed surfacing base course sourced from Cal Portland in Everett, Washington was also tested prior to completing a permeability test, and the results are presented in this appendix. Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head Method) The coefficient of permeability (hydraulic conductivity) of the sample of crushed surfacing base course sourced from Cal Portland in Everett, Washington was determined in general accordance with the ASTM D 2434 testing procedure. The testing was completed on the sample after it had been compacted to GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36" 12" 6" 3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 140 200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT 30 20 10 0 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines (%) Description Cal Portland, Sandy GRAVEL, 052616 grab 2.1 6.8 Everett some Fines Project No.: 1643.01 PROJECT NAME: Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 5/31/2016 East Arlington - Oso Substation PLASTICITY CHART ASTM D 4318 60 U-line 50 A-line Inorganic clays of 40 high plasticity CH Micaceous or diatomaceous fine Low plastic inorganic sandy and silty soils; elastic silts; 30 organic silts, clays, and silty clays clays; sandy and silty clays Medium plastic OH inorganic 20 clays or Plasticity Index %Silty clays; MH clayey silts and sands CL OL 10 or ML Inorganic and organic silts and silty clays of 7 low plasticity; rock flour; silty or clayey fine CL-ML 4 sands ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit % USCS Received Liquid Plastic Plasticity Symbol Boring Sample Description M.C. (%) Limit Limit Index Comments B-6 S-4 ML 85 54 40 12 Remarks: PROJECT NO: 1643.01A PROJECT NAME: Zipper GEo Associates, LLC DATE OF TESTING: 7/12/2016 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Eagle Creek Substation Public Utility District No.1 Site Civil, Zoning, & Building Permit Application of Snohomish County February 10, 2017 Everett, Washington EAGLE CREEK SUBSTATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. STATEMENT OF NEED 1) The District is requesting a Site Civil Permit, Zoning Permit, and Building Permit for the Security Fence to construct a new 12kV double bank electrical distribution substation in the City of Arlington. The proposed substation site is located at 8630 212th St NE, Arlington, WA. 2) This project is part of the District’s Electric System Capital Program to improve reliability and provide additional electrical capacity to the Arlington and Oso Service Area. The new substation will replace the existing aging and heavily loaded equipment in the East Arlington Substation that has created outage constraints that limit the ability to perform maintenance. It will also have Smart Grid capability and two spare 12kV feeders to accommodate future growth. 3) To accommodate the problem of outage constraints the new substation will be constructed across the street to the south of the existing East Arlington Substation on District owned property. B. SITE INFORMATION 1) Street Address: 8630 212th NE, Arlington, WA 98223 2) Tax Parcel Number: 31051200300600 3) Legal Description: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Northwest ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 12, Township 31 North, Range 5 East, W.M., as the True Point of Beginning; thence South 4°13’02” West along the East line of said subdivision a distance of 317.67 feet; thence South 88°40’45” West a distance of 130.24 feet to existing East Right-of-Way line of a Public Utility District No. 1 powerline; thence North 5°40’18” West along said Right-of-Way line a distance of 212.11 feet; thence North 84°19’32” East along said Right- of-Way line a distance of 10.00 feet; thence North 5°40’18” West along said Right-of-Way line a distance of 104.24 feet to the North line of said subdivision; thence North 88°40’45” East along said North line a distance of 174.89 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Except the North 30.00 feet thereof for the County Road. Containing 1.00 Acres. 4) Zoning: Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). 5) Size: 1.00 acres C. SITE DESCRIPTION 1) The subject property is currently used as a District pole yard that will be relocated prior to start of substation site construction. Page 1 of 7 Public Utility District No.1 Site Civil, Zoning, & Building Permit Application of Snohomish County February 10, 2017 Everett, Washington 2) Adjacent to the site’s west property line is a 50-ft wide PUD transmission easement containing two 115kV transmission lines that widens to a 60-ft wide easement in the north 74-ft of the property. To the west of these transmission lines are two 230kV Puget Sound Energy (PSE) transmission lines. 3) Adjacent properties to the west of the transmission corridor and south of the site are zoned RHD (High-Density Residential). Properties to the east are zoned SR (Suburban Residential) with a Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay. The adjacent property to the north across 212th St NE is the East Arlington Substation, also zoned Public / Semi Public. The proposal will not affect current land uses on adjacent properties. 4) Off-site to the east is a Category II Wetland A with a Habitat Score 7 requiring a 165-ft standard buffer and Type F stream Eagle Creek requiring a 100-ft buffer. Off-site to the northeast is another Category II Wetland B with a Habitat Score 8 requiring a 225-ft standard buffer, and off-site to the north is another Category III Wetland C with a Habitat Score 5 requiring a 105-ft standard buffer. Pursuant to AMC 20.93.83(b)(1), the standard wetland buffer widths listed above (from AMC Table 20.93-4) require implementation of minimization measures listed in AMC Table 20.93-5. These measures include taking actions, such as reducing noise (i.e. work trucks, machinery) and redirecting/limiting artificial lighting. Given the nature of the electrical substation, these provisions cannot be met fully. Due to the inability to apply the provisions set forth in AMC Table 20.93-5, the standard buffer widths will be increased by 33-percent pursuant to AMC 20.93.830(b)(2). The resulting critical area buffer widths for Wetland A is 219-ft, Wetland B is 299-ft, and Wetland C is 140-ft. Streams do not require the minimization measures, and thus the standard buffer width associated with Eagle Creek remains unchanged. The buffers from Eagle Creek and the nearby Wetlands A and B technically extend onto the subject future substation property, and the buffers from Wetland A, B, and C extend onto the existing East Arlington Substation property. However, the pole yard was legally established prior to the adoption of AMC 20.88 or 20.93, so it is considered a legal nonconforming use. Similarly, the East Arlington Substation was also legally established prior to the above code adoptions and is considered a legal nonconforming use. The proposed redevelopment of the pole yard and East Arlington Substation will not change the extent of nonconformity, as no expansion of the developed areas will occur. As such, the proposed project is an allowed activity under AMC 20.93.820(4)(H). AMC 20.32.040(a) allows renovation of nonconforming situation in accordance with a zoning permit. 5) Per AMC 20.93.830(b)(3), buffers lacking adequate vegetation to perform needed functions should either be planted to create an appropriate plant community, or should be widened to ensure such functions. The future substation property is almost entirely developed as an impervious surface. The transmission line corridor to the west requires regular vegetation management in order to keep the area clear of high-growing vegetation. Given the land uses on the subject property, plant installation is not feasible. However, the 33- Page 2 of 7 Public Utility District No.1 Site Civil, Zoning, & Building Permit Application of Snohomish County February 10, 2017 Everett, Washington percent buffer width increases meets the buffer widening requirement to perform the needed functions. 6) Site topography is relatively flat with a general slope across the whole site of only 3 to 5%. The steepest slope on-site is approximately 28% along the west edge of the property. 7) On-site soils are mapped mostly as Everett very gravelly sandy loam, with small portions of Normal loam and Ragnar fine sandy loam. Lacustrine and bog deposits consisting of silty sand and sandy silt with some organic silt, peat, fine organics, and wood pieces were observed during the subsurface geotechnical exploration. D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1) A distribution substation converts power delivered to the substation from 115,000 Volts (115kV) to 12,000 Volts (12kV) and distributes it to the District’s electrical grid to serve customer power needs. The double-bank Eagle Creek Substation will generally consist of: a) Two transmission line termination (dead-end) structures b) 115kV and 12kV switches c) Two 28MVA power transformers d) Two Metal-clad switchgear enclosures e) Underground conduits for power cables, control wires, and fiber f) Related site work for the substation includes: a stormwater management system, oil spill containment system for the transformers, security fence, with high voltage warning signs, grounding system, two driveways with access control gates, landscaping, and an irrigation system. 2) Structure Heights – The transmission line termination structure will be the tallest structure within the substation fence at approximately 39 feet in height. Three temporary two-pole transmission structures will be approximately 34-ft in height. The 35-ft long ceramic firewall is approximately 20-ft in height and the power transformers are approximately 18 feet in height. All other structures and equipment within the substation will be less than 18 feet high. Outside the substation fence one steel transmission pole approximately 84 feet in height will be installed within the power line corridor west of the proposed substation and two more 55-ft high steel transmission poles will be installed along the east side of the property. Two 48-ft high temporary wood transmission poles will be installed along the north side of the property. The temporary poles and equipment will be removed after the reconstruction of the East Arlington Substation is completed in late 2018. 3) Land Disturbance – The existing pole yard will be demolished and disposed of off-site in accordance with state and local requirements. Land disturbance will be almost the complete 1.0 acres site to construct the substation facility. Page 3 of 7 Public Utility District No.1 Site Civil, Zoning, & Building Permit Application of Snohomish County February 10, 2017 Everett, Washington a) The existing granular material will be stripped for the substation yard and driveway construction. Stripped granular material will be reused as common fill to the maximum extent practicable, and disposed of off-site in accordance with state and local requirements. b) Organic native soil and peat will be excavated from the site and disposed of off-site in accordance with state and local requirements. Imported quarry spalls, ballast, and crushed surfacing base course will be utilized in backfilling the excavation. c) Granular fill material will be imported to provide a suitable base for the two driveways and substation yard area within the substation security fence. The substation yard and a 3 foot wide perimeter area outside the security fence will be surfaced with coarse crushed rock. The north access driveway will be paved with asphalt and the west access driveway will be crushed surfacing base course. d) Temporary erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented during construction in accordance with state and local stormwater management requirements. All on-site soils disturbed by construction activities will be stabilized with grass and or landscaping prior to the removal of any temporary erosion and sediment control measures. 4) Stormwater Management – Precipitation falling within the substation yard will infiltrate through the imported crushed rock fill. Below surface, stormwater will infiltrate into the native soil. The imported crushed rock base will act as a reservoir, retaining water during intense rainfall events. A level spreader will provide emergency overflow for the interceptor trench system. The spreader will disperse overflow discharge into the vegetated wetland area east of the substation yard. a) Water runoff from planted areas will surface infiltrate naturally. b) Any runoff generated by the north driveway will be directed to a catch basin in the driveway that is connected to the Interceptor Trench. c) Stormwater management for the proposed development will be in compliance with the City of Arlington Drainage Code. 5) Landscaping and Screening – The site will be landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs, and other plant materials. Plant materials will be selected that are drought tolerant, resistant to disease and vandalism, and do not require excessive care. An irrigation system will be designed to conserve water use. To soften the appearance and improve aesthetics of the facility, the District proposes to use the Ameristar Fence Products “Impasse II” ornamental fence for the substation security fence. 6) Ingress and Egress – Access to the substation will be from 212th St NE. 7) Traffic/Parking – The substation is not a staffed facility. Trips to the substation are made for operation and maintenance activities on an average of twice a week. The driveway will provide area for one off-street parking space and most maintenance vehicles will park inside the security fence. Page 4 of 7 Public Utility District No.1 Site Civil, Zoning, & Building Permit Application of Snohomish County February 10, 2017 Everett, Washington 8) Security Fence a) The National Electric Safety Code (NESC) requires that “metal fences, when used to enclose electric supply stations having energized electric conductors or equipment, shall have a height of not less than 7 feet overall and shall be grounded in accordance with Section 9 [of the NESC]. The requirements for fence height may be satisfied with any one of the following: a) Chain link fence fabric, 7 feet or more in height, b) a combination of 6 feet or more of fence fabric and a 1 foot extension utilizing three or more strands of barbed wire, or c) other combinations of construction, such as nonmetallic material, that present equivalent barriers to climbing or other unauthorized entry.” b) The District proposal is for the Ameristar Fence Products “Impasse II” ornamental pale high security fence with an overall height of approximately 9 feet. The pales are manufactured of high-tensile steel in a corrugated shape curved outward in a trident shape. The fence is designed to discourage unauthorized entry into the substation. High voltage warning signs will be installed on the fence and gates as specified by the NESC. 9) SEPA – The District is the lead agency for the SEPA process. State regulations require public agencies to issue threshold determinations for their own projects [WAC 197-11-926(1)]. The Eagle Creek Substation SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued on November 9, 2016. The City of Arlington received a copy of the SEPA checklist for review and comments were received. A copy of the DNS, a revised Critical Area Determination Report, and the revised Cultural Resources Assessment has been provided in this permit application package. Archaeological monitoring of all ground- disturbing activities associated with this project that will extend beyond 40.0 cm (15.7 inches) below the ground surface is recommended by Tierra Right of Way and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The Stillaguamish Tribe has also requested a tribal member be present to observe this excavation work. 10) Noise Control – The substation facility will comply with Arlington Municipal Code Section 9.20.060, Nuisance noise originating from private property or premises not open to the public that adopts by reference the noise limits contained in Chapter 173-60, Maximum Environmental Noise Levels, of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The Eagle Creek Substation site is zoned Public/Semi-Public, but this Zoning Code does not specifically categorized this zone as Residential or Commercial. For the purpose of conservative (worst-case) analysis, the substation site is considered EDNA A (Residential), consistent with the zoning of neighboring properties. The noise limit for EDNA A source and receiver properties is 55 dBA. A Sound Analysis report for the proposed substation has been prepared by BRC Acoustics, Inc. The report includes existing and predicted sound levels. It concludes that sound levels produced by the proposed substation will comply with applicable sound limits and that noise mitigation measures are not required. Page 5 of 7 Public Utility District No.1 Site Civil, Zoning, & Building Permit Application of Snohomish County February 10, 2017 Everett, Washington 11) Associated Power Line Construction a) The substation will be connected with overhead electrical lines to the existing Murray – East Arlington (M-EA) 115kV transmission line and the East Arlington – Sills Corner (EA-L) 115kV transmission line located in the power line corridor adjacent to the proposed substation and currently feeding the East Arlington Substation. The 115kV transmission line connections will be made by installing a new steel transmission pole within the power line corridor west of the proposed substation site to facilitate the rerouting of the Murray – East Arlington line around to the east side of the substation property. The new substation will be temporarily fed from these two transmission lines utilizing two temporary wood poles (previously mentioned) to be installed on each side of the north driveway, until the East Arlington Substation is reconstructed and the permanent transmission tie will be installed in late 2018. b) The new substation will be connected to existing overhead 12kV electric circuits in the area with new power cables installed in new underground conduits that connect to existing underground conduits as much as possible. E. SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE 1) The existing City water connection and meter located in the northwest corner of the property currently serves the pole yard irrigation system, and will continue to be utilized solely as the water supply for the new landscape irrigation system. 2) The facility does not require connection to sanitary sewer or an on-site septic system. 3) Power for substation operation will be supplied from the District’s distribution system. 4) Telecommunication service will be supplied by the District’s fiber optic system. F. PROJECT SCHEDULE Construction is proposed to start in March 2017 and completed in November 2017. G. RELATED DOCUMENTS 1) Drawings Dwg No. Rev. Title/Description S-126-KT1 0 Title Sheet for Permitting S-126-K1 0 Site Plan S-126-K2 0 2016 Topographic Survey S-126-K3 0 General Notes S-126-K4 0 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Page 6 of 7 Public Utility District No.1 Site Civil, Zoning, & Building Permit Application of Snohomish County February 10, 2017 Everett, Washington S-126-K5 0 SWPPP Details S-126-K6 0 Grading and Drainage Plan S-126-K7 0 Grading and Drainage Details and Sections S-126-K8 0 Peat Excavation Plan S-126-K9 0 Grading Sections S-126-K10 0 Driveway Plans and Sections S-126-K11 0 Security Fence Plan S-126-K12 0 Security Fence Details S-126-K13 0 Elevations S-126-KL1 0 Landscape Plan S-126-KL2 0 Elevations S-126-KL3 0 Landscape Details S-126-KL4 0 Planting Details S-126-KL5 0 Irrigation Details S-126-KL6 0 Irrigation Details 2) Stormwater Site Plan Report prepared by Harmsen and Associates, Inc., dated February 10, 2017. 3) Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Zipper Geo Associates, LLC, dated September 16, 2016. 4) Critical Area Determination Report prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated July, 2016 and revision dated January 25, 2017 to correspond with revised section 20.93 of the Arlington Municipal Code. 5) Sound Analysis Report by BRC Acoustics & Audiovisual Design dated October 12, 2016. 6) Cultural Resources Assessment by Tierra Right of Way dated November 8, 2015 (in error) and revision dated December 22, 2016. Page 7 of 7 18204 59th Avenue NE REVIEW COMMENT FORM Arlington, WA 98223 360-403-3551 Project Name: Eagle Creek Substation Permit No.: 287 Review Date: 2/24/17 Contact: Phone No.: Review Phase: Plan Report Date: Reviewing Dept.: Applicant: DWG Issue Date: 2/10/17 # Rev. Dwg. or Add’l Ref. City Comment Response/Resolution Spec. Ref. Approved 1. NEH Drainage Pg. 7 Explain how minimum separation between groundwater Report and the infiltration area will be achieved. Refer to Vol III – 3.3.7 SS5 SWMMWW 2. NEH Drainage Pg. 7 Crushed Surfacing Top Course is listed in the drainage Report report, but the geotechnical report calls out base course. 3. NEH Drainage WWHM Total Existing Basin area is 0.82 acres, but the proposed Report doesn’t equal 0.82, total area should be the same. Mitigated basin is 0.12 ac lawn and permeable pavement (200 x 118.60) 0.544 ac. The text calls out the gravel as 0.64 acres, but doesn’t match the analysis. Increasing the gravel to 0.64 and using 0.12 lawn still leaves 0.06 ac missing from the mitigated basin, please update model. 4. NEH Drainage WWHM Must show that the interceptor trench will be able to Report convey all bypass water and the level spreader is properly sized for the volume of flow being routed to it. 5. NEH S-126-K4 High visibility silt fence at the southern lot line has the potential to channelize water. 6. NEH Drainage S-126-K6 Verify that elevation of perforated pipe in interceptor Report S-126-K7 ditch is above elevation of groundwater. 7. NEH S-126-K8 Verify peat excavation will not have a negative impact on the adjacent critical area. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Page 1 of 2 18204 59th Avenue NE REVIEW COMMENT FORM Arlington, WA 98223 360-403-3551 Project Name: Eagle Creek Substation Permit No.: 287 Review Date: 2/24/17 Contact: Phone No.: Review Phase: Plan Report Date: Reviewing Dept.: Applicant: DWG Issue Date: 2/10/17 # Rev. Dwg. or Add’l Ref. City Comment Response/Resolution Spec. Ref. Approved 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Page 2 of 2 18204 59th Avenue NE REVIEW COMMENT FORM Arlington, WA 98223 360-403-3551 Project Name: Eagle Creek Substation Permit No.: 287 Review Date: 2/24/17 Contact: Phone No.: Review Phase: Plan Report Date: Reviewing Dept.: Applicant: PUD DWG Issue Date: 2/10/17 # Rev. Dwg. or Add’l Ref. City Comment Response/Resolution Spec. Ref. Approved 1. NEH Drainage Pg. 7 Explain how minimum separation between groundwater Please refer to the response to Comment No. 1 in Report and the infiltration area will be achieved. Refer to Vol III the Zipper Geo Associates letter dated 3-13-2017 – 3.3.7 SS5 SWMMWW (addressed to Tom Hendricks) regarding the City of Arlington Review Comment Response that has been included in the Response Submittal Package in both paper and digital format. 2. NEH Drainage Pg. 7 Crushed Surfacing Top Course is listed in the drainage The reference to Top Course has been changed to Report report, but the geotechnical report calls out base course. Base Course in the revised Stormwater Site Plan. 3. NEH Drainage WWHM Total Existing Basin area is 0.82 acres, but the proposed Areas have been revised in the revised Stormwater Report doesn’t equal 0.82, total area should be the same. Site Plan, and two paper copies and digital format Mitigated basin is 0.12 ac lawn and permeable pavement included with the Response Submittal. (200 x 118.60) 0.544 ac. The text calls out the gravel as 0.64 acres, but doesn’t match the analysis. Increasing the gravel to 0.64 and using 0.12 lawn still leaves 0.06 ac missing from the mitigated basin, please update model. 4. NEH Drainage WWHM Must show that the interceptor trench will be able to Calculations have been added to MR 5 on page 6 Report convey all bypass water and the level spreader is properly of the revised Stormwater Site Plan included with sized for the volume of flow being routed to it. the Response Submittal. 5. NEH S-126-K4 High visibility silt fence at the southern lot line has the The intent is for the site contractor to install the potential to channelize water. Interceptor Swale with Checkdams as one of the initial items constructed for TESC (refer to Key Note 3 on drawing S-126-K4). At a later date the full Interceptor Trench will be further excavated (along the swale centerline) as detailed in Section C on drawing S-126-C6. The location of this swale (and trench) will be at least 10 feet north of the south property line section of silt fence, at a depth sufficient to keep anticipated flow away from the silt fence. 6. NEH Drainage S-126-K6 Verify that elevation of perforated pipe in interceptor Please refer to the response to Comment No. 6 in Report S-126-K7 ditch is above elevation of groundwater. the Zipper Geo Associates letter dated 3-13-2017 and discussed above under Comment No. 1. Page 1 of 2 18204 59th Avenue NE REVIEW COMMENT FORM Arlington, WA 98223 360-403-3551 Project Name: Eagle Creek Substation Permit No.: 287 Review Date: 2/24/17 Contact: Phone No.: Review Phase: Plan Report Date: Reviewing Dept.: Applicant: PUD DWG Issue Date: 2/10/17 # Rev. Dwg. or Add’l Ref. City Comment Response/Resolution Spec. Ref. Approved 7. NEH S-126-K8 Verify peat excavation will not have a negative impact on Please refer to the response to Comment No. 7 in the adjacent critical area. the Zipper Geo Associates letter dated 3-13-2017 and discussed above under Comment No. 1. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Page 2 of 2 843 PELLCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. 13036 BEVERLY PARK ROAD MUKILTEO, WA 98275 RUSTY REMICK CELL (425) 346-5178 Email rustyr@pellcoconstruction.com TEL (425) 265-7211 FAX (425) 265-7215 843 PELLCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. 13036 BEVERLY PARK ROAD MUKILTEO, WA 98275 RUSTY REMICK CELL (425) 346-5178 Email rustyr@pellcoconstruction.com TEL (425) 265-7211 FAX (425) 265-7215 CRITICAL AREA DETERMINATION REPORT FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD NO. 1 EAST ARLINGTON AND EAGLE CREEK SUBSTATIONS ARLINGTON, WA Wetland Resources, Inc. Project #16173 Prepared By Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 19th Avenue SE, Suite 106 Everett, WA 98208 (425) 337-3174 Prepared For Zipper Geo Associates, LLC 19023 36th Avenue West, #D Lynnwood, WA 98036 Original: July 2016 Revision: January 25, 2017 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................1 1.1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION – EAST ARLINGTON SUBSTATION ..............................................1 1.2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION – ARLINGTON POLE YARD/EAGLE CREEK SUBSTATION .........3 1.3 DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL AREAS BUFFERS ..............................................................................4 1.4 WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS .......................................................................................6 1.4.1 Cowardin System Classifications ..................................................................................................6 1.4.2 City of Arlington Classifications ...................................................................................................6 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION ......................................................................................................7 2.1 REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION ................................................................................................7 2.2 PHS DATABASE INQUIRY ....................................................................................................................7 2.3 CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION METHODOLOGY ......................................................................7 2.3.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Criteria .................................................................................................8 2.3.2 Soils Criteria and Mapped Description ........................................................................................8 2.3.3 Hydrology Criteria .......................................................................................................................9 2.4 BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS ...........................................................................................9 2.4.1 Wetland A ....................................................................................................................................9 2.4.2 Wetland B ...................................................................................................................................10 2.4.3 Wetland C ..................................................................................................................................11 2.4.4 Eagle Creek ................................................................................................................................12 2.4.5 On-site vegetation ......................................................................................................................12 3.0 USE OF THIS REPORT ..............................................................................................................13 4.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................14 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES .................................................................1 FIGURE 2: PHOTO OF EXISTING EAST ARLINGTON SUBSTATION FROM TVEIT ROAD ................2 FIGURE 3: PHOTO OF EXISTING ARLINGTON POLE YARD FROM TVEIT ROAD ............................4 FIGURE 4: PHOTO OF WETLAND A FROM TVEIT ROAD ................................................................9 FIGURE 5: PHOTO OF WETLAND B FROM TVEIT ROAD ..............................................................10 FIGURE 6: PHOTO OF WETLAND C BEHIND CHAIN LINK FENCE ................................................11 FIGURE 7: PHOTO OF EAGLE CREEK NEAR TVEIT ROAD ............................................................12 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: 2014 DOE WETLAND RATING FORMS AND FIGURES APPENDIX B: CRITICAL AREA DETERMINATION MAP (SHEET 1/1) iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION Wetland Resources, Inc. completed a site investigation on June 30, 2016, to evaluate jurisdictional critical areas on and within 500 feet of the existing East Arlington Substation and Arlington Pole Yard, both of which are owned and operated by Snohomish County PUD No. 1. The East Arlington Substation site is a 1.66-acre parcel, located at 21210 87th Avenue NE, at the northwest corner of Tveit Road and 87th Avenue NE (APN 31051200200500). The Arlington Pole Yard is located across Tveit Road to the south of the substation (APN 31051200300600). Both parcels are located in the city limits of Arlington, Washington, in Section 12, Township 31N, Range 5E, W.M. The intent of this document is to characterize all identified critical areas and buffers in the vicinity of the subject property and assess potential impacts associated with the applicant’s development proposal. EAST NE ARLINGTON SUBSTATION AVE 87TH TVEIT ROAD ARLINGTON POLE YARD & PROPOSED EAGLE CREEK SUBSTATION Figure 1: Aerial View of the Subject Properties 1.1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION – EAST ARLINGTON SUBSTATION The East Arlington Substation site is developed as an electrical substation. The eastern three- quarters of the site contains the electrical equipment. This area is fenced and covered with gravel with some landscape screening. The western quarter of the site contains overhead East Arlington & Eagle Creek Substations 1 Critical Area Determination Report WRI #16173 January 2017 electrical transmission conductors and poles. This area is vegetated with a variety of managed shrubs and emergent species that are regularly maintained. A constructed drainage swale runs along the border of the graveled/vegetated area to convey drainage from off-site to the north to the storm system in Tveit Road. The subject property is relatively flat with a slight east aspect in the vegetated portion. Figure 2: Photo of Existing East Arlington Substation From Tveit Road The surrounding area is composed of single and multi-family residential to the north, south and west, with low density residential, agriculture and forest land to the east. On-site soils are mapped mostly as Everett very gravelly sandy loam, with small portions of Norma loam and Ragnar fine sandy loam. No wetlands occur on the subject parcel. Nearby, one wetland (A) lies across Tveit Road to the southeast, another wetland (B) lies across 87th Avenue NE to the east, and what appears to be a third wetland (C) lies off-site to the north. All three wetlands lie off-site, so we were not able to inspect them closely or sample soils within them. They were viewed from the subject property and from public rights-of-way. Although Wetlands A and B are clearly wetlands near Tveit Road, their northern and southern extents were not able to be determined and are approximated on the attached map. What is identified as Wetland C lies north of the parcel to the north of the East Arlington & Eagle Creek Substations 2 Critical Area Determination Report WRI #16173 January 2017 substation and may or may not meet wetland criteria, but is assumed to be a wetland for the purposes of this report. The grass-lined swale that lies within the substation property was constructed to convey drainage from what appears to be Wetland C, off-site to the north. As an intentionally constructed grass- lined drainage swale, constructed from a non-wetland site, it does not meet the definition of wetland under AMC 20.93.100 and is an unregulated drainage facility. Eagle Creek flows through Wetlands A and B and, at its closest point, lies approximately 200 feet east of the substation property. The South Fork Stillaguamish River lies approximately 0.66 miles northeast of the site. The edge of the mapped floodplain associated with the river lies approximately 0.34 miles to the northeast. Snohomish County PUD No. 1 is proposing to demolish the existing substation and rebuild it with more modern equipment in its current footprint. No expansion of the existing impervious surfaces is proposed, so no wetland or buffer impacts are associated with this proposal. 1.2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION – ARLINGTON POLE YARD/EAGLE CREEK SUBSTATION This parcel is currently developed as a pole and equipment storage yard. The entire site is fenced and covered with an impervious gravel surface with no vegetation. The subject property is relatively flat with a slight southeast aspect. The surrounding area is composed of single and multi-family residential to the north and west, with low density residential, agriculture and forest land to the south and east. On-site soils are mapped mostly as Norma loam, with a small portion of Everett very gravelly sandy loam in the northwest corner. No wetlands occur on the subject parcel. Nearby, one wetland (A) lies immediately adjacent to the east, and another wetland (B) lies across Tveit Road/87th Avenue NE to the northeast. Both wetlands lie off-site, so we were not able to inspect them closely or sample soils within them. They were viewed from the subject property and from public rights-of-way. Although Wetlands A and B are clearly wetlands near Tveit Road, their northern and southern extents were not able to be determined and are approximated on the attached map. East Arlington & Eagle Creek Substations 3 Critical Area Determination Report WRI #16173 January 2017 Figure 3: Photo of Existing Arlington Pole Yard From Tveit Road Eagle Creek flows through Wetlands A and B and, at its closest point, lies approximately 60 feet east of the subject property. The South Fork Stillaguamish River lies approximately 0.7 miles northeast of the site. The edge of the mapped floodplain associated with the river lies approximately 0.37 miles to the northeast. The existing pole and equipment storage yard is proposed to be developed into an electrical substation, known as Eagle Creek Substation. The proposed substation will be entirely located within the existing impervious gravel surface of the storage yard. No expansion of the existing impervious surfaces is proposed, so no wetland or buffer impacts are associated with this proposal. 1.3 DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL AREAS BUFFERS Under the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby 2014), Wetlands A and B are classified as Category II wetlands, and Wetland C is classified as a Category III wetland. Wetland A has a habitat score of 7, Wetland B has a habitat score of 8, and Wetland C has a habitat score of 5. Under Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) Table 20.93- 4, Category II wetlands with a habitat score of 7 receive 165-foot protective buffers, while those East Arlington & Eagle Creek Substations 4 Critical Area Determination Report WRI #16173 January 2017 with a habitat score of 8 receive 225-foot buffers. Category III wetlands with a habitat score of 5 receive buffers of 105 feet. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) reports that Eagle Creek is used by Coho Salmon, which is not listed as Threatened or Endangered species. As such, the stream would be classified under AMC 20.93.700 as a Type F Water. AMC Table 20.93-3 requires 100 foot buffers for Type F Waters. Pursuant to AMC 20.93.830(b)(1), the standard wetland buffer widths listed above (from AMC Table 20.93-4) require implementation of minimization measures listed in AMC Table 20.93-5. These measures include taking actions, such as reducing noise (i.e. work trucks, machinery) and redirecting/limiting artificial lighting. Given the nature of the electrical substation, these provisions cannot be met fully. Due to the inability to apply the provisions set forth in AMC Table 20.93-5, the standard buffer widths will be increased by 33-percent pursuant to AMC 20.93.830(b)(2). Streams do not require the minimization measures, and thus the standard buffer width associated with Eagle Creek remains unchanged. The resulting critical area buffer widths related to the proposed project are listed in Table 1 of this report, below. Table 1. Modified Wetland Buffers INCREASED WETLAND BUFFERS CRITICAL AREA STANDARD BUFFER INCREASED BUFFER WETLAND A 165 Feet 219 Feet WETLAND B 225 Feet 299 Feet WETLAND C 105 Feet 140 Feet EAGLE CREEK 100 Feet NA The buffers from Eagle Creek and the nearby wetlands technically extend onto the subject properties. However, the storage yard was legally established prior to the adoption of AMC 20.88 or 20.93, so it is considered a legal nonconforming use. Similarly, the East Arlington substation was also legally established prior to the above code adoptions and is considered a legal nonconforming use. The proposed redevelopment of the storage yard and East Arlington substation will not change the extent of nonconformity, as no expansion of the developed areas will occur. As such, the proposed project is an allowed activity under AMC 20.93.820(4)(H). AMC 20.32.040(a) allows renovation of nonconforming situations in accordance with a zoning permit. Per AMC 20.93.830(b)(3), buffers lacking adequate vegetation to perform needed functions should either be planted to create an appropriate plant community, or should be widened to ensure such functions. The subject properties are almost entirely developed as impervious surfaces, with the exception of the western quarter of the East Arlington substation site that is maintained as a transmission line corridor. The transmission line corridor requires regular vegetation management in order to keep the area clear of high-growing vegetation. Given the land uses on the subject properties, plant installation is not feasible. However, the 33-percent buffer width increases meets the buffer widening requirement to perform the needed functions. East Arlington & Eagle Creek Substations 5 Critical Area Determination Report WRI #16173 January 2017 1.4 WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS 1.4.1 Cowardin System Classifications According to the Cowardin System, as described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, the classification for the wetlands near the subject properties are as follows: Wetland A: Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded (PFO1C) Wetland B: Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded (PFO1C) Wetland C: Palustrine, Scrub-shrub, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded (PSS1C) Eagle Creek: Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded (R2UBH) 1.4.2 City of Arlington Classifications In accordance with AMC 20.93.800(a), the subject wetlands were classified using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (DOE Publication #93-74; Hruby 2014). Streams are classified in accordance with AMC 20.93.700. Wetland A - Category II: Wetland A does not meet special criteria and received a total score of 20 points (habitat score of 7) on the DOE 2014 Wetland Rating Form. In Arlington, wetlands not meeting special criteria that receive scores between 20 and 22 points are classified as Category II wetlands. Category II wetlands with habitat scores of 7 receive standard buffers of 165 feet (AMC Table 20.93-4). As the proposed land use cannot adequately comply with the measures in AMC Table 20.93-5, the standard buffer is increased by 33 percent to 219 feet. Wetland B - Category II: Wetland B does not meet special criteria and received a total score of 21 points (habitat score of 8) on the DOE 2014 Wetland Rating Form. In Arlington, wetlands not meeting special criteria that receive scores between 20 and 22 points are classified as Category II wetlands. Category II wetlands with habitat scores of 8 receive standard buffers of 225 feet (AMC Table 20.93-4). As the proposed land use cannot adequately comply with the measures in AMC Table 20.93-5, the standard buffer is increased by 33 percent to 299 feet. Wetland C - Category III: Wetland B does not meet special criteria and received a total score of 19 points (habitat score of 5) on the DOE 2014 Wetland Rating Form. In Arlington, wetlands not meeting special criteria that receive scores between 16 and 19 points are classified as Category III wetlands. Category III wetlands with habitat scores of 5 receive standard buffers of 105 feet (AMC Table 20.93-4). As the proposed land use cannot adequately comply with the measures in AMC Table 20.93-5, the standard buffer is increased by 33 percent to 140 feet. Eagle Creek - Type F: Eagle Creek is known to support anadromous fish, but is not reported to support ESA species. Streams with these characteristics are classified as Type F Waters and receive 100-foot standard buffers (AMC Table 20.93-3). East Arlington & Eagle Creek Substations 6 Critical Area Determination Report WRI #16173 January 2017 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION 2.1 REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION Prior to conducting the site investigation, public resource information was reviewed to gather background information on the subject property and the surrounding area in regards to wetlands, streams, and other critical areas. These sources included the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), USDA/NRCS Web Soil Survey, Snohomish County SnoScape interactive mapping tool, WDFW SalmonScape mapping tool, and WDFW Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Interactive Map. Public Literature Review Findings • The National Wetlands Inventory does not display any wetland features within 500 feet of the site. • NRCS mapped soils in the vicinity of the subject properties as Everett very gravelly sandy loam, Ragnar fine sandy loam, and Norma loam, . The Everett and Ragnar units generally does not display hydric properties. The Norma unit is rated as hydric. • Snohomish County SnoScape displays Eagle Creek to the east of the subject properties and the South Fork Stillaguamish River (Type S), approximately 0.7 miles to the northeast. Snohomish County also maps the South Fork Stillaguamish River as known Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout habitat, both of which are listed as threatened species. • WDFW PHS displays three priority habitats within 200 meters (660 feet) of the site: o PHS reports that Eagle Creek supports Coho Salmon, which is not federally listed as a threatened species. o A small freshwater pond is shown within Wetland B, northeast of the East Arlington Substation parcel. o A freshwater emergent wetland is mapped approximately 550 feet southwest of the storage yard parcel. o No bald eagle nests are shown within 200 meters of the sites. • WDFW SalmonScape shows the South Fork Stillaguamish River east of the site and reports that it supports Pink, Chum, Chinook, Coho and Sockeye Salmon, Steelhead Trout, and Bull Trout. 2.2 PHS DATABASE INQUIRY WDFW maintains a database of sensitive (i.e. confidential) information that can be queried by property owners and environmental consultants who have confidentiality agreements with WDFW. A PHS query was submitted for this project to determine the presence of any sensitive sites in the project area. No sensitive sites are listed in the database beyond those described above from the PHS Interactive Map. 2.3 CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION METHODOLOGY Stream Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) boundaries are determined through use of methodology presented in the Washington State Department of Ecology document Determining the East Arlington & Eagle Creek Substations 7 Critical Area Determination Report WRI #16173 January 2017 Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson et al 2016). Wetland conditions were evaluated and delineated using the routine methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Final Report; January 1987), except where superseded by the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0, referred to as 2010 Regional Supplement). Our findings are consistent with these manuals. The following criteria descriptions were used in the boundary determination: 1.) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present and percent cover); 2.) Examination of the site for hydric soils; 3.) Determining the presence of wetland hydrology. 2.3.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Criteria The manuals define hydrophytic vegetation as the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present. One of the most common indicators for hydrophytic vegetation is when more than 50 percent of a plant community consists of species rated “Facultative” and wetter on lists of plant species that occur in wetlands. 2.3.2 Soils Criteria and Mapped Description The manuals define hydric soils as those that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Field indicators are used for determining whether a given soil meets the definition for hydric soils. According to NRCS Web Soil Survey, the soil map units Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent, Ragnar fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, and Norma loam are predicted to occur on the subject properties. Everett very gravelly sandy loam is described as very deep, somewhat excessively drained soil on terraces and outwash plains. Permeability is rapid. Included in this unit are small areas of Alderwood, Indianola, and Ragnar soils. None of these soils is listed as hydric. Ragnar fine sandy loam is described as a very deep, well drained soil on outwash plains. It formed in glacial outwash. Permeability is moderately rapid. Included in this unit are areas of Everett, Indianola, Pastik and Winston soils. None of these soils is listed as hydric. Norma loam is described as a very deep, poorly drained soil in depressional areas on outwash plains and till plains. Permeability is moderately rapid. Included in this unit are Bellingham and Custer soils and Terric medisaprists in depressional areas. All of these soils are listed as hydric. East Arlington & Eagle Creek Substations 8 Critical Area Determination Report WRI #16173 January 2017 2.3.3 Hydrology Criteria Wetland hydrology encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season. Areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the presence of water has an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and chemically reducing conditions, respectively. Additionally, areas which are seasonally inundated and/or saturated to the surface for a consecutive number of days ≥12.5 percent of the growing season are wetlands, provided the soil and vegetation parameters are met. Areas inundated or saturated between 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season in most years may or may not be wetlands. Areas saturated to the surface for less than 5 percent of the growing season are non-wetlands. Field indicators are used for determining whether wetland hydrology parameters are met. 2.4 BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS No wetlands or streams are located within the project parcels. The following are descriptions of the critical areas located near the sites. 2.4.1 Wetland A DOE/Arlington Rating: Category II; Habitat Score: 7 Required buffer width: 219 feet (33-percent increase) Figure 4: Photo of Wetland A From Tveit Road East Arlington & Eagle Creek Substations 9 Critical Area Determination Report WRI #16173 January 2017 Wetland A is located immediately adjacent to the east of the Arlington Pole Yard/Eagle Creek Substation parcel. Physical inspection of the wetland was not possible due to lack of legal access on private properties. As a result, vegetation and hydrologic attributes were observed remotely and professional opinion was used to determine whether areas met the soil parameter for a jurisdictional wetland. Dominant vegetation appears to be dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata, FAC), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC), and skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus; OBL). The soil in the southern portion of the wetland appeared to be saturated in late June, 2016. Due to a lack of legal access, soils within Wetland A were not sampled. However, the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey indicates that the wetland is underlain by Norma loam, which is a hydric soil. 2.4.2 Wetland B DOE/Arlington Rating: Category II; Habitat Score: 8 Required buffer width: 299 feet (33-percent increase) Figure 5: Photo of Wetland B From Tveit Road Wetland B is located approximately 150 feet east of the East Arlington Substation property. Dominant vegetation appears to be dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata, FAC), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC), hardhack (Spiraea douglasii, FACW), and skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus; OBL). The wetland surface appeared to be saturated in late June, 2016. Due to a lack of legal access, soils within Wetland B were not sampled. However, the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey indicates that the wetland is underlain by Norma loam, which is a hydric soil. East Arlington & Eagle Creek Substations 10 Critical Area Determination Report WRI #16173 January 2017 2.4.3 Wetland C DOE/Arlington Rating: Category III; Habitat Score: 5 Required buffer width: 140 feet (33-percent increase) Figure 6: Photo of Wetland C Behind Chain Link Fence Wetland C is located over 100 feet north of the East Arlington Substation property, north of the Navy Substation. This area may or may not be a wetland, but is assumed to be for the purposes of this report. Physical inspection of the wetland was not possible due to lack of legal access on private properties. As a result, vegetation was observed remotely and professional opinion was used to determine whether this area met the hydrology and soil parameters for a jurisdictional wetland. Dominant vegetation appears to include Pacific willow (Salix lucida, FACW) and Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis, FACW). Hydrology could not be seen from the subject property, but it appears that water present in the grass-lined swale west of the substation was flowing from this area. Due to a lack of legal access, soils within Wetland C were not sampled. East Arlington & Eagle Creek Substations 11 Critical Area Determination Report WRI #16173 January 2017 2.4.4 Eagle Creek Arlington Classification: Type 3 Required buffer width: 100 feet Figure 7: Photo of Eagle Creek near Tveit Road Eagle Creek flows through Wetlands A and B adjacent to the east of the two PUD sites. It appears to have perennial flow. This stream is known to be used by Coho Salmon but is not reported to be used by any Threatened or Endangered species. 2.4.5 On-site vegetation Vegetation within the existing substation footprint is non-existent as the entire footprint is covered with gravel. A small portion of the parcel south of the substation footprint is dominated by tightly grazed pasture grasses. Soils in the non-wetland area are generally very dark brown (10YR 2/2) loam to a depth of 6 inches. This breaks to a dark brown (10YR 3/3) gravelly loam to 15 inches. The soils were dry at the time of inspection. These soil characteristics are not consistent with any of the hydric soil indicators listed in the 2010 Regional Supplement. No saturation or presence of a high water table was observed in the non-wetland areas, and vegetation communities are not hydrophytic. Soils sampled in the southern portion of the parcel do not appear to be flooded, ponded, or saturated long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part, and therefore do not meet wetland soils criteria. Because direct hydrologic indicators are lacking, and neither hydric soils nor hydrophytic vegetation are present in these areas, it appears that the areas mapped as non-wetland do not meet criteria for wetlands. East Arlington & Eagle Creek Substations 12 Critical Area Determination Report WRI #16173 January 2017 3.0 USE OF THIS REPORT This Critical Area Determination Report is supplied to Zipper Geo Associates, LLC, as a means of determining on-site wetland conditions, as required by the City of Arlington during the permitting process. 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. The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report, and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources, Inc. John Laufenberg Principal Ecologist Professional Wetland Scientist East Arlington & Eagle Creek Substations 13 Critical Area Determination Report WRI #16173 January 2017 4.0 REFERENCES Anderson, P., S. Meyer, P. Olson, E. Stockdale. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. DOE Publication no. 16-06-029. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington. October 2016. Arlington, City of. 2015. Arlington Municipal Code, Title 20, Zoning, Chapter 20.88, Environmentally Critical Areas. Cowardin, et al., 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior. FWS/OBS-79/31. December 1979. Hruby, T. (2014). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Publication #14-06-029. Washington Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. Lichvar, R.W, D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1–17. Published April 28, 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. Munsell Color. 2012. Munsell Soil Color Book. Munsell Color, Grand Rapids, MI. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Snohomish, County of. 2015. SnoScape Interactive Mapping Tool. http://gis.snoco.org/maps/snoscape/ 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). Vicksburg, MS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2016. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Online Mapper. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. WA Department of Fish & Wildlife. 2016a. Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Interactive Map. http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/ WA Department of Fish & Wildlife. 2016b. SalmonScape Online Mapping Application. http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html WA State Department of Ecology. 1993. Washington State Wetlands Rating System, Western Washington. Publication #93-74. East Arlington & Eagle Creek Substations 14 Critical Area Determination Report WRI #16173 January 2017 Appendix A 2014 DOE Wetland Rating Forms (this page intentionally left blank) Wetland name or number ______ A RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ PUD: Wetland A July 2016 Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ JL & ED ✔ Sept2015 HGM Class used for rating_________________ DEPRESSIONAL Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N✔ NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________ ESRI OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ II (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) ✔ 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each _______✔ Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 function based on three _______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 ratings _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 (order of ratings is not important) FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality 9 = H,H,H Circle the appropriate ratings 8 = H,H,M Site Potential H M L H M L H M L 7 = H,H,L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L 7 = H,M,M Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M Score Based on 7 6 7 20 5 = H,L,L Ratings 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above ✔ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ A Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 A1 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 A1 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 A1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 A1 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 A2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 A2 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 A3 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 A4 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 4.1 (can be added to figure above) Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ A HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ A NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to being rated use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream Depressional within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as class of freshwater wetland ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ A DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. 1 points = 2 ✔ Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No = 0 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): ✔ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/ of area points = 1 10 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/ of area points = 0 10 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 0 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 ✔ Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 6 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H ✔ 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? 0 Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H ✔ 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 2 if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is: ✔ 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ A DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 0 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 ✔ Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 3 ✔ Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 0 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 ✔ The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M ✔ 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at 0 >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H ✔ 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): ✔ ï‚· Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points = 2 ï‚· Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1 2 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why _____________ points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Value If score is: ✔ 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ A These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 ____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 1 ____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 ____Forested (areas where trees have >✔ 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: ___✔ _The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). ____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 ____Seasonally flooded or inundated✔ 3 types present: points = 2 ____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 1 ____Saturated only✔ 1 type present: points = 0 ____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 1 If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. 0 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ A H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. ____Large, downed, woody debris within the ✔ wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). ____Standing snags (✔ dbh > 4 in) within the wetland ____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) ____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree 2 slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) ____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) ____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 5 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M ✔ 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 25 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 6 = _______31 % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/ (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 2 3 ✔ 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 31 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 14 = _______%45 Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 ✔ Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) 0 ✔ ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ✔ 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 ✔ It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)  It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)  It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 2  It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources  It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: ✔ 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ A WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.  Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). ✔ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).  Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.  Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.  Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above). ✔ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.  Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above). ✔ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.  Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page).  Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.  Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.  Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. ✔ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ A CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?  The dominant water regime is tidal,  Vegetated, and  With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Cat. I Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?  The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less Cat. I than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)  At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. Cat. II  The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3 Cat. I SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. I SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ A SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.  Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.  Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?  The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks  The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) Cat. I Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?  The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat. II  At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland.  The wetland is larger than 1/ ac (4350 ft2) 10 Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:  Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103  Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat I  Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat. II for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics N/A If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ A This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 PUD- E. Arlington & Eagle Cr. Substations WETLAND RATING FIGURE A1 - WETLAND A1 OUTLET LEGEND SCRUB-SHRUB FORESTED VEGETATION Scale 1" = 200' SATURATED ONLY 0 200 400 SEASONALLY FLOODED WETLAND RATING 150' FROM WL BOUNDARY Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance Wetland A1 A1 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 Phone: (425) 337-3174 Zipper Geo Assoc. Zipper Geo Assoc. PERENNIAL STREAM Fax: (425) 337-3045 19023 36th Ave W FigureA1 19023 36th Ave W A1 Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com #D WRI Job # 16173 #D 16173 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Drawn by: ED Lynnwood, WA 98036 ED (this page intentionally left blank) PUD- E. Arlington & Eagle Cr. Substations WETLAND RATING FIGURE A2 - WETLAND A2 LEGEND RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED LOW/MOD. INTENSITY HIGH INTENSITY ACCESSIBLE CONTRIBUTING BASIN Scale 1" = 1,200' HABITAT AREA RELATIVE TO WETLAND UNIT IS 114:1 0 1,200 2,400 WETLAND WETLAND RATING 1 KM FROM Wetland A2 A2 WETLAND Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 CONTRIBUTING Phone: (425) 337-3174 Zipper Geo Assoc. Zipper Geo Assoc. Fax: (425) 337-3045 19023 36th Ave W FigureA2 19023 36th Ave W A2 BASIN Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com #D WRI Job # 16173 #D 16173 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Drawn by: ED Lynnwood, WA 98036 ED (this page intentionally left blank) PUD- E. Arlington & Eagle Cr. Substations A3 A3 PUD- E. ARINGTON & EAGLE CR. SUBSTATIONS WETLAND RATING FIGURE A3 - WETLAND A WETLANDS LEGEND WETLAND NTS AQUATIC RESOURCES WETLAND RATING ON THE 303(d) LIST (CAT 5) WetlandA3 A3 Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance AQUATIC RESOURCES 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 Zipper Geo Assoc. Zipper Geo Assoc. Phone: (425) 337-3174 WITH TMDL (CAT 4A) Fax: (425) 337-3045 19023 36th Ave W FigureA3 19023 36th Ave W A3 Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com #D WRI Job # 16173 #D 16173 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Drawn by: ED Lynnwood, WA 98036 ED (this page intentionally left blank) PUD- E. Arlington & Eagle Cr. Substations WETLAND RATING FIGURE A4 - WETLAND A4 WETLAND RATING Wetland A4 A4 Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 Phone: (425) 337-3174 Zipper Geo Assoc. Zipper Geo Assoc. Fax: (425) 337-3045 19023 36th Ave W FigureA4 19023 36th Ave W A4 Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com #D WRI Job # 16173 #D 16173 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Drawn by: ED Lynnwood, WA 98036 ED (this page intentionally left blank) Wetland name or number ______ B RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Wetland B July 2016 Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ JL&ED ✔ Sept2015 HGM Class used for rating_________________ DEPRESSIONAL Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N✔ NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________ ESRI OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ II (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) ✔ 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each _______✔ Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 function based on three _______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 ratings _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 (order of ratings is not important) FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality 9 = H,H,H Circle the appropriate ratings 8 = H,H,M Site Potential H M L H M L H M L 7 = H,H,L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L 7 = H,M,M Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M Score Based on 7 6 8 21 5 = H,L,L Ratings 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above ✔ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ B Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 B1 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 B1 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 B1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 B1 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 B2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 B2 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 B3 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 B4 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 4.1 (can be added to figure above) Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ B HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ B NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to being rated use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream Depressional within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as class of freshwater wetland ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ B DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. 1 points = 2 ✔ Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No = 0 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 ✔ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/ of area points = 1 10 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/ of area points = 0 10 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 2 ✔ Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 6 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H ✔ 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? 0 Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H ✔ 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 2 if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is: ✔ 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ B DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 0 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 ✔ Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 ✔ Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 0 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 ✔ The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 5 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M ✔ 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at 0 >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H ✔ 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): ✔ ï‚· Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points = 2 ï‚· Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1 2 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why _____________ points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Value If score is: ✔ 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ B These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ____Aquatic ✔ bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 ____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 4 ____✔ Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 ____Forested (areas where trees have >✔ 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: ___✔ _The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). ____Permanently flooded or inundated✔ 4 or more types present: points = 3 ____Seasonally flooded or inundated✔ 3 types present: points = 2 ____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 2 ____Saturated only✔ 1 type present: points = 0 ____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 2 If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. 3 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ B H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. ____Large, downed, woody debris within the ✔ wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). ____Standing snags (✔ dbh > 4 in) within the wetland ____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) ____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree 2 slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) ____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) ____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 13 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H ✔ 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 15 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 8 = _______23 % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/ (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 2 3 ✔ 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 33 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 15 = _______%48 Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 ✔ Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) 0 ✔ ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ✔ 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 ✔ It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)  It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)  It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 2  It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources  It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: ✔ 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ B WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.  Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). ✔ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).  Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.  Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.  Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above). ✔ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.  Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above). ✔ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.  Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page).  Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.  Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.  Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. ✔ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ B CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?  The dominant water regime is tidal,  Vegetated, and  With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Cat. I Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?  The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less Cat. I than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)  At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. Cat. II  The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3 Cat. I SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. I SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ B SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.  Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.  Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?  The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks  The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) Cat. I Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?  The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat. II  At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland.  The wetland is larger than 1/ ac (4350 ft2) 10 Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:  Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103  Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat I  Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat. II for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics N/A If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ B This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 PUD- E. Arlington & Eagle Cr. Substations WETLAND RATING FIGURE B1 - WETLAND B1 OUTLET LEGEND SCRUB-SHRUB AQUATIC BED EMERGENT VEGETATION FORESTED VEGETATION OPEN WATER SATURATED ONLY Scale 1" = 250' SEASONALLY FLOODED 0 250 500 PERMANENTLY FLOODED WETLAND RATING Wetland B1 B1 150' FROM WL BOUNDARY Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 Phone: (425) 337-3174 Zipper Geo Assoc. Zipper Geo Assoc. PERENNIAL STREAM Fax: (425) 337-3045 19023 36th Ave W FigureB1 19023 36th Ave W B1 Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com #D WRI Job # 16173 #D 16173 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Drawn by: ED Lynnwood, WA 98036 ED (this page intentionally left blank) PUD- E. Arlington & Eagle Cr. Substations WETLAND RATING FIGURE B2 - WETLAND B2 LEGEND RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED LOW/MOD. INTENSITY HIGH INTENSITY CONTRIBUTING BASIN Scale 1" = 1,200' ACCESSIBLE AREA RELATIVE TO HABITAT WETLAND UNIT IS 106:1 0 1,200 2,400 WETLAND WETLAND RATING 1 KM FROM Wetland B2 B2 Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance WETLAND 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 Zipper Geo Assoc. Zipper Geo Assoc. Phone: (425) 337-3174 CONTRIBUTING Fax: (425) 337-3045 19023 36th Ave W FigureB2 19023 36th Ave W B2 BASIN Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com #D WRI Job # 16173 #D 16173 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Drawn by: ED Lynnwood, WA 98036 ED (this page intentionally left blank) PUD- E. ARINGTON & EAGLE CR. SUBSTATIONS WETLAND RATING FIGURE B3 - WETLAND B WETLANDS LEGEND WETLAND NTS AQUATIC RESOURCES WETLAND RATING ON THE 303(d) LIST (CAT 5) Wetland B Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 AQUATIC RESOURCES Phone: (425) 337-3174 Zipper Geo Assoc. WITH TMDL (CAT 4A) Fax: (425) 337-3045 19023 36th Ave W Figure B3 Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com #D WRI Job # 16173 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Drawn by: ED (this page intentionally left blank) PUD- E. Arlington & Eagle Cr. Substations WETLAND RATING FIGURE B4 - WETLAND B4 WETLAND RATING Wetland B4 B4 Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 Phone: (425) 337-3174 Zipper Geo Assoc. Zipper Geo Assoc. Fax: (425) 337-3045 19023 36th Ave W FigureB4 19023 36th Ave W B4 Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com #D WRI Job # 16173 #D 16173 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Drawn by: ED Lynnwood, WA 98036 ED (this page intentionally left blank) Wetland name or number ______ C RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Wetland C July 2016 Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ JL&ED ✔ Sept2015 HGM Class used for rating_________________ DEPRESSIONAL Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N✔ NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________ ESRI OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ III (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) ✔ 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each _______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 function based on three _______✔ Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 ratings _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 (order of ratings is not important) FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality 9 = H,H,H Circle the appropriate ratings 8 = H,H,M Site Potential H M L H M L H M L 7 = H,H,L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L 7 = H,M,M Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M Score Based on 7 7 5 19 5 = H,L,L Ratings 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above ✔ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ C Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 C1 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 C1 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 C1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 C1 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 C2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 C2 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 C3 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 C4 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 4.1 (can be added to figure above) Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ C HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ C NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to being rated use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream Depressional within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as class of freshwater wetland ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ C DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 ✔ Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. 2 points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No = 0 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 ✔ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/ of area points = 1 10 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/ of area points = 0 10 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. ✔ Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 9 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H ✔ 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? 0 Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H ✔ 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 2 if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is: ✔ 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ C DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 ✔ Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 3 ✔ Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 3 ✔ The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 8 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H ✔ 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at 1 >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ✔ 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): ï‚· Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points = 2 ✔ ï‚· Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why _____________ points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H ✔ 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ C These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 ____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 0 ____✔ Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 ____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: ____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). ____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 ____Seasonally flooded or inundated✔ 3 types present: points = 2 ____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 0 ____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 ____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 1 If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. 0 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ C H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. ____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). ____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland ____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) ____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree 0 slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) ____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) ____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M ✔ 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 1 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 0 = _______1 % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/ (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 0 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 ✔ < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 26 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 14 = _______%40 Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 ✔ Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) 0 ✔ ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H ✔ 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2  It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)  It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)  It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 2  It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources  It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan ✔ Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H ✔ 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ C WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.  Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).  Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).  Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.  Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.  Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above). ✔ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.  Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above). ✔ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.  Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page).  Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.  Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.  Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.  Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ C CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?  The dominant water regime is tidal,  Vegetated, and  With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Cat. I Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?  The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less Cat. I than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)  At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. Cat. II  The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3 Cat. I SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. I SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ C SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.  Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.  Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?  The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks  The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) Cat. I Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?  The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat. II  At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland.  The wetland is larger than 1/ ac (4350 ft2) 10 Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:  Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103  Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat I  Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat. II for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics N/A If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ______ C This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 PUD- E. Arlington & Eagle Cr. Substations WETLAND RATING FIGURE C1 - WETLAND C1 OUTLET Scale 1" = 60' LEGEND 0 60 120 SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND RATING Wetland C1 C1 SEASONALLY FLOODED Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 Phone: (425) 337-3174 Zipper Geo Assoc. Zipper Geo Assoc. 150' FROM WL BOUNDARY Fax: (425) 337-3045 19023 36th Ave W FigureC1 19023 36th Ave W C1 Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com #D WRI Job # 16173 #D 16173 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Drawn by: ED Lynnwood, WA 98036 ED (this page intentionally left blank) PUD- E. Arlington & Eagle Cr. Substations WETLAND RATING FIGURE C2 - WETLAND C2 LEGEND RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED LOW/MOD. INTENSITY HIGH INTENSITY ACCESSIBLE CONTRIBUTING BASIN Scale 1" = 1,200' HABITAT AREA RELATIVE TO WETLAND UNIT IS 16:1 0 1,200 2,400 WETLAND WETLAND RATING 1 KM FROM Wetland C2 C2 WETLAND Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 CONTRIBUTING Phone: (425) 337-3174 Zipper Geo Assoc. Zipper Geo Assoc. Fax: (425) 337-3045 19023 36th Ave W FigureC2 19023 36th Ave W C2 BASIN Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com #D WRI Job # 16173 #D 16173 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Drawn by: ED Lynnwood, WA 98036 ED (this page intentionally left blank) PUD- E. ARINGTON & EAGLE CR. SUBSTATIONS WETLAND RATING FIGURE C3 - WETLAND C WETLANDS LEGEND WETLAND NTS AQUATIC RESOURCES WETLAND RATING ON THE 303(d) LIST (CAT 5) Wetland C Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 AQUATIC RESOURCES Phone: (425) 337-3174 Zipper Geo Assoc. WITH TMDL (CAT 4A) Fax: (425) 337-3045 19023 36th Ave W Figure C3 Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com #D WRI Job # 16173 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Drawn by: ED (this page intentionally left blank) PUD- E. Arlington & Eagle Cr. Substations WETLAND RATING FIGURE C4 - WETLAND C4 WETLAND RATING Wetland C4 C4 Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 Phone: (425) 337-3174 Zipper Geo Assoc. Zipper Geo Assoc. Fax: (425) 337-3045 19023 36th Ave W FigureC4 19023 36th Ave W C4 Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com #D WRI Job # 16173 #D 16173 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Drawn by: ED Lynnwood, WA 98036 ED (this page intentionally left blank) Appendix B Critical Area Determination Map (this page intentionally left blank) CRITICAL AREA DETERMINATION MAP SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD NO. 1 EAST ARLINGTON & EAGLE CREEK SUBSTATIONS PORTION OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 31N, RANGE 5E, W.M. EAGLE CREEK TYPE F 100' BUFFER WETLAND C CATEGORY III DRAINAGE HABITAT SCORE 5 SWALE 140' BUFFER (33% ABOVE STANDARD) EAST ARLINGTON SUBSTATION NE WETLAND B LEGAL CATEGORY II NON-CONFORMING AVE HABITAT SCORE 8 USE 299' BUFFER (33% ABOVE STANDARD) 87TH TVEIT ROAD ARLINGTON POLE YARD & WETLAND A PROPOSED CATEGORY II EAGLE CREEK HABITAT SCORE 7 SUBSTATION 219' BUFFER (33% ABOVE STANDARD) LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE EAGLE CREEK TYPE F 100' BUFFER LEGEND WETLAND PROPERTY BOUNDARIES Scale 1" = 100' STREAM SITES 0 50 100 150 200 BUFFER LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE CRITICAL AREA DETERMINATION MAP SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD NO. 1 Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance EAST ARLINGTON AND 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 EAGLE CREEK SUBSTATIONS Phone: (425) 337-3174 ARLINGTON, WA Sheet 1/1 Fax: (425) 337-3045 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC WRI Job#: 16173 Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com 19023 36th Ave W, #D Drawn by: JL & SW Lynnwood WA 98036 Rev 1: Jan 25, 2017 18204 59th Avenue NE REVIEW COMMENT FORM Arlington, WA 98223 360-403-3551 Project Name: Eagle Creek Substation Permit No.: 287 Review Date: 2/24/17 Contact: Phone No.: Review Phase: Plan Report Date: Reviewing Dept.: Applicant: PUD DWG Issue Date: 2/10/17 # Rev. Dwg. or Add’l Ref. City Comment Response/Resolution Spec. Ref. Approved 1. NEH Drainage Pg. 7 Explain how minimum separation between groundwater Report and the infiltration area will be achieved. Refer to Vol III – 3.3.7 SS5 SWMMWW 2. NEH Drainage Pg. 7 Crushed Surfacing Top Course is listed in the drainage Report report, but the geotechnical report calls out base course. 3. NEH Drainage WWHM Total Existing Basin area is 0.82 acres, but the proposed Report doesn’t equal 0.82, total area should be the same. Mitigated basin is 0.12 ac lawn and permeable pavement (200 x 118.60) 0.544 ac. The text calls out the gravel as 0.64 acres, but doesn’t match the analysis. Increasing the gravel to 0.64 and using 0.12 lawn still leaves 0.06 ac missing from the mitigated basin, please update model. 4. NEH Drainage WWHM Must show that the interceptor trench will be able to Report convey all bypass water and the level spreader is properly sized for the volume of flow being routed to it. 5. NEH S-126-K4 High visibility silt fence at the southern lot line has the potential to channelize water. 6. NEH Drainage S-126-K6 Verify that elevation of perforated pipe in interceptor Report S-126-K7 ditch is above elevation of groundwater. 7. NEH S-126-K8 Verify peat excavation will not have a negative impact on the adjacent critical area. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Page 1 of 2 18204 59th Avenue NE REVIEW COMMENT FORM Arlington, WA 98223 360-403-3551 Project Name: Eagle Creek Substation Permit No.: 287 Review Date: 2/24/17 Contact: Phone No.: Review Phase: Plan Report Date: Reviewing Dept.: Applicant: PUD DWG Issue Date: 2/10/17 # Rev. Dwg. or Add’l Ref. City Comment Response/Resolution Spec. Ref. Approved 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Page 2 of 2 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED EAGLE CREEK SUBSTATION 8630 Tveit Road Arlington, Washington Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Prepared for: Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Prepared by: ZGA Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D Lynnwood, WA 98036 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT INFORMATION .....................................................................................................................1 Site Location and Description .........................................................................................................1 Project Description .........................................................................................................................1 SITE CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................................................2 Surface Conditions .........................................................................................................................2 Subsurface Conditions ....................................................................................................................2 Groundwater .................................................................................................................................3 Environmental Considerations ........................................................................................................4 CONCLUSIONS AND ............................................................................................................................5 RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................................5 Geotechnical Considerations ..........................................................................................................5 Geologically Hazardous Areas .........................................................................................................6 Consolidation Settlement Considerations .......................................................................................9 Earthwork .................................................................................................................................... 12 Site Preparation ........................................................................................................................... 12 Structural Fill ................................................................................................................................ 13 Utility Installation Recommendations ........................................................................................... 15 Below-grade Vault Recommendations .......................................................................................... 17 Foundations ................................................................................................................................. 18 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations ............................................................................. 18 Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations .......................................................................... 18 Seismic Design Parameters ........................................................................................................... 19 Concrete Slab Subgrade Preparation Recommendations ............................................................... 20 Drilled Pier Foundation / Direct Burial Recommendations ............................................................. 20 Open Shaft Construction Considerations ....................................................................................... 23 IBC Non-constrained Pole Design Recommendations ..................................................................... 23 Stormwater Management Considerations ..................................................................................... 24 Driveway Flexible Pavement Section Recommendations ............................................................... 26 West Side Driveway Improvements .............................................................................................. 27 Erosion Control ............................................................................................................................ 27 CLOSURE .......................................................................................................................................... 28 FIGURES Figure 1 – Site and Exploration Plan Figure 2 – Cross Section A-A’ Figure 3 – Cross Section B-B’ Figure 4 – Settlement Plate Detail APPENDICES Appendix A – Subsurface Exploration Procedures and Logs Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Procedures and Results GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED EAGLE CREEK SUBSTATION 8630 TVEIT ROAD ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 INTRODUCTION The geotechnical engineering exploration and analysis have been completed for the proposed Eagle Creek Substation project in Arlington, Washington. Six exploratory borings were completed to depths ranging from approximately 19 to 46 feet below the existing ground surface, and two test pits were excavated to approximately 15 feet, to evaluate subsurface conditions. Descriptive logs of the explorations are included in Appendix A. PROJECT INFORMATION Site Location and Description The project site is located at 8630 Tveit Road in Arlington, Washington. The site, which is currently used by the District as a storage yard for materials and vehicles, is trapezoidal and has approximate dimensions of 290 feet (north-south) by 130 to 170 feet (east-west). The substation is bordered to the east by undeveloped wooded property that contains Eagle Creek and a wetland, to the west by a transmission line easement, to the north by Tveit Road and the East Arlington substation, and to the south by a developed residential lot. The project site is illustrated on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. Project Description The proposed project consists of converting the site to a double bank substation. Site improvements are expected to include: ï‚· Dead end towers at the north; ï‚· Circuit breakers, disconnect switches, neutral reactors, and bus supports; ï‚· Two slab-supported switchgear enclosures at the south; ï‚· Two slab-supported transformers; ï‚· Below-grade conduits and pre-cast concrete vaults; Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 ï‚· A stormwater infiltration system consisting of a perforated pipe and washed rock-filled trenches along with catch basins; ï‚· The placement of about 2 to 4 feet of structural fill in the lower southeastern portion of the site. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The project site has an overall gentle slope downward from northwest to southeast with ground surface elevations ranging from approximately 150 to 158 feet. A fill slope with a height of about 1 to 4 feet extends down to the east just outside of the site’s perimeter fence. The storage yard is surfaced with crushed rock and pit run sand and gravel. Materials are stored along the sides and in the middle of the site with a loop drive for vehicle access. Vehicle and trailer parking is located along the southern end of the site. A small restroom building is located in the northwestern portion of the site. We did not observe standing or flowing surface water in the fenced portion of the site. A wetland is located immediately east of the fenced area and standing water was present a few feet east of the fence during our site visits. A single-lane, gravel-surfaced driveway extends north-south immediately outside of the west perimeter fence. Subsurface Conditions The publication Geologic Map of the Arlington East Quadrangle, Snohomish County, Washington (US Geological Survey Map MF-1739, dated 1985) describes the site as underlain by the Marysville Sand member of recessional outwash deposits. However, based upon the conditions disclosed by borings completed on the site, it appears that the native soils are more representative of the glacial till which has been mapped to the southeast and northwest of the site and underlies the recessional deposits. Specifically, we have interpreted that much of the native soil is consistent with ablation till which was formed during retreat of the last glacial ice mass that covered western Washington. We also observed above the till fine grained silty sand and sandy silt with peat and fine organics representative of lacustrine and bog deposits. The developed nature of the site suggests that fill material is present as well. The subsurface exploration program completed for this study included advancing six hollow stem auger borings (B-1 through B-6) and excavating two test pits (TP-1 and TP-2) at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. Details of the field exploration program completed for this study, along with the logs of the explorations, are presented in Appendix A. Details of the geotechnical laboratory testing program and the results of the laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B and on the logs in Appendix A as appropriate. The soil descriptions presented below have been generalized for ease of report interpretation. Please refer to the exploration logs for detailed soil descriptions at the exploration locations. Variations in subsurface conditions may exist between the exploration locations and the nature and extent of variations Page 2 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 between the explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear, it may be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. Subsurface conditions as disclosed by the explorations are summarized below. Generalized subsurface conditions are also illustrated on Cross Section A-A’ and Cross Section B-B’, Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Fill Fill material that largely consisted of medium dense to very dense gravelly sand with a variable silt content was observed at each of the exploration locations. The fill thickness ranged from approximately 2 to 4.5 feet. About a foot of very stiff silt fill was observed below the granular fill at the boring B-3 location, and about 18 inches of very stiff, black and dark brown silt with some fine organics mixed with the granular fill was observed at the boring B-5 location (we have interpreted this material as probably relic topsoil left in place when the site was filled). A perforated corrugated plastic drain pipe embedded in coarse gravel fill was observed on the south sidewall of test pit TP-2 at the far south end of the site It should be noted that the character and depth of fill may vary over relatively short distances. Lacustrine and Bog Deposits Lacustrine and bog deposits consisting of silty sand and sandy silt with some organic silt, peat, fine organics, and wood pieces was observed at the locations of borings B-1, B-4, and B-6, and also in both of the test pits. These soils were very loose to loose and very soft to soft and are considered highly compressible under applied loads. The bottom of these soils, where observed, ranged from approximately 10 to 14 feet below existing site grade. Large pieces of wood were observed to a depth of approximately 6 feet in these deposits at the test pit TP-2 location, and approximately 1 to 1.5 feet of compressible organic silt and silt with fine organics and wood was observed directly below fill at the test pit locations. Recessional Outwash Medium dense to dense sand and gravel with a variable silt content was observed below the fill and above the ablation till at the locations of borings B-2, B-3, and B-5. Glacial Till The ablation till soils generally consisted of gravelly silty sand and gravelly sandy silt, although some horizons of clean gravelly sand were observed within the siltier soils. The material ranged in density from medium dense to dense and medium stiff to hard. Groundwater Groundwater was observed at depths of approximately 2 to 4.5 feet at each of the borings while drilling. We also measured groundwater at a depth of 2.5 feet below existing grade in a monitoring well installed Page 3 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 at the boring B-1 location approximately six hours after the well was installed. The groundwater was measured at approximately 3.8 feet in the well in late August. Groundwater conditions should be expected to fluctuate due to changes in seasonal precipitation, site utilization, and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater may also be influenced by the level of water in the wetland immediately east of the site. Subsurface conditions observed at the boring locations are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Subsurface Conditions Summary Exploration Approx. Ground Approx. Fill Approx. Organic Approx. Surface Elev. Thickness (feet) Soil Depth Range Groundwater (feet) (feet) Depth / Elevation (feet) B-1 2 2 - 10 2.5**/150.5 (1 June 16) 153 3.8**/149.2 (25 August 2016) B-2 154 4.5 NE 4* / 150 B-3 155 2.5 NE 4.5* / 150.5 B-4 153 2 2 - 14 2* / 151 B-5 154 2 NE 3* / 151 B-6 151 3 3 - 14 3.5* / 147.5 Ground surface elevations were derived from topographic survey, dated 11 July 2016, by Harmsen & Associates, Inc. NE: Not encountered at the time of exploration *Groundwater observed at time of drilling **Groundwater measured in monitoring well Environmental Considerations Headspace measurements were made of each of the containerized soil samples recovered from the borings using a photoionization detector (PID). The PID is a screening tool that can be used to initially assess the potential for soils to contain petroleum hydrocarbons. However, it should be noted that water vapor can also influence the measurements taken with a PID, and that analytical testing of suspect soils should be completed to determine the type and concentration of hydrocarbons that may be present in soils. The measurements observed for each sample are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. The headspace measurements were low and do not reflect the presence of hydrocarbons, in our opinion. Page 4 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Geotechnical Considerations Based on information gathered during the field exploration, laboratory testing, and analysis, we conclude that construction of the proposed improvements is feasible from the geotechnical perspective provided that the recommendations presented herein are followed during design and construction. Selected aspects of the site conditions that should be considered during design and construction are summarized below. ï‚· The explorations disclosed up to about 4.5 feet of fill consisting of sand with a variable gravel, silt, and organic content. The fill is underlain by variable soils conditions, with highly compressible peat and organic-rich soil in the southeastern portion of the site (as disclosed by borings B-1, B-4, and B-6 and test pit TP-1 and TP-2). Less load-sensitive and non-organic soils were disclosed by borings B-2, B-3, and B-5 in the northwestern portion of the site. Excavation of the load-sensitive organic soils and backfilling of the excavations with compacted structural fill is recommended in order to provide adequate support for both switchgear enclosures, the Bank 1 transformer, and associated conduits, vaults, and other settlement-sensitive substation elements located in the area where the organic soils were observed. ï‚· The soft organic and fine grained soils and loose granular soils observed at the boring B-1, B-4, and B-5 locations to a maximum depth of approximately 14 feet are potentially liquefiable under the IBC design seismic event, and we calculated that from 1-1/2 to 3 inches of settlement may occur. Mitigation of this settlement potential could be achieved by supporting settlement- sensitive substation elements on piles that extend into denser/stiff soils at depth, or by ground improvement, such as excavating the potentially liquefiable soils and replacing them with compacted structural fill. ï‚· Based upon our conversations with the District, excavation of the load-sensitive organic and fine grained soils and potentially liquefiable soils disclosed by borings B-1, B-4, and B-6 is the preferred method of mitigating potential future static or seismically-induced settlements. ï‚· Borings B-2, B-3, and B-5 disclosed medium dense to dense granular soils below the surficial fill and it will be feasible to support the Bank 2 transformer and associated Bank 1 and Bank 2 substation elements above these soils without the need for subgrade improvement. Soils disclosed by borings B-3 and B-5 are well-suited for the use of drilled pier foundations or direct burial for the proposed Bank 1 and Bank 2 dead end structures. ï‚· The site is characterized by a shallow groundwater table and dewatering of excavations should be expected. The shallow groundwater combined with the granular soils in the northwestern portion of the site is such that caving in excavations and drilled shafts may occur. Page 5 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Geotechnical engineering recommendations for site grading, drainage, foundations, and other geotechnically-related aspects of the project are presented in the following sections. The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of and the field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed switching station design. ASTM and WSDOT specification codes cited herein refer to the current manual published by the American Society for Testing & Materials and the 2010 edition of the WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (Publication M41-10). Geologically Hazardous Areas The City of Arlington regulates geologically hazardous areas via Chapter 20.88 of the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). Geologically hazardous areas “…include areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, seismic activity, or other geological events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when used as sites for incompatible commercial, residential or industrial development”. Geologically hazardous areas relative to the project site are discussed below. Erosion Hazard The AMC defines an erosion hazard as a landform or soil type subject to being worn away by the action of water, wind, freeze-thaw or ice. The site is mantled with granular fill material and the overall slope of the site is quite low. We observed only minor erosion of the granular fill embankment along its east edge. It is our opinion that the use of conventional Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) measures approved by the City of Arlington during construction will reduce the potential for sediment generation and off-site sediment transport. Erosion control recommendations are presented subsequently in this report. Landslide Hazard The AMC defines a landslide hazard as an area potentially subject to risk of mass movement due to a combination of factors, including historic failures. The site and immediately surrounding area are either very gently sloping or level, so the risk of landsliding on the site or immediately adjacent to it is negligible. The exploratory borings did not disclose landslide deposits or landslide debris. Based upon our current understanding of site conditions, it is our opinion that the site does not meet the AMC definition of a landslide hazard area. Page 6 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Seismic Hazard Area The AMC defines seismic hazard areas as areas that include areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a result of seismic induced settlement, shaking, slope failure or soil liquefaction. These conditions occur in areas underlain by cohesionless soils of low density usually in association with a shallow groundwater table. The tectonic setting of western Washington is dominated by the Cascadia Subduction Zone formed by the Juan de Fuca plate subducting beneath the North American Plate. This setting leads to intraplate, crustal, and interplate earthquake sources. Seismic hazards relate to risks of injury to people and damage to property resulting from these three principle earthquake sources. The seismic performance of the site was evaluated relative to seismic hazards resulting from ground shaking associated with the Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration in accordance with the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). Conformance to the above criteria for seismic excitation does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a maximum considered earthquake occurs. The primary goal of the IBC seismic design procedure is to protect life and not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Following a major earthquake, a building or structure may be damaged beyond repair, yet not collapse. The results of our seismic hazard analyses and recommended seismic design parameters are presented in the following sections. Ground Surface Rupture: According to the US Geological Survey on-line fault map database, the site is approximately 8 miles southwest of the Devils Mountain fault. The north-dipping fault zone of the Devils Mountain fault extends westward for more than 75 miles from the Cascade Range foothills to offshore Vancouver Island. At its east end, the Devils Mountain fault intersects or merges with the Darrington fault zone. At its west end, the Devils Mountain fault may merge with the Leech River and/or San Juan faults on Vancouver Island. Quaternary strata are deformed on nearly all seismic-reflection profiles crossing the fault in the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca, and onshore subsurface data suggest offset of upper Pleistocene strata across the fault. The most recent significant displacement along the fault is thought to have occurred over 130,000 years ago, and data suggest that the slip rate is less than 0.2 millimeters per year. The USGS on-line Quaternary fault mapping may be viewed at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/map/. Based up the proximity of the site to the referenced mapped fault, it is our opinion that the risk of ground surface rupture at the site is low. Landsliding: Based on the gentle topography of the site and surrounding vicinity, the risk of earthquake- induced landsliding is low. Soil Liquefaction: Liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein saturated cohesionless soils build up excess pore water pressures during earthquake loading. Liquefaction typically occurs in loose soils, but may Page 7 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 occur in denser soils if the ground shaking is sufficiently strong. ZGA completed a liquefaction analysis in general accordance with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2012 IBC and Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7-10. Specifically, our analysis used the following primary seismic ground motion parameters. ï‚· A Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.422g, based on Figure 22-7 of ASCE 7-10. ï‚· A Modified Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) of 0.380g based on Site Class E, per Section 11.8.3 of ASCR7-10 (Site Class modification to MCEG without regard to liquefaction in accordance with Sections 11.4.7 and 20.3.1 of ASCE 7-10). ï‚· A Geometric Mean Magnitude of 6.7 based on 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project deaggregation data for a seismic event with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (2,475-year return period) and a geometric mean peak ground acceleration of 0.422g. Our liquefaction analysis was completed using the computer program LiquefyPro Version 5.8. Our evaluation used a fines content correction per Idriss and Seed (1997) and saturated soil settlement calculation procedure per Ishihara and Yoshimine (1990). Our analysis was based on the deeper site explorations (borings B-4 through B-6) completed at the locations proposed substation elements in the southeastern portion of the site and laboratory test data. The borings extended about 41½ to 46 feet below grade. The approximate exploration locations are shown on the enclosed Site and Exploration Plans, Figure 1. Our analysis indicates the potential for liquefaction within sandy interbeds located within the near surface organic silt and peat deposits encountered in the southeastern portion of the site to depths up to about 14 feet below existing grade. Liquefaction Settlement: Based on our analyses, we estimate total seismic settlements within the interbedded organic silt and peat deposits encountered in the southeastern portion of the site of approximately 1½ to 3 inches. Given the shallow nature of these deposits and their compositional variability, we anticipate that differential seismic settlements could approach the total settlement value over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. Soil liquefaction may be expressed at the ground surface as sand boils, ground cracks, vertical settlements, and lateral displacements. If these levels of seismic induced liquefaction settlement are not acceptable, we recommend that deep foundations or ground improvement mitigative measures be considered as discussed in subsequent sections of this report. Lateral Spread: Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which soil deposits which underlie a site can experience significant lateral displacements associated with the reduction in soil strength caused by soil liquefaction. This phenomenon tends to occur most commonly at sites where the soil deposits can flow toward a “free-face”, such as a water body. Given the site geometry and lack of a free-face condition, it Page 8 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 is our opinion that the potential for distress at the site from lateral spreading is low for the 2012 IBC design seismic event. Slopes The AMC also regulates some slopes as follows: ï‚· Moderate slopes shall include any slope greater than or equal to fifteen percent and less than thirty-three percent. ï‚· Steep slopes shall include any slope greater than or equal to thirty-three percent. The project site has an approximate inclination of approximately 3 percent from northwest to southeast and does not contain slopes regulated under the AMC. Consolidation Settlement Considerations Peat and organic-rich lacustrine and bog deposits were disclosed in the southeastern portion of the site by borings B-1, B-4, and B-5 and at the locations of test pits TP-1 and TP-2 near the southern fence. This section addresses static settlement associated with consolidation of fine-grained and organic-rich soils encountered in the southeastern portion of the site. The native organic silt and peat deposit encountered below the existing fill soils in the southeastern portion of the site will tend to consolidate in response to new loads imposed by fill used to raise site grades. Based on our preliminary discussions with the District, we have considered that the Bank 1 and Bank 2 switchgear enclosures and the Bank 1 transformer will be supported on new structural fill replacing the existing organic silt and peat deposits as discussed subsequently in the Foundations section of this report, and significant consolidation settlement from these elements is, therefore, not expected. Settlement of these fine-grained and organic deposits associated with raising site grades will result from primary and secondary consolidation, which are relatively slow processes. Primary Consolidation: A grading plan was not available at the time this report was prepared. However, we understand that a southward thickening wedge of fill may be placed in order to reduce the overall slope of the site. We have considered that the maximum fill thickness in the southern portion of the site may approach 3 to 4 feet. Our estimates of primary consolidation settlements are presented in the table below and were calculated using the thickest section of organic silt and peat encountered on site of about 11 feet in boring B-6. Lesser amounts of primary consolidation settlement would be expected for thinner deposits of compressible soils. Page 9 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Table 2: Primary Consolidation for an 11-foot Thick Peat and Silt Deposit Thickness of New Fill (feet) Estimated Primary Settlement (inches) 1 3 to 4 2 6-1/2 to 7-1/2 3 9-1/2 to 10-1/2 4 12 to 13 Settlements resulting from the weight of new fill could impact the performance of settlement-sensitive improvements which are not supported on adequate density native soils or above compacted structural fill placed in areas where the organic soils have been excavated. This is of particular concern in regard to differential settlement between elements not supported by adequate native soils or structural fill and those that are underlain by the load-sensitive organic and fine-grained soils. For example, in the event that a switchgear enclosure is supported on adequate native soils or structural fill but the conduits attached to the enclosure or not, it would be necessary to address the connection between the conduits and the enclosure due to the potential for differential settlement. In general, we recommend that the grading plan be developed to minimize the thickness of new fills, to the extent feasible. We recommend that new fill be placed as early as possible in the construction schedule to allow the organic soils to consolidate before constructing on-grade or below grade (underground utilities) elements which are settlement-sensitive. To the extent possible, we recommend allowing sufficient time for substantial completion of primary consolidation settlements to occur before constructing on-grade settlement-sensitive facilities or underground utilities. We estimate that about 90 percent of the expected settlements presented in the table above will occur within about 3 to 5 weeks after fill placement. If this settlement period is not acceptable, ZGA is available to develop a surcharge loading plan to reduce the primary consolidation settlement period to an acceptable level. Consolidation settlement associated with raising site grade will extend beyond the perimeter of the fill. The magnitude of settlement may be assumed to decrease linearly from the values presented in the table above near the edge of the fill to zero at a horizontal distance from the fill roughly equal to half of the depth to the base of the compressible zone. Based on a maximum compressible soil zone thickness of about 11 feet with 3 feet of overlying existing fill, we anticipate that consolidation settlement should be negligible at distance of about 7 to 8 feet from the edge of new fills. We recommend that existing surface drainages, existing utilities, or other existing settlement sensitive features located near the site be evaluated relative to the estimated settlement. Secondary Consolidation: Due to the organic nature of the silt and peat soils, those portions of the site underlain by these soils will be subject to long-term secondary consolidation under static loading. Our estimates of secondary consolidation are presented in the table below. This would occur after primary consolidations listed above are complete and would be additive to the primary consolidation values. For Page 10 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 example, total settlement (primary and secondary consolidation) for 2 feet of new fill placed over an 11- foot-thick zone of organic silt and peat at 10 years would be about 9½ to 13½ inches. Table 3: Secondary Consolidation Estimates Time Estimated Secondary Settlement (inches) 3 months ¾ to 1-1/2 1 year 1-1/2 to 3 10 years 3 to 6 30 years 3-1/2 to 7 The primary and secondary settlement estimates presented above are based upon conditions observed at the boring locations. Conditions observed at the locations of test pits TP-1 and TP-2, which were excavated at the south end of the site along what is expected to be, or near, the new south fence line varied somewhat from those observed to the north in that the compressible organic materials were less prevalent. In order to reduce the potential for settlement affecting the new fence, we recommend excavating the existing fill material and organic soils as described above for the area to the north, followed by structural fill placement and compaction. If some degree of settlement of the new fence can be tolerated, we recommend at least excavating the fill material and the compressible organic soils immediately below. These excavations should subsequently be filled with compacted structural fill. Removal of the upper load-sensitive organic materials will reduce, but not eliminate, the magnitude of post-construction consolidation of the lacustrine and bog deposits, given that the deeper deposits will remain. If not excavated to the full extent, we estimate that settlements would be approximately half of those presented in the tables above. In the event that this degree of settlement is too great to be accommodated by the new security fence, we recommend supporting the fence posts by driven pin piles. On a preliminary basis, 2-inch inside-diameter pin piles driven to “refusal” with a minimum 90-pound jackhammer (1 inch or less of penetration over one minute of sustained driving) could be designed for an allowable axial compressive load of 4 kips. Additional recommendations regarding pin pile support for the security fence can be provided on request. Settlement Monitoring: We recommend that a series of monitoring plates be installed prior to placing fill used to raise site grades. An example of a suitable monitoring plate and a description of monitoring procedures are presented in the enclosed Settlement Plate Detail, Figure 4. We recommend that settlement plates be installed at about 25 to 50 feet spacing in settlement sensitive areas where more than 1 foot of new fill will be placed. ZGA should be consulted to provide a recommended layout of settlement plates, if needed, when grading plans are finalized. Initial elevation readings of the settlement plates must be obtained when they are set in place and before any fill is placed if subsequent readings are to be meaningful. Elevations of the plates and the average Page 11 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 adjacent ground surface should then be determined on a twice-weekly basis during fill placement and weekly thereafter so that settlement progress can be defined. Review of the survey data provides important information regarding the site performance and construction schedule. The presence of the measurement rods which extend above the settlement plates and through the fill will inhibit the mobility of earthmoving equipment to some extent and the contractor must exercise care to avoid damaging or displacing the rods. The construction documents should emphasize the importance of protecting settlement plates and measuring rods from disturbance. Earthwork The following sections present recommendations for site preparation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fills on the project. The recommendations presented in this report for design and construction of foundations and slabs are contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section. Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by a ZGA representative. Evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of structural fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, deep foundations, and subsurface drainage installations. Site Preparation Lacustrine and Bog Deposit Soil Excavation and Filling: We recommend removing the load-sensitive fine grained soils, peat, and organic-rich soils disclosed by borings B-1, B-4, and B-6 in the southeastern portion of the site. In order to reduce the potential for differential settlement, we recommend removing these soils from not only the Bank 1 and Bank 2 switchgear enclosures and the Bank 1 transformer, but also from below vaults, conduit runs, and other elements in this portion of the site. The excavation should extend to the granular soils below these deposits and the excavated material should be wasted from the site. The excavations should extend laterally from the base of structures a distance equal to the excavation depth. The excavation will extend below groundwater, so the need for dewatering should be expected, as is discussed subsequently. We recommend filling the excavation with quarry spalls (WSDOT 9-13.7) or ballast (WSDOT 9-03.9(1) to above the level of water that may be in the excavation. Clean granular structural fill may be placed above the coarse rock in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section. Demolition: The site contains some electrical conduits, a water service line, and a small building. We recommend backfilling excavations resultant from removal of these features with structural fill placed and compacted per the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. Page 12 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Structural Fill We anticipate that structural fill will be placed to raise grade in the lower southern portion of the site and for conduit and vault installations, storm drainage piping and structures, and below and adjacent to new foundations and slabs. All fill material should be placed in accordance with the recommendations herein for structural fill. Prior to placement, the surfaces to receive structural fill should be observed by a ZGA representative in order to assess the subgrade adequacy. The fill subgrade soils should be compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition prior to placing structural fill. In the event that the soils cannot be adequately compacted, they should be removed as necessary and replaced with at least 1 foot of compacted granular fill material. The suitability of soils for use as structural fill depends primarily on the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (that soil fraction passing the US No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult, or impossible, to achieve. Generally, soils containing more than about 5 percent fines by weight (based on that soil fraction passing the US No. 4 sieve) cannot be compacted to a firm, non-yielding condition when the moisture content is more than a few percent from optimum. The optimum moisture content is that which yields the greatest soil density under a given compactive effort. The native soils below the existing fill material at the locations of borings B-1, B-4, and B-6, as well as the lower 1 to 1.5 feet of fill observed at the boring B-3 and B-5 locations, have a high fines content and should be considered highly moisture sensitive. Re-use of On-site Soils: Soil expected to be encountered in excavations include the existing fill material, most of which consists of sand and gravel with a variable silt content, and both granular and fine grained native soils. We anticipate that it will be feasible to re-use the existing granular fill soils and the granular native soils disclosed by borings B-2, B-3, and B-5 under a relatively wide variety of weather conditions, but use of the native fine grained soils will depend on the weather conditions at the time of placement and compaction. It will not be feasible to place and compact the native fine grained soils during wet weather. We do not recommend using the native soils with more than 3 percent organics as structural fill. We collected a composite sample of shallow fill soils to a depth of approximately 2 feet from the cuttings generated while advancing the borings. Laboratory testing showed this material to consist of silty gravelly sand with a maximum dry density of 136.2 lbs/ft3 and an optimum moisture content of 6.9 percent. The fines content of the shallow soils will render them moisture-sensitive. Imported Structural Fill: We recommend that imported soils for use as general structural fill material consist of a well-graded sand and gravel with a low fines content, such as the District’s standard substation fill, the gradation of which is presented in the table below. Alternatively, material meeting the gradation criteria for Crushed Surfacing - Base Course per WSDOT 9-03.9(3) may be used as structural fill. Page 13 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Table 4: Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Substation Import Granular Fill Gradation US Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing by Dry Weight Basis 2 inch 100 ½ inch 56 - 100 ¼ inch 40 - 78 No. 10 22 - 57 No. 40 8 - 32 No. 200 < 5 The use of other fill types should be reviewed and approved by ZGA prior to their use on site. Compaction Recommendations: Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition using equipment and procedures that will produce the recommended moisture content and densities throughout the fill. Fill lifts should generally not exceed 10 inches in loose thickness, although the nature of the compaction equipment in use and its effectiveness will influence functional fill lift thicknesses. Recommended compaction criteria for structural fill materials, including trench backfill, are as follows: Table 5: Recommended Soil Compaction Levels Location Minimum Percent Compaction* All fill below and adjacent to slabs and shallow foundations 95 General fill embankments and utility trench backfill 95 Conduit trench backfill above bedding sand or CDF 95 Landscaping areas 85 - 90 * ASTM D 1557 Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density Earthwork may be difficult or impossible during periods of elevated soil moisture and wet weather. If soils are stockpiled for future use and wet weather is anticipated, the stockpile should be protected with plastic sheeting that is securely anchored. Subgrade soils that become disturbed due to elevated moisture conditions should be overexcavated to expose firm, non-yielding, non-organic soils and backfilled with compacted structural fill. We recommend that the earthwork portion of this project be completed during extended periods of dry weather if possible. If earthwork is completed during the wet season (typically November through June) it will be necessary to take extra precautionary measures to protect subgrade soils. Wet season earthwork may require additional mitigative measures beyond that which would be expected during the drier summer and fall months. This could include diversion of surface runoff around exposed soils and draining of ponded water. Once subgrades are established, it will be necessary to protect the exposed subgrade soils Page 14 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 from construction traffic during wet weather. Placing quarry spalls, ballast, or crushed recycled concrete over these areas would further protect the soils from construction traffic. If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, we recommend allowing the exposed subgrade to thaw and then recompacting the subgrade prior to placing subsequent lifts of engineered fill. Frozen soil should not be used as structural fill. We recommend that a ZGA representative be present during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork operations and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation, placement and compaction of structural fill, backfilling of excavations, and prior to construction of foundations and slabs. Drainage: Uncontrolled movement of water into trenches or foundation and slab excavations during construction should be prevented. Dewatering: Groundwater was observed at depths of less than 3 feet while advancing the borings and in the monitoring well installed at the boring B-1 location. This will likely require dewatering of the excavation made in the southeastern portion of the site for removal of the native fine grained and organic soils as discussed previously, as well as for excavations completed for the installation of conduits, vaults, the stormwater management system, and some shallow foundations. The contractor should be responsible for preparing a dewatering plan and provide it to the District for review prior to implementation. Additional Considerations: It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed improvements can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. Excavation Quantities: It has been our experience that grading calculations need to accommodate a “shrink or swell” factor when comparing in-place soil volumes to truck volumes. We recommend considering that the in-place volume of soil removed from excavations will increase by approximately 25 to 40 percent when measured on a loose cubic yards basis (truck yards). Likewise, loose truck yards delivered to the site will shrink on the order of 25 to 30 percent when compared to the in-place compacted volume of the soil. Truck yards are also subject to other discrepancies when correlating to bank yards, including “rounding errors” that can be significant. Utility Installation Recommendations Below-grade utilities are expected to include conduits and storm sewer piping and structures. We recommend that utility trenching conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, such as OSHA and WISHA, for open excavations. The existing shallow soils in the northwestern portion of the site are expected to be adequate for support of conduits, storm drainage piping, and associated vaults and catch basins. However, installing utilities above the very soft to soft fine grained and organic soils in the Page 15 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 southeastern portion of the site will result in post-construction settlement as discussed previously. For this reason, we recommend removing the load-sensitive lacustrine and bog deposits from below utilities and replacing them with compacted structural fill. The site soils with a higher fines content may be easily disturbed by excavation and construction equipment, particularly during wet weather, and may need to be compacted prior to utility installation. Subgrade soils that cannot be compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition should be removed and replaced with clean granular structural fill that can be compacted to the density recommended in the Structural Fill section of this report. All trenches should be wide enough to allow for compaction around the haunches of the pipe. If water is encountered in the excavations, it should be removed prior to fill placement. Materials, placement and compaction of utility trench backfill exclusive of CDF should be in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. In our opinion, the initial lift thickness should not exceed 1 foot unless recommended by the manufacturer to protect utilities from damage by compacting equipment. Light, hand operated compaction equipment may be utilized directly above utilities if damage resulting from heavier compaction equipment is of concern. Temporary Excavation Slopes: We recommend that utility trenching, installation, and backfilling conform to all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations such as WISHA and OSHA regulations for open excavations. In order to maintain the function of any existing utilities that may be located near excavations, we recommend that temporary excavations not encroach upon the bearing splay of existing utilities, foundations, or slabs. The bearing splay of structures and utilities should be considered to begin at the edge of the utility, foundation, or slab and extend downward at a 1H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) slope. If, due to space constraints, an open excavation cannot be completed without encroaching on a utility, we recommend shoring the new utility excavation with a slip box or other suitable means that provide for protection of workers and that maintain excavation sidewall integrity to the depth of the excavation. Temporary slope stability is a function of many factors, including the following: ï‚· The presence and abundance of groundwater; ï‚· The type and density of the various soil strata; ï‚· The depth of cut; ï‚· Surcharge loadings adjacent to the excavation; ï‚· The length of time the excavation remains open. Page 16 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 It is exceedingly difficult under the variable circumstances presented by uncontrolled fill material to pre- establish a safe and “maintenance-free” temporary cut slope angle. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations since the contractor is continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and groundwater conditions encountered. It may be necessary to drape temporary slopes with plastic or to otherwise protect the slopes from the elements and minimize sloughing and erosion. We do not recommend vertical slopes or cuts deeper than 4 feet if worker access is necessary. The cuts should be adequately sloped or supported to prevent injury to personnel from local sloughing and spalling. The excavation should conform to applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. Based upon our review of WAC 296-155-66401 (Appendix A – Soil Classification), we have interpreted the existing soils disclosed by the explorations to meet the Type C definition. The contractor should be responsible for determining soil types in all excavations and should be prepared to adequately shore or slope all excavations. Please note that some of the granular soils have a low fines content and that unsupported excavation sidewalls in these soils may slough or cave readily. Below-grade Vault Recommendations Bearing Conditions: Below-grade conduit vaults will be installed as part of the project. Based upon our experience with other District facilities, and depending on the orientation of the new conduit sweeps, the vault bases may be up to approximately 6 feet below grade. Based upon conditions disclosed by the explorations, we anticipate that vault subgrades in the northwestern portion of the site will generally consist of medium dense granular soils, while very soft to soft fine grained and organic soils are expected in the southeastern portion of the site. Some variation in soil type and density at vault subgrade locations should be expected. In order to reduce the potential for post-construction settlement, we recommend removing the very soft to soft fine grained and organic soils from below vaults. The vaults will exert a relatively low bearing pressure. We recommend placing a minimum 6-inch compacted thickness of crushed rock below the vaults as a leveling course. The crushed rock should conform to the quality and gradation requirements for Crushed Surfacing – Base Course per WSDOT Specification 9-03.9(3). Buoyancy Considerations: The site is characterized by a shallow groundwater condition and this may subject the vaults to buoyant forces. Potential buoyant forces acting on the vaults may be calculated by multiplying the volume of the portion of the vault below the water table (in cubic feet) by 62.4 pcf. Buoyant forces may be resisted by the weight of a vault and its contents. Additional resistance to buoyant forces may be achieved by installing flanges on the vault base. The weight of the soil backfill placed above the flanges will assist in counteracting buoyant forces. We recommend using a soil density of 125 pcf for backfill above the water table, and 60 pcf for backfill below the water table. Page 17 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Foundations We anticipate that some of the new structures will be supported by drilled pier foundations, but that shallow foundations may be used for smaller structures such as switches or neutral reactors. The foundation net vertical bearing pressures are expected to be relatively low, and the foundations are typically about 4 feet deep, based upon our experience with other District facilities. The native medium dense to dense granular soils disclosed by borings B-2, B-3, and B-5 are adequate for support of shallow foundations. We do not recommend constructing shallow foundations above the load-sensitive lacustrine and bog deposits disclosed by borings B-1, B-4, and B-6. As previously discussed, we recommend removing these soils and replacing them with compacted structural fill. Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations It will be feasible to use conventional shallow foundations bearing upon undisturbed native at least medium dense granular soil and new structural fill placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. Recommended criteria for shallow foundations are summarized below. Net allowable bearing pressure: 3,000 psf for undisturbed native medium dense granular soil or structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557. This value incorporates a factor of safety of 3. A one-third increase may be applied for short-term wind or seismic loading. Minimum dimensions: 4 feet Minimum embedment for frost protection: 18 inches Estimated total settlement: Less than 1 inch Estimated differential settlement: One half of total settlement Ultimate passive resistance: 425 psf. This value assumes that foundations are backfilled with granular backfill compacted to 95 percent density and does not include a factor of safety. Neglect the upper 18 inches of embedment when calculating passive resistance. Ultimate coefficient of base friction: 0.55 Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water, disturbed soil, or debris prior to placing concrete. Placement and compaction of minimum 8-inch thickness of crushed rock below foundations is recommended, and this material should be placed soon after excavating in order to reduce the likelihood of bearing soil disturbance. Should the soils at bearing level become excessively dry, disturbed, saturated, Page 18 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 or frozen, the affected soil should be removed prior to placing crushed rock. It is recommended that a ZGA representative evaluate foundation subgrades prior to placing the crushed rock and prior to form and reinforcing steel placement. If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered in footing excavations, the excavation should be extended deeper to suitable soils. The footings could bear directly on suitable soils at the lower level or on lean concrete or CDF backfill placed in the excavations. As an alternative, the footings could also bear on properly compacted backfill extending down to the suitable soils. Overexcavation for compacted backfill placement below footings should extend laterally beyond all edges of the footings a distance of 1 foot per foot of overexcavation depth below footing base elevation. The overexcavation should then be backfilled up to the footing base elevation with imported crushed rock placed in lifts of 10 inches or less in loose thickness and compacted to at least 95 percent of the material's modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). If excavations are backfilled with lean mix concrete or CDF, we recommend the material has a minimum compressive strength of 55 psi. In this case, the overexcavation need only be as wide as the foundation. Seismic Design Parameters As described in the previous discussion regarding liquefaction, the lacustrine and bog deposits meet the Site Class E characterization per the 2012 IBC. However, we have considered that these soils will be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill and, therefore, the overall soil profile may be considered Class D, as summarized in the table below. Table 6: Seismic Design Parameters Category Designation or Value 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 1 D2 Ss Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.051g, Site Class B S1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.408g, Site Class B SMs Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.051g, Site Class D SM1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.568g, Site Class D 1. In general accordance with the 2012 International Building Code, Table 1613.5.2. 2. The 2012 International Building Code requires a site soil profile determination extending a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope requested did not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination. The borings reviewed as part of our evaluation extended to a maximum depth of approximately 45.8 feet and this seismic site class definition considers that at least stiff soils as noted on the published geologic mapping exist below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to greater depths could be considered to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration. Page 19 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Concrete Slab Subgrade Preparation Recommendations Concrete slabs will be constructed to support the transformers, for the transformer spill containment systems, and to support the switchgear enclosures. The native medium dense granular soils and medium dense and very stiff fill soils disclosed at the locations of borings B-2, B-3, and B-5 are adequate for support of slabs. Constructing slabs above the very soft to soft lacustrine and bog deposits disclosed by borings B-1, B-4, and B-6 will result in post-construction settlement and is not recommended. We recommend removing these load-sensitive soils and replacing them with structural fill placed and compacted per the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section. Conclusions and recommendations regarding slabs are summarized below. We recommend constructing slabs above an 8-inch thickness of crushed rock compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. Drilled Pier Foundation / Direct Burial Recommendations We anticipate that drilled piers will be used to support some of the structures to the north of the transformers, including the dead end structures. In addition, we understand that the dead end structures may be installed via direct burial. The soils disclosed in the northeastern portion of the site at the locations of borings B-3 and B-5 to the north of the transformers are well-suited for support of drilled piers or for direct burial. We understand that the District will design the foundations in-house. The tables below provide recommended soil values for incorporation into the District’s design. We have not incorporated factors of safety into the listed values. The depth intervals referenced in the tables are relative to the existing ground surface elevation at the specific boring locations. Cohesion values are not provided as the soils are granular. The pressuremeter elastic modulus values are based upon published correlations with Standard Penetration Test values (N) published in “Estimating Foundation Settlements in Residual Soils”, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 103, No. 3, March 1977. The soil wet density values listed do not consider buoyancy effects of soils below groundwater. Page 20 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Table 7A: Recommended Soil Parameters Based on ZGA Boring B-3 Depth interval Soil Condition Averaged Correlated Soil Wet Internal Friction in feet below Standard Pressuremeter Density Angle existing grade Penetration Elastic Modulus (pcf) (Ø, in degrees) Resistance (N) (kips/in2)1 0 – 2.5 Med. dense 21 2.64 125 33 gravelly sand and very stiff silt (fill) 2.5 – 6.5 Dense sand 39 4.17 135 38 6.5 – 34 Med. dense silty 17 2.5 130 32 sand with some gravel 1. The pressuremeter modulus values are based upon published correlations between Standard Penetration Test values (N) and the pressuremeter modulus; a factor of safety does not apply. Table 7B: Recommended Soil Parameters Based on ZGA Boring B-3 Depth Soil Condition Relative Ultimate Ultimate Moisture Rankine interval in Density Friction Friction Content Coefficient feet below (D 1 2 3 r as percent) Factor Factor (percent by Active / Passive existing dry weight grade basis) 0 – 2.5 Med. dense 50 0.4 0.25 23 0.29/3.39 (neglect gravelly, silty 0-1.5 ft.) sand and very stiff silt (fill) 2.5 – 6.5 Dense sand 65 0.55 0.3 12 0.24/4.2 6.5 - 34 Med. dense 45 0.5 0.25 13 0.31/3.25 silt sandy with some gravel 1. The ultimate friction factors are based upon published values for adhesion between concrete and the applicable soil type. 2. The ultimate friction factors are based upon published values for adhesion between steel and the applicable soil type. 3. Passive resistance in the upper 1.5 feet should be neglected entirely. Page 21 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Table 8A: Recommended Soil Parameters Based on ZGA Boring B-5 Depth interval Soil Condition Average Correlated Soil Wet Internal Friction in feet below Standard Elastic Density Angle existing grade Penetration Pressuremeter (pcf) (Ø, in degrees) Resistance (N) Modulus (kips/in2)1 0 – 2 Med. dense 16 2.22 125 32 gravelly sand (fill) with relic topsoil 2 – 9.5 Med. dense to 28 2.78 130 35 dense, gravelly, silty sand 9.5 – 19.5 Med. dense 17 2.5 132 32 gravelly, silty sand 19.5 – 21.5 Dense gravelly 30 2.92 140 36 sand 1. The pressuremeter modulus values are based upon published correlations between Standard Penetration Test values (N) and the pressuremeter modulus; a factor of safety does not apply. Table 8B: Recommended Soil Parameters Based on ZGA Boring B-5 Depth Soil Condition Relative Ultimate Ultimate Moisture Rankine interval in Density Friction Friction Content Coefficient feet below (D 1 2 3 r as percent) Factor Factor (percent by Active / Passive existing dry weight grade basis) 0 - 2 Med. dense 45 0.5 0.25 19 0.31/3.25 (neglect gravelly sand 0 – 1.5 feet) (fill) with relic topsoil 2 – 9.5 Med. dense to 63 0.5 0.25 14 0.27/3.69 dense, gravelly, silty sand 9.5 – 19.5 Med. dense 45 0.5 0.25 11 0.31/3.69 gravelly, silty sand 19.5 – 21.5 Dense gravelly 65 0.57 0.4 10 0.26/3.85 sand 1. The ultimate friction factors are based upon published values for adhesion between concrete and the applicable soil type. 2. The ultimate friction factors are based upon published values for adhesion between steel and the applicable soil type. 3. Passive resistance in the upper 1.5 feet should be neglected entirely. Drilled Pier End Bearing Considerations: When calculating drilled pier end bearing values, it will be necessary to consider the density of the soils to a depth below the shaft that is a function of the shaft Page 22 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 diameter. We can provide specific end bearing capacity recommendations once preliminary design efforts for the drilled pier foundations have identified likely drilled pier diameters and depths. Open Shaft Construction Considerations Given the soil conditions encountered at the exploratory boring locations, we anticipate that construction of the shafts can be accomplished with standard drilling equipment. Though not recovered as part of the sampling process, the drilling and sampling process periodically suggested the presence of coarse gravel and/or cobbles within the native soils, and boulders may also be present in the native soils as well. The contractor should be prepared to deal with the presence of coarse gravel, cobbles, and boulders over the drilled depth interval, as well as obstructions within the alluvial deposits, such as logs. We recommend that the contractor be prepared to case drilled boreholes to reduce sidewall sloughing. We recommend that the contractor be required to have on site sufficient material to case the entire drilled depth. We recommend that the drilling contractor have a cleanout bucket on site to remove loose soils from the bottom of the borings. We recommend that the foundation concrete be tremied from the bottom of the hole to displace water and to reduce the risk of contaminating or segregating the concrete mix should any accumulate in the shafts. A minimum 5-foot head of concrete should be maintained above the tremie. The Drilled Shaft Manual published by the Federal Highway Administration recommends that concrete be placed by tremie methods if more than 3 inches of water has accumulated in the excavation. IBC Non-constrained Pole Design Recommendations Section 1805.7.2.1 of the 2003 the International Building Code (IBC) describes the methodology for determining a drilled pier foundation or pole depth of embedment in cases where no constraint is provided at the surface to resist lateral forces. As per your request, we have evaluated the equivalent passive soil pressure per foot of depth for use in the IBC method. Recommended lateral bearing pressures as a function of pole depth are listed in the table below. We recommend neglecting resistance in the upper 1.5 feet of embedment. Table 9: IBC Non-constrained Pole Lateral Bearing Pressure Recommended Lateral Bearing Pressure (lbs/ft2/ft) of ZGA Boring Embedment Depth1,2 B-3 1.5 to 2.5 feet: 170 2.5 to 6.5 feet: 225 6.5 to 34 feet: 170 Page 23 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Table 9: IBC Non-constrained Pole Lateral Bearing Pressure B-5 1.5 to 2 feet: 160 2 to 9.5 feet: 190 9.5 to 19.5 feet: 195 19.5 to 21.5 feet: 215 1. Values incorporate a factor of safety = 2.5 2. Neglect upper 1.5 feet Stormwater Management Considerations The District’s substations are frequently equipped with a perforated pipe installed around the yard perimeter or in other applicable locations that serves to allow infiltration of stormwater collected from the yard and impervious surfaces. Our scope of services did not include field infiltration testing. However, conclusions regarding stormwater infiltration can be drawn from subsurface conditions disclosed by the subsurface explorations and laboratory testing completed to date. We understand that surface water management for the project will be addressed in accordance with the design criteria presented in the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2012, amended in 2014) as adopted by the City of Arlington. The Ecology manual allows establishing a preliminary infiltration rate (saturated hydraulic conductivity) for normally consolidated soils based upon the grain size distribution of the site soils utilizing methods presented in Section 3.3.6 of the manual. Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity The manual allows a determination of a stormwater receptor soil saturated hydraulic conductivity to be estimated based on grain size distribution characteristics in accordance with the following formula: Log10 (Ksat, initial) = -1.57 + 1.9D10 + 0.015D60 – 0.013D90 -2.08ffines where: D10 = grain size diameter (mm) for which 10 percent of the sample by weight is finer D60 = grain size diameter (mm) for which 60 percent of the sample by weight is finer D90 = grain size diameter (mm) for which 90 percent of the sample by weight is finer ffines = fraction of the sample by weight that passes the US No. 200 sieve. The calculated hydraulic conductivity values for four representative samples of the site soils are listed in the table below. Page 24 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Table 10: Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Summary Boring / Sample Approximate sample depth Approximate Saturated Hydraulic (feet) Conductivity (centimeters per second / inches per hour) B-2 / S-2 2.5 - 4 8 X 10-2 / 113 B-2 / S-3 5 – 6.5 3.3 X 10-3 / 4.7 B-3 / S-4 7.5 - 9 3.3 X 10-3 / 4.7 The saturated hydraulic conductivity values of the site’s granular soils may be considered favorable for stormwater infiltration. Please note that the actual design infiltration rate may need to be based upon the results of field testing completed in accordance with the current stormwater manual adopted by the City of Arlington. Also, it should be noted that infiltration will be affected by discrete fine-grained soil horizons within otherwise granular soils. On a preliminary basis, we recommend that a baseline saturated hydraulic conductivity of 3.3 X 10-3 cm/sec (4.7 inches per hour) be considered when evaluating infiltration system design. The manual requires applying correction factors to the baseline infiltration rate, whether determined by the grain size method or via field infiltration testing. Table 3.3.1 Correction Factors to be Used with In-Situ Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements to Estimate Design Rates of the manual calls for 40 percent reduction of the baseline rate. Table 3.3.1 also requires applying correction factors for site variability and number of locations tested (CFM) and the degree of influent control to prevent siltation and bio-buildup (CFv). Given the variability of the shallow soil conditions at the site we recommend applying CFM and CFv factors of 0.8 and 0.9, respectively. Groundwater Considerations Groundwater was observed at depths of less than 3 feet below existing grade at each of the boring locations. The shallow depth to groundwater will influence performance of an infiltration system. It would be advantageous to site the infiltration system in the southern portion of the site where grades will be raised to take advantage of the increased separation between the infiltration system and the shallow groundwater table. Depending on the amount of water introduced to the system and the separation between the system and groundwater, a groundwater mounding analysis may be required to assess the adequacy of the system. Storage Considerations In the event that it becomes necessary to provide some storage capacity to the yard given the low hydraulic conductivity of the shallow silt and fine sand deposit, it would be feasible to include a layer of imported crushed rock with a high void ratio below the yard rock. We collected a sample of processed material meeting the gradation specification for Crushed Surfacing – Base Course Gradation as described Page 25 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 in WSDOT 9-03.9(3) from Cal Portland of Everett, Washington and completed a permeability test in order to determine its usefulness in terms of providing benefits in terms of stormwater management. The sample was compacted to approximately 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density in order to replicate its condition in the substation and tested for permeability via the ASTM D 2434 methodology. The sample was found to have saturated hydraulic conductivity of 2.2 X 10-2 cm/sec (30.8 inches/hour). In the past the District has had laboratory testing completed on crushed surfacing base course sourced from the Iron Mountain Quarry in Granite Falls, Washington. Samples of this material have been shown to have a permeability of 130 inches/hour and void ratio of over 40 percent. The Iron Mountain Quarry products are 100 percent crushed rock and no naturally occurring sand is blended with crushed rock to produce the finished product. Consequently, the crushed products from Iron Mountain Quarry tend to have a high permeability and void ratio compared to other vendor products that combine crushed rock and naturally occurring sand. Driveway Flexible Pavement Section Recommendations The substation driveway may be paved with asphalt and is expected to generally accommodate light to moderate service vehicle loading although occasional heavier loads may be present during future maintenance and construction activity. The District typically requires that the pavement section be able to accommodate H20 loading. Pavement Life and Maintenance: It should be realized that asphaltic pavements are not maintenance- free. The following pavement sections represent our minimum recommendations for an average level of performance during a 20-year design life; therefore, an average level of maintenance will likely be required. Thicker asphalt, base, and subbase courses would offer better long-term performance, but would cost more initially. Conversely, thinner courses would be more susceptible to “alligator” cracking and other failure modes. As such, pavement design can be considered a compromise between a high initial cost and low maintenance costs versus a low initial cost and higher maintenance costs. Soil Design Values: Pavement subgrade soils are anticipated to consist of gravelly sand with a moderately high fines content. Our analysis assumes the pavement section subgrade will have a minimum California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 10. Recommended Pavement Section: We recommend that the pavement section, at a minimum, consist of 3 inches of asphalt concrete over either 6 inches (compacted thickness) of crushed surfacing base course or 3 inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB). We recommend the following regarding asphalt pavement materials and pavement construction. Page 26 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 Subgrade Preparation and Compaction: The upper 12 inches of native stripped subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Subgrade Preparation section of this report, and all fill should be compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. Asphalt Concrete: We recommend that the asphalt concrete conform to Section 9-02.1(4) for PG 58-22 or PG 64-22 Performance Graded Asphalt Binder as presented in the 2014 WSDOT Standard Specifications. We also recommend that the gradation of the asphalt aggregate conform to the aggregate gradation control points for ½-inch mixes as presented in Section 9-03.8(6), HMA Proportions of Materials. Base Course: We recommend that the crushed surfacing base course conform to Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Compaction and Paving: We recommend that asphalt be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the Rice (theoretical maximum) density. Placement and compaction of asphalt should conform to requirements of Section 5-04 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. West Side Driveway Improvements We understand that the existing driveway outside the west perimeter fence will likely be used for vehicle and equipment access during construction. We recommend improving the traffic carrying capability of the road by placing a foot of well-compacted crushed surfacing base course above the existing surface in preparation for construction. We recommend consulting with the project civil engineer in regard to methods of grading, as necessary, to allow for continued surface water drainage from the road once the grade is raised. Maintenance of the access drive during construction should be expected, particularly during wet weather. Erosion Control Construction phase erosion control activities are recommended to include measures intended to reduce erosion and subsequent sediment transport. We recommend that the project incorporate the following erosion and sedimentation control measures during construction: ï‚· Erosion control BMP inspection and maintenance: The contractor should be aware that inspection and maintenance of erosion control BMPs is critical toward their satisfactory performance. Repair and/or replacement of dysfunctional erosion control elements should be anticipated. ï‚· Undertake site preparation, excavation, and filling during periods of little or no rainfall. Page 27 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Eagle Creek Substation Project No. 1643.01A 15 September 2016 ï‚· Cover excavation surfaces with anchored plastic sheeting if surfaces will be left exposed during wet weather. ï‚· Cover soil stockpiles with anchored plastic sheeting. ï‚· Provide an all-weather quarry spall construction site entrance. ï‚· Provide for street cleaning on an as-needed basis. ï‚· Protect exposed soil surfaces that will be subject to vehicle traffic with crushed rock or crushed recycled concrete to reduce the likelihood of subgrade disturbance and sediment generation during wet weather or wet site conditions. Keeping the existing granular fill material in place will help in this regard. ï‚· Install perimeter siltation control fencing on the lower perimeter of work areas. ï‚· If grounding wells are installed, containment of the cuttings produced during the drilling process will reduce the likelihood of off-site sediment migration. Cuttings with a high fines content should be removed from the site following completion of drilling. CLOSURE The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations completed for this study. The number, location, and depth of the explorations were completed within the constraints of budget and site access so as to yield the information to formulate our recommendations. Project plans were in the preliminary stage at the time this report was prepared. We therefore recommend we be provided an opportunity to review the final plans and specifications when they become available in order to assess that the recommendations and design considerations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented into the project design. The performance of earthwork, structural fill, foundations, and pavements depend greatly on proper site preparation and construction procedures. We recommend that Zipper Geo Associates, LLC be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during the earthwork-related construction phases of the project. If variations in subsurface conditions are observed at that time, a qualified geotechnical engineer could provide additional geotechnical recommendations to the contractor and design team in a timely manner as the project construction progresses. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Snohomish County PUD No. 1, and its agents, in accordance with locally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. Page 28 B A B-5 B-3 LEGEND B-1 BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION TP-1 TEST PIT NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION B-2 40 0 20 40 B-4 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET B-1 A A' B-6 APPROXIMATE CROSS B' A' SECTION LOCATION PROPOSED EAGLE CREEK SUBSTATION 8630 TVEIT RD ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON TP-2 TP-1 SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2016 Job No. 1643.01 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC FIGURE 19023 36th Ave. W.,Suite D 1 FIGURE TAKEN FROM PRELIMINARY DRAWING S-126-P10, DATED 25 MAY 2016, PROVIDED BY SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD NO.1 AND ZGA FIELD MEASUREMENTS Lynnwood, WA, 98036 SHT. of1 1 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES AND LOGS FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES AND LOGS Our field exploration program for this project included completing a visual reconnaissance of the site, advancing six exploratory borings (B-1 through B-6), and excavating two test pits (TP-1, TP-2) at the approximate exploration locations shown on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Exploration locations were determined in the field using steel and fiberglass tapes by measuring distances from existing site features shown on preliminary Drawing S-126-P10 (dated 25 May 2016), provided by the District. As such, the exploration locations should be considered accurate to the degree implied by the measurement method. The ground surface elevation at each exploration location was interpolated from contours shown on the Topographic Map, New Eagle Creek Sub Stat., dated 11 July 2016, prepared by Harmsen & Associates, Inc. The following sections describe our procedures associated with the explorations. Descriptive logs of the explorations are enclosed in this appendix. Boring Procedures The borings were advanced using a track-mounted drill rig operated by an independent drilling company working under subcontract to ZGA. The borings were advanced using hollow stem auger drilling methods. An engineering geologist from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the subsurface conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in moisture- tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation and testing. Samples were generally obtained by means of the Standard Penetration Test at 2.5-foot to 5-foot intervals throughout the drilling operation. The Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D 1586) procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or “blow count” (N value). If a total of 50 blows are struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily upon our field classifications. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the boring. If groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth and date of observation are depicted on the log. A groundwater observation well was installed at the boring B-1 location following completion of drilling and sampling. The well consists of a 10-foot long section of 2-inch inside-diameter PVC screen with machined 0.020-inch wide slots. Washed silica sand was placed in the annular space between the screen and the borehole. A non-machined riser was installed to the ground surface, and bentonite clay was placed around the riser. The well as finished with a flush-mount metal monument set in concrete. Test Pit Procedures A District employee excavated the test pits through the use of a tracked excavator. An engineering geologist form our firm continuously observed the test pit excavations, logged the subsurface conditions, and obtained representative soil samples. The samples were stored in moisture tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and testing. The enclosed test pit logs indicate the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each test pit, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational or undulating, our logs indicate the average contact depth. We estimated the relative density and consistency of in situ soils by means of the excavation characteristics and by the sidewall stability. Our logs also indicate the approximate depths of any sidewall caving or groundwater seepage observed in the test pits, as well as all sample numbers and sampling locations. Sample Screening The boring logs also include the results of sample container headspace measurements taken with a RAE Systems photoionization detector (PID). The measurements indicate the relative concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons in the headspace air, but do not identify the type of hydrocarbon. The sample headspace readings, recorded as hydrocarbon concentration in parts per million (ppm) are presented on the logs in this appendix. Conclusions regarding the headspace measurements are presented in the report text. Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 153 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-1 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Groundwater0 20 40 60 0 Very dense, damp, gray-brown, silty, gravelly SAND (Fill) S-1 14 57 26.7 Very loose, wet, dark brown, silty SAND with wood pieces and 1-inch thick organic silt horizons 6.1.16 S-2 10 MC = 3 0.7 81% 5 S-3 0 3 Very soft, saturated, brown, sandy SILT with scattered wood fibers S-4 12 3 1.7 10 Stiff to very stiff, wet, green-gray grading to gray, sandy SILT S-5 18 12 1.3 with some gravel S-6 16 11 0.7 15 S-7 8 13 0.8 Grades with scattered wood fibers S-8 12 17 1 Boring terminated at 19 feet. Groundwater measured at 2.5 20 feet in monitoring well 6 hours after drilling, and at 3.8 feet on 8.25.16. 25 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-1 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 154 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-2 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Groundwater0 20 40 60 0 Dense, damp, gray-brown, sandy GRAVEL with some silt and fine sand horizons (Fill) S-1 14 31 0.5 S-2 18 44 1.3 ATD 5 Medium dense, wet to saturated, rusty gray-brown grading to gray, gravelly, silty SAND S-3 18 15 7.4 S-4 18 12 1.2 10 S-5 16 14 0.7 Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine SAND with trace gravel S-6 15 29 3.9 15 Stiff, wet, gray SILT with gravel and sandy silt interbeds S-7 18 9 0.8 20 S-8 18 14 0.6 25 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-2 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 2 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 154 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-2 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Ground Water0 20 40 60 25 Very stiff, wet, gray SILT with gravel and sandy silt interbeds S-9 18 26 0.6 Boring terminated at 26.5 feet. Groundwater observed at approximately 4 feet ATD. 30 35 40 45 50 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-2 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 2 of 2 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 155 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-3 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Groundwater0 20 40 60 0 Medium dense, moist, gray-brown, gravelly SAND (Fill) S-1 15 21 4.6 Very stiff, moist, mottled gray-brown, SILT (Fill) Dense, moist grading to wet, brown, fine to coarse SAND S-2 16 35 1.7 5 ATD S-3 11 43 4.8 Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel S-4 18 14 2.9 10 S-5 18 21 3.8 S-6 18 17 1.8 15 S-7 14 15 1.6 20 S-8 18 25 1.8 25 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-3 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 2 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 155 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-3 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Ground Water0 20 40 60 25 Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel S-9 18 21 1.4 30 S-10 16 12 2.9 S-11 18 10 1 Boring terminated at 34 feet. Groundwater observed at 35 approximately 4.5 feet ATD. 40 45 50 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-3 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 2 of 2 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 153 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-4 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Groundwater0 20 40 60 0 Very dense, damp, brown, gravelly SAND (Fill) S-1 15 44 0.4 Very loose, wet, brown and dark brown, silty SAND with soft ATD sandy SILT interbeds, organic silt interbeds, and scattered wood pieces S-2 15 3 2.8 5 Very soft to soft, wet, dark brown, organic SILT with interbeds of peat, gray silt, and fine sand. Organic content S-3 = 21% S-3 18 2 0.8 S-4 18 MC = 3 0.9 72% 10 S-5 18 MC= 4 0.7 125% S-6 18 11 0.8 Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND/stiff, wet, sandy SILT with trace gravel, 0.5-inch thick peat interbed at 14 feet 15 S-7 16 11 1.1 20 S-8 18 10 0.8 25 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-4 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 2 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 153 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-4 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Ground Water0 20 40 60 25 Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND/stiff, wet, sandy SILT with trace gravel S-9 18 11 1.4 30 Grades to loose/medium stiff S-10 12 6 1.2 35 S-11 18 10 0.5 Medium dense, wet, gray, silty fine SAND with fine gravel and silt interbeds. Drilling action suggests the presence of coarse gravel. Hard, moist to wet, gray, sandy SILT with some gravel 40 S-12 18 61 2.3 45 S-13 10 50/4 2.6 Boring terminated at 45.8 feet. Groundwater observed at approximately 2 feet ATD. 50 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-4 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 2 of 2 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 154 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-5 Date Drilled: 6.1.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Groundwater0 20 40 60 0 6 inches medium dense, damp, gray-brown, gravelly SAND (Fill) above very stiff, moist, black and dark brown, SILT some S-1 14 16 0.8 some fine organics, sand, and gravel Medium dense to dense, wet, rust brown, gravelly, silty SAND with 2-inch thick silt horizon at 4 feet S-2 13 ATD 12 0.7 5 S-3 12 40 2.1 S-4 18 32 3.2 10 Medium dense, moist to wet, gray, gravelly, silty SAND S-5 14 17 2.9 S-6 15 21 1.8 15 Blowcount for sample S-7 is overstated S-7 9 50 3.4 S-8 18 11 1.4 20 Dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, medium to coarse SAND S-9 18 30 0.2 Boring terminated at 21.5 feet. Groundwater observed at approximately 3 feet ATD. 25 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-5 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 151 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-6 Date Drilled: 6.2.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Groundwater0 20 40 60 0 Very dense, damp, gray-brown, gravelly SAND (Fill) S-1 14 47 1.9 S-2 14 6 1.7 Stiff grading to very soft, wet to saturated, dark brown, organic SILT and PEAT with gray-brown silt and fine sand interbeds 5 ATD S-3 18 MC = 2 1 PP = 0.25 tsf @ 6 feet, organic content S-3 = 3.4% 67% S-4 18 MC = 2 0.9 85% 10 S-5 18 MC = 2 4.9 320% PP = 0.2 tsf @ 13 feet S-6 18 MC = 5 1.6 191% Loose, saturated, gray, fine gravelly SAND 15 S-7 8 8 0.5 Medium dense, wet, gray, gravelly, silty SAND and silty SAND with trace to some gravel S-8 18 13 1.1 20 S-9 10 13 2.7 25 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-6 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 2 Boring Location: See Figure 1A, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Boretec1 Bore Hole Dia.:6" Top Elevation: 151 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Cathead B-6 Date Drilled: 6.2.16 Drill Rig: Track Logged by: DCW SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Standard Penetration Test The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to Depth (ft)report text and appendices for additional information. Sample Number SAMPLES BlowcountPID (ppm) Recovery (Inches)Ground Water0 20 40 60 25 Medium dense, moist to wet, gray, gravelly, silty SAND and silty SAND with trace to some gravel S-10 12 12 0.8 30 S-11 1 13 0.8 Hard, wet, gray, sandy SILT with some gravel to gravelly, sandy SILT 35 S-12 18 34 1.3 40 S-13 12 34 2.7 Boring terminated at 41.5 feet. Groundwater observed at approximately 3.5 feet ATD 45 50 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content Screened Casing Eagle Creek Substation TESTING KEY Blank Casing 8630 Tveit Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis Groundwater level at Arlington, WA 11/2/12time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 9.15.16 Project No.: 1643.01A measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits B-6 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 2 of 2 Test Pit TP-1 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Project No: 1643.01A Location: See Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1A Date Excavated: 25 August 2016 Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: 151 feet Depth Material Description Sample NC %M Pocket (ft.) Penetr. Loose, damp, brown, gravelly SAND with some cobbles and boulders up to 4-foot maximum dimension (Fill) 1 2 3 Very soft, wet, dark brown, ORGANIC SILT with fine to medium roots 4 5 Very soft, wet, gray with rust inclusions, SILT with trace gravel, fine sand interbeds, and fine root casts, 6 0.25 tsf 7 8 9 10 S-1 @ 10 ft. 11 12 S-2 @ 12 ft. 0.5 tsf 13 Very soft, wet, dark brown, fibrous PEAT with sand pockets and trace gravel and interbeds of ORGANIC SILT S-3 @ 13.5 ft. 0.7 tsf 14 Loose, wet, gray, silty fine SAND with cobble 15 Test pit completed at approximately 15 feet. Slight groundwater 16 seepage observed between 6 and 7 feet at time of excavation. Slight sidewall caving observed. 17 18 Nc is the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer blow count averaged over three 1.75 inch intervals measured in accordance with ASTM Special Technical Publication #399. Test Pit TP-2 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Project No: 1643.01A Location: See Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1A Date Excavated: 25 August 2016 Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: 152 feet Depth Material Description Sample NC %M Pocket (ft.) Penetr. Loose, damp, brown, gravelly SAND with some cobbles and boulders up to 18-inch maximum dimension (Fill) 1 2 Loose, moist, red-brown, coarse GRAVEL (Fill) with an 8-inch 3 diameter corrugated plastic pipe on south side of test pit 4 Very soft, wet, brown, SILT with abundant fine organics, partial stump wood up to 4 feet long 5 Very soft, wet, gray with rust inclusions, SILT with some fine sand interbeds, fine rootlets, and large wood pieces in upper 6 feet 6 7 8 0.75 tsf 9 10 S-1 @ 10 ft. 11 Very soft, wet, dark brown, fine and fibrous PEAT 12 S-2 @ 12 ft. 0.5 tsf 13 S-3 @ 13.5 ft. 14 Loose, wet, gray, silty fine SAND with cobbles or boulder 15 Test pit completed at approximately 15 feet. Slight groundwater 16 seepage observed between 6 and 7 feet at time of excavation. Significant sidewall caving above 6 feet observed. 17 18 Nc is the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer blow count averaged over three 1.75 inch intervals measured in accordance with ASTM Special Technical Publication #399. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS LABORATORY PROCEDURES A series of laboratory tests were performed during the course of this study to evaluate the index and geotechnical engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Descriptions of the types of tests performed are given below. Visual Classification Samples recovered from the exploration locations were visually classified in the field during the exploration program. Representative portions of the samples were carefully packaged in moisture tight containers and transported to our laboratory where the field classifications were verified or modified as required. Visual classification was generally done in accordance with ASTM D 2488. Visual soil classification includes evaluation of color, relative moisture content, soil type based upon grain size, and accessory soil types included in the sample. Soil classifications are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A. Moisture Content Determinations Moisture content determinations were performed on representative samples obtained from the explorations in order to aid in identification and correlation of soil types. The determinations were made in general accordance with the test procedures described in ASTM D 2216. The results are shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A. Grain Size Analysis A grain size analysis indicates the range in diameter of soil particles included in a particular sample. Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The results of the grain size determinations for the samples were used in classification of the soils, and are presented in this appendix. Laboratory Maximum Density Test The laboratory maximum density represents the highest degree of density which can be obtained from a particular soil type by imparting a predetermined compaction effort. The test determines the “optimum” moisture content of the soil at the laboratory maximum density. The laboratory maximum density test was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1557 on a bulk composite sample of shallow soils collected from below the substation yard rock at the boring locations. The test result is shown in this appendix and presented as a plot of compacted soil dry density as a function of moisture content. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a sample of crushed surfacing base course sourced from Cal Portland in Everett, Washington was also tested prior to completing a permeability test, and the results are presented in this appendix. Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head Method) The coefficient of permeability (hydraulic conductivity) of the sample of crushed surfacing base course sourced from Cal Portland in Everett, Washington was determined in general accordance with the ASTM D 2434 testing procedure. The testing was completed on the sample after it had been compacted to GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36" 12" 6" 3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 140 200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT 30 20 10 0 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines (%) Description Cal Portland, Sandy GRAVEL, 052616 grab 2.1 6.8 Everett some Fines Project No.: 1643.01 PROJECT NAME: Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 5/31/2016 East Arlington - Oso Substation PLASTICITY CHART ASTM D 4318 60 U-line 50 A-line Inorganic clays of 40 high plasticity CH Micaceous or diatomaceous fine Low plastic inorganic sandy and silty soils; elastic silts; 30 organic silts, clays, and silty clays clays; sandy and silty clays Medium plastic OH inorganic 20 clays or Plasticity Index %Silty clays; MH clayey silts and sands CL OL 10 or ML Inorganic and organic silts and silty clays of 7 low plasticity; rock flour; silty or clayey fine CL-ML 4 sands ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit % USCS Received Liquid Plastic Plasticity Symbol Boring Sample Description M.C. (%) Limit Limit Index Comments B-6 S-4 ML 85 54 40 12 Remarks: PROJECT NO: 1643.01A PROJECT NAME: Zipper GEo Associates, LLC DATE OF TESTING: 7/12/2016 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Eagle Creek Substation Cultural Resources Assessment for the Eagle Creek Substation Project, Arlington, Snohomish County, Washington Contains Confidential Information—Not for Public Distribution Prepared by: Sarah M. H. Steinkraus, M.Sc., RPA Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-0192 November 8, 2015 (Revised December 22, 2016) CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET Author: Sarah M. H. Steinkraus Title of Report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Eagle Creek Substation Project, Arlington, Snohomish County, Washington Date of Report: November 8, 2016 County(ies): Snohomish Section: 12 Township: 31 Range: 5 E Quad: Arlington East Acres: 0.91 PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? Yes No Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No TCP(s) found? Yes No Replace a draft? Yes No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes # No Were Human Remains Found? Yes DAHP Case # No DAHP Archaeological Site #: ï‚· Submission of PDFs is required. ï‚· Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file. ï‚· Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Eagle Creek Substation Project, Arlington, Snohomish County, Washington Contains Confidential Information—Not for Public Distribution Prepared by: Sarah M. H. Steinkraus, M.Sc., RPA Prepared for: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County P.O. Box 1107 Everett, Washington 98206 Submitted by: Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd. 444 NE Ravenna Boulevard, Suite 103 Seattle, Washington 98115 Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 November 8, 2016 (Revised December 22, 2016) TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Information ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Regulatory Context ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Environmental Context .................................................................................................................................... 1 Physiographic Province ................................................................................................................................ 1 Geomorphology ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Soil Survey ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Cultural Context ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Precontact and Ethnographic Period ......................................................................................................... 5 Historic Period ............................................................................................................................................. 10 History of Arlington ............................................................................................................................... 10 History of the APE ................................................................................................................................. 11 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Research Design ............................................................................................................................................... 12 Land Use Patterns ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Archaeological Expectations ..................................................................................................................... 17 Geomorphological Context ................................................................................................................... 17 Land Use Patterns ................................................................................................................................... 17 Field Investigations .......................................................................................................................................... 17 Surface Survey .............................................................................................................................................. 17 Subsurface Testing ...................................................................................................................................... 18 STP 1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 18 STP 2 ........................................................................................................................................................ 20 STP 3 ........................................................................................................................................................ 20 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 22 References ......................................................................................................................................................... 23 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project location on the Arlington East, WA, 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle map. ........................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Project location detail map. ............................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Plan drawings for the proposed Eagle Creek Substation project. .............................................. 4 Figure 4. Map showing the soil types within the APE. ................................................................................ 6 Figure 5. Map showing the relationship between the project area and historic features located on the 1936 Metsker map. ....................................................................................................... 13 Figure 6. Map showing the results of subsurface testing for the project. ................................................ 19 LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1. Overview of the APE, facing east, showing existing equipment and utilities. ....................... 18 Photo 2. STP 1, facing west. .......................................................................................................................... 20 Photo 3. STP 2, facing south.......................................................................................................................... 21 Photo 4. STP 3 with asphalt visible in the bottom, facing west. .............................................................. 21 Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 ii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Regional Precontact-era Settlement Patterns (adapted from Chatters et al. 2011 and Cooper et. al 2014) ......................................................................................... 7 Table 2. Cultural Resources Surveys within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the Project Area ............................... 14 Table 3. Archaeological Sites within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the Project Areaa ........................................... 16 Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd. (Tierra), was contracted by the Public Utility District (PUD) No. 1 of Snohomish County to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the Eagle Creek Substation Project (the project) located in Arlington, Snohomish County, Washington. The PUD proposes to build a new substation on a 0.4-ha (1.0-acre) parcel (Parcel No. 31051200300600). The parcel is currently used as a pole yard for the Arlington Local Office of the Snohomish County PUD. A total of 5 archaeological sites and 732 historic properties have been recorded within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project location. One large Stillaguamish village site has been recorded within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project location. No archaeological sites or historic properties have been recorded within the project’s area of potential effects (APE). Tierra’s cultural resources assessment consisted of background review, field investigation, and production of this report. Background review determined the APE to be located in an area of moderate probability for historic properties. Field investigation included pedestrian survey and subsurface testing. No archaeological resources were recovered during this project, but all areas tested were highly disturbed by modern activities, a large portion of the project area could not be tested due to subsurface utilities and to machinery and materials located on the ground surface, and only a small portion of the soils observed were thought to be native soils. Tierra recommends archaeological monitoring of all ground-disturbing activities associated with this project that will extend beyond 40.0 cm (15.7 inches) below the ground surface. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 iv INTRODUCTION Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd. (Tierra), was contracted by the Public Utility District (PUD) No. 1 of Snohomish County to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the Eagle Creek Substation Project (the project). The project is located in Section 12, Township 31 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian (WM), as depicted on the Arlington East, WA, 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle in Snohomish County, Washington (Figures 1 and 2). PROJECT INFORMATION The PUD proposes to build a new substation on a 0.4-ha (1.0-acre) parcel (Parcel No. 31051200300600). The parcel is currently used as a pole yard for the Arlington Local Office of the Snohomish County PUD. For further detail regarding project plans, see Figure 3. REGULATORY CONTEXT This survey was completed in order to meet the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Mirroring the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the SEPA requires that all major actions sponsored, funded, permitted, or approved by State and/or local agencies provide consideration of the impacts of the planned action on the environment, which includes properties of historical, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance (Washington Administrative Code 197-11- 960). The Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) is recognized as the agency with the technical expertise to consider the effects of a proposed action on cultural resources and to provide formal recommendations to local governments and other State agencies for appropriate treatments or actions. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT Literature reviewed for this project included environmental data on the project area illustrated in geologic and soils maps, and reports of recent geological and geomorphological investigations that describe subsurface conditions and the post-depositional processes likely to affect any cultural deposits in the study area. Physiographic Province The project’s area of potential effects (APE) is located within the western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) vegetation zone of the Puget-Willamette Lowland physiographic province (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Vegetation would have included western red cedar (Thuja plicata), western hemlock, and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) prior to clearing. The project area currently consists of a gravel pad surrounded by chain-link fencing. Geomorphology The project area is located in the Puget Lowland. The Puget Lowland is a geological and physiographic province that was shaped by at least four periods of extensive glaciation during the Pleistocene (Easterbrook 2003; Lasmanis 1991). The bedrock was depressed and deeply scoured by glaciers, and sediments were deposited and often reworked as the glaciers advanced and retreated. A mantle of glacial drift and outwash deposits were left across much of the region at the end of the last of these glacial periods, the Fraser Glaciation (Easterbrook 2003). Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 1 Figure 1. Project location on the Arlington East, WA, 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle map. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 2 Figure 2. Project location detail map. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 3 Figure 3. Plan drawings for the proposed Eagle Creek Substation project. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 4 The Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation began around 18,000 B.P. with an advance of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet into the lowlands (Porter and Swanson 1998). The Puget Lobe of the ice sheet flowed down into the Puget Lowland and reached its terminus just south of Olympia between 14,500 and 14,000 B.P. (Clague and James 2002; Easterbrook 2003; Waitt and Thorson 1983). The Puget Lobe was thicker towards the north and thinned towards its terminus in the south. The Puget Lobe began to retreat shortly after reaching its terminus, allowing marine waters to enter the lowlands. The lowlands, having been recently scoured by the Puget Lobe, filled readily. The remaining ice was lifted and rapidly melted as berg ice (Easterbrook 2003). Soil Survey Soils mapped within the APE (Figure 4) consist of Everett very gravelly sandy loam (17 on the map), which is located in the northwest corner of the APE, and Norma loam (39 on the map) throughout the rest of the APE (NRCS 2016). The Everett series consists of very deep soils that are formed in gravelly and sandy glacial outwash. These soil types are located on kames, moraines, and eskers on glacial outwash plains and glacial drift plains. The soils are excessively drained and are moderately to strongly acid, which indicates poor preservation of archaeological materials. The Norma series consists of deep soil that formed in old alluvium. These soils occur in depressions on glacial till plains and drainageways. The soils are poorly drained and are moderately to strongly acid, which indicates somewhat poor preservation of archaeological materials. CULTURAL CONTEXT The determination of the probability for historic properties to be located within the APE was based largely upon a review and analysis of past environmental and cultural contexts and previous cultural resource studies and sites. Consulted sources included project files; local geologic data to better understand the depositional environment; archaeological, historic, and ethnographic records made available on the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database maintained by the DAHP; and selected, published, local historic records. Research conducted for this assessment included a review of environmental and cultural contexts from a variety of sources such as the DAHP, WISAARD, General Land Office (GLO) Survey Records database, HistoryLink, and Historic Map Works. Precontact and Ethnographic Period Thousands of years of human occupation in the Puget Sound area have been summarized in a number of archaeological, ethnographic, and historical investigations conducted over the past several decades that can provide regional contexts for evaluating the project area (Blukis Onat 1987; Carlson 1990; Greengo 1983; Larson and Lewarch 1995; Matson and Copeland 1995; Meltzer and Dunnell 1987; Nelson 1990). Six time periods can be separated for the precontact era in this region (Table 1). Human use of the area is generally oriented toward natural resources available in local environments, including fresh water, forests, and other suitable terrain. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 5 Figure 4. Map showing the soil types within the APE. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 6 T ierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 Table 1. Summary of Regional Precontact-era Settlement Patterns (adapted from Chatters et al. 2011 and Cooper et. al 2014) Period Tool Types Location Preferences Associated Data isolated sites in or near lakes and bogs; Paleoindian large, concave-based, triangular Pleistocene mammal bone with butchery artifacts would be located on or in 14,000–10,000 B.P. spear points (Clovis Points) marks glacial soils upland environments near the base of the Olcott Phase (part of the the Cascade foothills and on raised post-glacial period; small number of Old Cordilleran Culture); tool terraces along major rivers; few isolated rock-like cooking pits have been found Early Holocene Foragers types include leaf-shaped spear Olcott spear points have been found in that were used to process starchy plant 10,000–7000 B.P. points and knives, scraping tools, bogs; isolates more common on steep foods (camas roots, acorns); appears to and cobble tools known as slopes along major river valleys; artifacts represent a foraging society “choppers” are located on or in glacial soils early tools similar to those seen as forests became denser and less useful in the early Holocene; later sites after 5000 B.P., shell middens increase in for human food procurement (7000 B.P.), add microblades, side-notched marine sites; bone tools and ornaments marine environments stabilized and Middle Holocene Foragers projectile points, and large, found in middens; upland sites often became more productive; people 7000–3500 B.P. stemmed projectile points; post located in valley bottoms of high increasingly concentrated food-gathering 6000 B.P., ground-slate knives, terraces and consist of stone tools and activities on the riverbanks and marine adzes, and whetstones have been fire-broken rocks shoreline documented seasonal camps have been found in the similar to tools used in the latter prairies of south King and northern part of the Middle Holocene but Pierce Counties; people moved to from 3500 to 4000 B.P., the cultures of Developmental Northwest seasonally specific; tools in locations that allowed for mass-harvest the Northwest Coast shifted subsistence Coast Culture seasonal prairie habitation areas of food (salmon, deer, clams, and/or strategies from immediate consumption 3500–2500 B.P. consist of large, stemmed roots); larger, year-round habitations of foodstuffs to amassing, processing, projectile points, flake tools, and also were used as well; small, rectangular and storing food for later consumption concentrations of cooking rock dwellings are associated with these areas north of Puget Sound 7 T ierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 Period Tool Types Location Preferences Associated Data large villages of long, split-plank houses created on rivers and along saltwater seasonal habitation areas established up shores and maintained year-round; to 3500 B.P. continued to be used and upland seasonal-use habitation areas new ones were established; same sites arrow points replaced large atlatl used, leaving dense scatters of stone were used seasonally for harvesting Northwest Coast Culture dart points, toolkit is otherwise tools and fire-modified rock; similar resources; large, thick shell middens 2500–250 B.P. similar to previous period habitation areas made along rivers for formed at clamming and fishing locations fishing; these are commonly found on and at many other localities along the the floodplains of river basins in the shoreline where fresh water enters Puget Puget Sound and Cascade foothills, Sound often well preserved due to deposition of flood sediments at turn of nineteenth century, use of metal points and stone points, by 1850, many longhouses replaced by people traded with iron harpoon tips along with Euroamerican smaller, less elaborate houses; in the Europeans/Euroamericans for iron, bone, and copper hooks bent Contact Period 1850s, Native people forced to sign copper, mirrors, and beads, incorporating from ships’ copper; otherwise 250–100 B.P. treaties; most were relocated to the new materials into their existing similar to previous period; as the reservations technologies century progressed, European/Euroamerican tools and technologies were adopted 8 The APE is located within the traditional territory of the Stillaguamish, originally called the Stoluck- wa-mish River Tribe. The name Stillaguamish has been used since around 1850 to describe those people who traditionally lived along the Stillaguamish River and its tributaries (Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians 2014). The Stillaguamish traditionally spoke a Northern Lushootseed dialect and are one of the Southern Coast Salish Tribes (Suttles and Lane 1990). These groups utilized primary winter villages located along the shorelines and rivers and relied heavily upon salmon for subsistence. Groups would frequently leave the villages in order to procure game (including marine and freshwater fish/shellfish) and plants for food, medicinal, and utilitarian purposes (Gunther 1981; Suttles and Lane 1990). The history of the mid-nineteenth century in the Pacific Northwest is dominated by the U.S. government’s attempts to establish treaties with Tribal groups in order to solidify its claim on what is now Washington State over that of British-held Canada. After the signing of the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott, the Stillaguamish were directed to relocate to the Tulalip Reservation. Many did not relocate to the reservation and instead stayed near their ancestral lands. Individuals of Native American descent living off-reservation in the Puget Sound region often purchased land privately or occasionally received an off-reservation allotment within their ancestral lands. As with all Native Americans in the post-treaty era, they augmented their traditional subsistence practices with Euroamerican pursuits such as agriculture, logging, industrial labor, and other work (Huggins 1984; Ruby and Brown 1992:72–23, 140). The Stillaguamish received Federal recognition in 1976, and, in 2014, they received a reservation. The Stillaguamish Tribal Headquarters are located in Arlington. A large Stillaguamish village called Skabalko was documented near the confluence of the main branch and the south fork of the Stillaguamish River (Section 2, Township 31 North, Range 5 East, WM), near the modern city of Arlington in a 1973 ethnography compiled by Lane (Lane 1973 and Larsen et al. 2016). This was a massive village complex that was widely known as a meeting and/or trading location for people traveling the Stillaguamish River (Larsen et al. 2016). Permanent villages such as Skabalko were made up of large wooden plank-houses, which housed multigenerational extended families. Information on the village location was originally documented in 1850 and 1851, when coal was discovered along the Stillaguamish River. At the time, the Euroamerican men who located the coal were likely some of the first non-Native people to travel to this location (Lane 1973). This village is also noted in 1927 testimony from Stillaguamish Tribal Member James Dorsey (Quil-Que-Kadam), who was born in 1850 and grew up along the Stillaguamish River. He describes a village in Section 2, Township 31 North, Range 5 East (approximately 1.6 km [1.0 mile] away from the project area) that was comprised of two large plank houses as well as a cemetery and several hundred people near the river. Fish traps were also noted at this location by Mr. Dorsey (Lane 1973). The Stillaguamish and most western Washington groups followed a seasonal round, gathering resources as they came into season. People in this region lived in permanent villages similar to Skabalko during the winter and traveled to seasonal use areas that produced needed materials and food in the spring, summer, and fall, erecting temporary shelters in these locations as they were required. This movement across the landscape to resource areas located in varying environmental zones created high levels of interaction between groups of people, and many resource areas were shared between groups based on mutual friendship, marriage, or special permission. These resources were then returned to the permanent village for use during the winter. The prairies and wetlands surrounding Arlington were a readily accessible and plentiful source of wild plant crops. These included wild onion and edible roots, bulbs and tubers, as well as various grass, sedge, and reed species that were utilized in basket making (Larsen et al. 2016). The Kent Prairie was Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 9 a particularly prolific area and is located less than 0.8 km (0.5 miles) southwest of the current project area and approximately 2.4 km (1.5 miles) south of Skabalko along a marshy area/small creek that is noted on an 1875 GLO map of the area (GLO 2016). Postcontact, some Stillaguamish Tribal members traded roots for fish and venison, but deer and elk were often hunted in what is now Arlington Heights (Larsen et al. 2016). Arlington Heights is approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mile) southwest of the project area. The project area is located between three well-known resource locations in the Arlington area: the permanent village of Skabalko, which housed hundreds of people and included fish traps along the river, the traditionally large wetland/prairie now known as Kent Prairie that produced valuable plant resources, and Arlington Heights, where game animals roamed. It is possible that the project area was used as a travel corridor between these locations, and it is unlikely that this area was not utilized in some fashion prior to European contact. Historic Period Following the arrival of non-Native settlers in the Pacific Northwest (by the mid-1850s), many Native village/habitation sites were subsequently homesteaded or platted as towns; most areas that were previously inhabited by Native Americans were generally as desirable to non-Native settlers as they were to the areas’ original inhabitants. This was especially true for locations near water, at river confluences, or along traditionally utilized travel corridors/trails, many of which continued to be in use into the Historic period if not the modern era. Snohomish County was originally part of Island County. In 1861, Snohomish County was formed by the territorial legislature. The first County seat was Mukilteo, but it was moved to Snohomish six months later. After the formation of the new County, settlements began at Lowell, Monroe, Stanwood, and Edmonds. Settlers were drawn to the fertile soil and easy access to water in these areas. Extensive logging and mining activity has taken place throughout the region from the mid-1800s to the present, and the construction and expansion of transportation corridors associated with railroads and roadways had a profound effect on the landscape in this area (Riddle 2006). The project area has transformed drastically over the past 150 years. It has changed from old-growth forest and agricultural lands to an industrial area. Much of the APE seems to have escaped the typical western Washington metro-area cycle of rapid urbanization. History of Arlington The first non-Native settler in the Arlington area was J. L. “Frank” Kent, who arrived in 1877. Many other settlers began inhabiting the area in the 1880s. A road had been cut by the Army in 1856 from Snohomish to just below the forks in the Stillaguamish River (City of Arlington n.d.). The city of Arlington began as two distinct towns separated by a 16-ha (40-acre) parcel, the ownership of which was contested. The claimants for the parcel were named McMann and Stephens, until McMann bought Stephens out in order to end the dispute during the depression of the 1890s. In 1897, the two towns, known as Haller City and Arlington, joined together (Interstate Publishing 1906). In 1880, a road was cut roughly following the original Army trail between the Stillaguamish Forks (on which Haller City was located) and Stanwood in order to facilitate the movement of loggers and goods through the area without having to rely upon canoe freighting (Interstate Publishing 1906; City of Arlington n.d.). Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 10 Haller City started with the building of its first general store in 1888 by the fork in the Stillaguamish River. The store was run by N. K. Tvete and N. H. Johnson. In 1889, the White House hotel was built by Lee Rogers and M. Dinsmore. Haller City was platted by Maurice Haller, the son of a well-known military figure named Granville O. Haller. The land was originally patented to Louis Smith, who later sold the property to John Irving, who sold it to Maurice Haller. Maurice drowned early in the formation of the town, and his interest in the town was passed on to three other men. Haller City grew rapidly at first, housing a sawmill, two saloons, a four-story hotel, a drug store, and a newspaper by 1890 (Interstate Publishing 1906). In 1890, the construction train for the building of the Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Railroad arrived at the site of the original town of Arlington. The building of the railroad distinguished Arlington from Haller City. Arlington was platted by Earl and McLeod, railroad contractors, who had bought land from Alfred Gifford. In 1890, Arlington started out with a newspaper and an “eating tent,” where people could purchase hot meals. It quickly grew to include a saloon, general store, hardware store, two restaurants, and a three-story hotel (Interstate Publishing 1906). By 1893, the combined population of the two towns was 500. Arlington weathered the depression of the 1890s well, and the population continued to increase. In 1903, when the towns came together and incorporated, the population within the corporate limits was 800; by 1905, the population was up to 1,700 (Interstate Publishing 1906). Arlington has always been a logging town and has been home to multiple logging companies, sawmills, and shingle mills. After areas were cleared, much of the land was used for agriculture and as dairy farms (City of Arlington n.d.). History of the APE An 1875 cadastral map shows no natural or cultural features located in the current project area (GLO 2016). The land on which the project area now sits was originally patented to John H. Cole on September 12, 1889, when he purchased the SW ¼ of Section 12, Township 31 North, Range 5 East, WM (GLO 2016). A 1936 Metsker map shows that the project area was located in the northeast corner of a parcel owned by P. L. Wallis (Figure 5). It shows a transmission line to the west of the project area following its current course, labeled “Puget Sound Power and Light Company Line” (Metsker 1936); this is also shown in the 1960 Metsker map (Metsker 1960). The 1936 Metsker map also shows a rail line running through the southern portion of the project area in a southwest-to-northeast trajectory. The rail line is labeled “M. & A. Railway” (Metsker 1936). The 1975 Declaration of Non-Significance of Environmental Impact for the construction of the Arlington Pole Yard states that the property was farmland at the time of review (Hulbert 1975). LITERATURE REVIEW The WISAARD database maintained by the DAHP indicates that there are no archaeological sites or historic properties within the APE. Nineteen cultural resource assessments have been conducted within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project area (Table 2). The Old Pioneer Cemetery in Arlington is also within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project area. A total of 5 archaeological sites (Table 3) and 732 Historic Property Inventory (HPI) forms have been documented within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the APE and submitted to the DAHP. The majority of the HPI forms are derived from County Assessor records. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 11 RESEARCH DESIGN Land Use Patterns The DAHP predictive model map overlay indicates that the project area lies within an area with moderate risk for archaeological materials; high-risk areas are generally associated with proximity to rivers and bodies of water. Model probabilities are calculated using information from two general sources—data derived from archaeological surveys conducted prior to model development and a consideration of the relationship between these recorded sites and various environmental factors (Kauhi 2009). The approach to modeling settlement systems used by the DAHP presumes that the distribution of archaeological sites on the landscape is non-random and that there is a statistically significant relationship between physical landscape features (e.g., elevation, distance to water, soils, and landform type) and site location. Any predictive model can be only as accurate as the information derived from the set of previously recorded sites used to create it, which means any site identification biases represented in research will also be present in the model. Additionally, because this type of model uses an inductive approach, it is also limited in its ability to characterize the type of site that might be encountered in a particular setting. By design, the causal relationship between identified archaeological sites and particular geographic settings is not considered. More simply put, the predictive model “recognizes” that a given number of archaeological sites have been recorded within a specific distance from a given geographic features, so it may rate a project undertaken on a specific landscape as having a high risk to encounter archaeological deposits without providing distinction between historic and precontact sites or between archaeological isolates and village sites. This should be viewed as a function of the model rather than a failing. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 12 Figure 5. Map showing the relationship between the project area and historic features located on the 1936 Metsker map. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 13 Table 2. Cultural Resources Surveys within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the Project Area Distance to Author Date Report Name Results NADB APE no cultural Cultural Resources Survey materials for 2016 Snohomish District 1.16 km Amy Homan 5/6/16 located 1688317 Priority Wood Pole (0.72 miles) during this Replacement Project project Archaeological Monitoring no cultural for the Prairie Creek materials Drainage Improvements 1.6 km Dave Iversen 9/1/14 located 1685732 Project- Phase 2 (1.0 mile) during this Construction, City of project Arlington Prairie Creek Drainage no cultural Improvements Project- materials Katherine 1.6 km 9/1/13 Phase 2 Construction located 1685105 Wilson (1.0 mile) Resources Assessment, during this Arlington project a portion of Addendum to the the Seattle, Archaeological Assessment 1.56 km Lake Shore Dave Iversen 2/1/14 for the 67th Avenue Phase 1685034 (0.97 miles) and Eastern III Improvement Project, Railway Spur Arlington recorded Archaeological Assessment 8 historic for the 67th Avenue Phase properties Jennifer 1.22 km 9/13/10 III Improvement Project recorded 1680166 Chambers (0.76 miles) Arlington, Snohomish during this County, Washington project no cultural Archaeological Monitoring materials for the Sedro-Woolley 0.08 km Lynn Compas 12/21/10 located 1680049 Horse Ranch Transmission (0.05 miles) during this Line Rebuild Project project DRAFT: Phase 2 Cultural 10 Resources Assessment for archaeological 0.01 km Jessie Piper 4/8/2009 the Sedro Woolley Horse sites recorded 1353374 (0.01 miles) Ranch Transmission Line during this Upgrade project multiple artifacts, Archaeological Investigation including an 1.6 km Kelly R. Bush 4/30/08 Report Centennial Trail Olcott point, 1352881 (1.0 mile) Phase 2 recorded during this project Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 14 Distance to Author Date Report Name Results NADB APE Cultural Resources 1 Assessment for the archaeological Arlington Constructed 1.6 km Ross E. Smith 5/29/08 site recorded 1351524 Stormwater Wetland, (1.0 mile) during this Arlington, Parcel project 31050200300200 1 Data Recovery at 45SN409, archaeological William A. 1.6 km 6/10/08 the Teager/Weimer Site, site recorded 1351513 White, III (1.0 mile) Arlington during this project no cultural materials Nicole F. A Cultural Resources Survey 1.54 km 5/16/08 located 1351450 Brannan for the 3G Fiber Project (0.96 miles) during this project no cultural Cultural Resource materials Astrida R. 1.56 km 3/1/2006 Preliminary Survey of the located 1348998 Blukis Onat (0.98 miles) Centennial Trail Phase II during this project Cultural Resources 1 precontact Assessment for the Nichole A. 1.75 km and 1 historic 12/13/06 Arlington Wastewater 1348795 Gillis (1.09 miles) site during Treatment Project, this project Arlington 1 site Archaeological and Richard D. 1.6 km documented 1/1/05 Historical Investigations of 1346799 Daugherty (1.0 mile) during this the Byle Property project Cultural Resource Survey of 1 site Northwest Pipeline 1.6 km documented Mini Sharma 12/5/05 1346663 Corporation’s Capacity (1.0 mile) during this Replacement Project project Cultural Resource Survey of the Northwest Pipeline Corporation's Capacity 1 site Replacement Project, 1.56 km documented Terry L. Ozbun 8/30/05 Western Washington 1346406 (0.98 miles) during this Addendum Seven: Seattle project Lake Shore & Eastern Railway Spur at the Arlington 3 Pipeyard Evaluation of Six Cultural Resources for the 6 sites Judith S. Northwest Pipeline 1.34 km 5/11/05 evaluated for 1345757 Chapman Corporation’s Capacity (0.83 miles) significance Replacement Project, Western Washington Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 15 Distance to Author Date Report Name Results NADB APE Cultural Resource Survey of Northwest Pipeline Corporation’s Capacity Replacement Project, 1 site Western Washington: 0.88 km documented Terry L. Ozbun 11/5/04 1344814 Addendum One (0.55 miles) during this Supplemental Surveys of project Workspace, Extra Workspace, Access Roads, and Pipeyards Cultural Resources no cultural Monitoring of the materials Joan M. Washington State 1.6 km 2/17/1999 located 1343375 Robinson Department of (1.0 mile) during this Transportation’s SR9: Haller project Bridge Replacement Project Table 3. Archaeological Sites within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the APEa Date Site Type Listing Status Township Range Section Recorded precontact isolate; 2/6/2009 unevaluated 31 5 13 precontact lithic material historic debris 5/15/2008 potentially Eligible 31 5 2 scatter/concentration historic debris determined Eligible for 9/12/2006 scatter/concentration; the National Register 31 5 2 historic object(s) of Historic Places 6/29/2004 historic agriculture potentially Eligible 31 5 12 1/15/1980 precontact lithic material unevaluated 31 6 6 a Township, Range, Section data based on Willamette Meridian. As noted on the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT) Archaeological Predictive Model webpage: The dependability of these models is a function of their performance. This can be examined and tested by comparing a predictive model to archaeological field survey results. By comparing known archaeological site locations to the model's predictions, it is possible to determine, with specifiable confidence, how accurately a model performs. It is, in fact, this very approach that gives us confidence in a model and allows us to use it as a predictive tool. Field-testing a model is an essential component of demonstrating its reliability (MnDOT 2013). Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 16 In this report, the author presents a project assessment that considers the implications of the predictive model as well as a context in which it can be field tested. Model testing is informed by an understanding of the geomorphological context, local settlement patterns, and post-depositional processes derived from a review of available environmental documentation and reports of nearby cultural resources surveys. This deductive approach is designed to not only more accurately characterize the potential for a given project to encounter archaeological deposits but also to identify the types and conditions of archaeological materials that may be encountered. Archaeological Expectations Geomorphological Context Given the presence of mapped soils in the northwest corner, which is derived from glacial outwash that is moderately to strongly acid, and excessive drainage, the probability of locating artifacts in this portion of the APE is somewhat low (NRCS 2016). High-acid and low-moisture environments increase the likelihood of artifacts eroding over time. However, the mapped soils in the rest of the APE include deep soil formed from old alluvial deposits. These soils are poorly drained but are moderately to strongly acid. There is a higher likelihood of locating artifacts in alluvial soils, and poor drainage can assist in the preservation of cultural materials. The moderate to strong acidity of the soil can degrade artifacts over time, but locating distinguishable artifacts in this soil is still somewhat high. Land Use Patterns There is evidence of use of the project area in the precontact era, as well as evidence that the landscape was utilized by Native and non-Native peoples in the Settlement and post-Settlement periods. The current project area is located in close proximity to traditional village/habitation areas. These locations would also have been utilized for gathering and/or processing resources. The history of Settlement and post-Settlement land use in the study area indicates that the surface and near-surface environment within the project area may have been affected by historical logging, agriculture, and residential use. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS Field investigation was conducted by Project Manager Jennifer Hushour, M.Sc., RPA, and Project Archaeologist Sarah M. H. Steinkraus, M.Sc., RPA, on October 24, 2016. Both Ms. Hushour and Ms. Steinkraus meet the U.S. Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Archaeologists. During field survey, Tierra’s archaeologists conducted a 100 percent survey of the APE and excavated three shovel test probes (STPs 1–3). Surface Survey Tierra archaeologists conducted a 100 percent survey of the APE using 20.0-m (65.6-foot) spacing. The APE consisted of a gravel surface surrounded by fencing that is used to store wire, wooden poles, and other utility-related construction materials and equipment (Photo 1). Visibility throughout the entire project area was very low (0–25 percent) due to the gravel surface. Locates had been conducted, marking all utilities in the area. Utilities ran from the northeast corner through the center (running north-south) of the pole yard and throughout the entire northern portion of the pole yard. No cultural materials of an archaeological nature were located during field survey. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 17 Photo 1. Overview of the APE, facing east, showing existing equipment and utilities. Subsurface Testing The locations of the utilities combined with the presence of machinery, equipment, supplies, and two modern sheds located on the property made placement of STPs difficult. Disturbance to the areas appeared to be less toward the edges of the pole yard, so attempts to place STPs in each corner of the yard as well as two in the center of the yard along the east and west fences were made. However, only three STPs were possible due to the previously listed obstructions (Figure 6). All STP depths were measured from the ground surface. STP 1 STP 1 was located along the eastern fence line (Photo 2; see Figure 6). From 0–18 cm, the soil consisted of a 10YR4/1 silty clay with 80–90 percent subangular to angular gravels (crushed gravel and construction fill). From 18–33 cm was a redox layer consisting of 5YR4/2 soils similar to those described for 0–18 cm. Water filtered through the previous layers and pooled on top of the next soil layer, thus causing the redox. From 33–40 cm, the soil consisted of 2.5Y5/2 sandy loam with 80–90 percent gravels; however, unlike previous layers, approximately 75 percent of the gravels contained in this soil were rounded and subround. From 40–62 cm, a 10YR2/2 sandy loam with a larger organic content (likely the native soil for the area) was noted with 75–80 percent round-to-subround gravels. Sediments in this STP were imported gravels and construction fill from 0–40 cm. No cultural materials were located within this STP. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 18 Figure 6. Map showing the results of subsurface testing for the project. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 19 Photo 2. STP 1, facing west. STP 2 STP 2 was located along the southern fence line (Photo 3; see Figure 6). From 0–2 cm, the matrix consisted of a 7.5YR2.5/1 decomposing duff layer. From 2–15 cm, the soil is a loose, 10YR3/3, course sand and loam mixture with 80 percent subround and round gravels. From 18–83 cm is a looser 2.5Y4/3 course sand with approximately 50 percent pebble-sized gravels. This could be part of the Everett series that is mapped in the northwest portion of the project area, but it is likely that it is either construction fill or remnant sand used for a project at some point, as it is incredibly uniform. The STP was terminated because of difficulty removing sediments past this depth due to bowling of the STP as a result of the soil type. No cultural materials were located within this STP. STP 3 STP 3 was located along the western fence line (Photo 4; see Figure 6). From 0–44 cm, the soil is a uniform 7.5YR4/3 sandy clay with a redox lens from 13–19 cm and approximately 35–50 percent round-to-angular gravels throughout. The STP was terminated due to a subsurface asphalt layer located at this depth. No cultural materials (aside from the asphalt) were located within this STP. All three STPs showed fairly deep disturbance of this area between 40 and 83 cm. No cultural resources were located during the subsurface testing of this project. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 20 Photo 3. STP 2, facing south. Photo 4. STP 3 with asphalt visible in the bottom, facing west. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 21 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Tierra’s cultural resources assessment consisted of background review, field investigation, and production of this report. Background review determined the APE to be located in an area of moderate probability for historic properties. Field investigation included pedestrian survey and subsurface inspection. No cultural materials were located during this survey. The DAHP predictive model probability calculations are based on known environmental factors and/or information derived from archaeological research and shows this area as moderate risk for archaeological materials. Given the project area’s location between traditional resource places for the Stillaguamish Tribe it is very likely that this location was utilized by native people both in the precontact and ethnographic periods. During the historic era, this area was likely logged at least once, if not multiple times, and then used as an agricultural field. Much of the surface and near-surface environment has been highly disturbed by modern use as a pole yard since the 1970s. Given the depositional environment and soil type (mostly poorly drained, deep alluvial soils) along with evidence of precontact and historic era use of the surrounding areas, there is a possibility that archaeological materials could be located in this area fairly deep in the soil matrix. Due to the deep alluvial deposits mapped in this area, and to the highly disturbed nature of the project area to the maximum depth of subsurface testing for this project, Tierra recommends archaeological monitoring of all ground- disturbing activities associated with this project that will extend beyond 40 cm. In the event that archaeological materials are encountered during the project, an archaeologist should immediately be notified, and work should be halted in the vicinity of the find until the materials can be inspected and assessed. At that time, the appropriate persons are to be notified of the exact nature and extent of the resource so that measures can be taken to secure them. In the event of inadvertently discovered human remains or indeterminate bones, pursuant to Revised Code of Washington 68.50.645, all work must stop immediately, and law enforcement should be contacted. Any remains should be covered and secured against further disturbance, and communication should be established with local police, the DAHP, and any concerned Tribal agencies. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 22 REFERENCES Blukis Onat, Astrida 1987 Resource Protection Planning Process: Identification of Prehistoric Archaeological Resources in the Northern Puget Sound Study Unit. On file with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservations, Olympia. GLO (Bureau of Land Management, Government Land Office) 2016 Patents and historic Government Land Office maps for Washington and Oregon. Department of the Interior General Land Office. Available at: www.blm.gov. Accessed on September 28, 2016. Carlson, R. L. 1990 Cultural Antecedents. In Northwest Coast, edited by W. P. Suttles, pp. 60–69. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Chatters, James C., Jason B. Cooper, Philippe D. LeTourneau, and Lara C. Rooke 2011 Understanding Olcott: Data Recovery at 45SN28 and 45SN303, Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared for the Snohomish County Department of Public Works by AMEC Earth & Environmental, Bothell, Washington. City of Arlington n.d. The Story of Arlington. Accessed at http://www.arlingtonwa.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=137 7 on 9/28/16. Clague, John J., and Thomas S. James 2002 History and Isostatic Effects of the Last Ice Sheet in Southern British Columbia. In Quaternary Science Reviews 21:71–87. Cooper, Jason B., Tim Gerrish, Tyler McWilliams, and Jillian Hahnlen 2014 Sunset Fish Passage and Energy Project (FERC No. 14295)—Study Plan 10: Final Historic Properties Study Technical Report, Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared for Snohomish County PUD by AMEC Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., Bothell, Washington. Easterbrook, Don J. 2003 Cordilleran Ice Sheet Glaciation of the Puget Lowland and Columbia Plateau and Alpine Glaciation of the North Cascade Range, Washington. In Western Cordillera and Adjacent Areas, edited by T. W. Swanson, pp. 137–157. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado. Franklin, Jerry, and C.T. Dyrness 1988 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-8, Portland, Oregon. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 23 Greengo, R. E. (editor) 1983 Prehistoric Places on the Southern Northwest Coast. Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle. Hulbert, W. G. Jr. 1975 Declaration of Non-Significance of Environmental Impact: Construction of the Arlington Pole Yard. Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Everett, Washington. Interstate Publishing 1906 An Illustrated History of Skagit and Snohomish Counties: Their People, Their Commerce and Their Resources. Interstate Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois. Kauhi, T. C. 2009 Washington Statewide Archaeology Predictive Model. GeoEngineers, Seattle. Lane, Barbara 1973 Anthropological Report on the Identity, Treaty Status and Fisheries of the Stillaguamish Indians. Ethnography on file with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Larsen, Susan C., Ed., P. Arthur, and Camille A. Mather 2016 Archaeological Survey and Evaluation for the Proposed Island Crossing Healing Center, Arlington, Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared for the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians. Prepared by Caldera Archaeology, Bellingham, Washington. Larson, L. L., and D. E. Lewarch (editors) 1995 The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington: 4,000 Years of Hunter-Fisher-Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound. Larson Anthropological and Archaeological Services, Gig Harbor, Washington. Lasmanis, Raymond 1991 The Geology of Washington. Rocks and Minerals 66:262–277. Matson, D. G., and G. Copeland 1995 Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. California Academic Press, San Diego. Meltzer, D. J., and R. C. Dunnell 1987 Fluted Points from the Pacific Northwest. Current Research in the Pleistocene 4:64–66. Metsker, Chas F. 1936 Township 31 North, Range 5 East. Available at: www.historicmapworks.com. Accessed on September 28, 2016. 1960 Township 31 North, Range 5 East. Available at: www.historicmapworks.com. Accessed on September 28, 2016. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 24 MnDOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation) 2013 About Mn/Model. Available at: www.dot.state.mn.us/mnmodel. Accessed on May 20, 2013. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) 2016 Web Soil Survey. Available at: www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed on September 28, 2016. Nelson, C. M. 1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp.481–484. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Porter, S. C., and T. W. Swanson 1998 Radiocarbon Age Constraints on Rates of Advance and Retreat of the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet During the Last Glaciation. Quaternary Research 50:205–213. Riddle, Margaret 2006 Snohomish County—Thumbnail History. Available at: www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=7877. Accessed on May 18, 2014. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians 2014 Our History. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians website. Available at: http://www.stillaguamish.com/aboutus.asp. Accessed on September 28, 2016. Suttles, Wayne, and Barbara Lane 1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 485–502. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Waitt, Richard B. Jr., and Robert M. Thorson 1983 The Cordilleran Ice Sheet in Washington, Idaho, and Montana. In The Late Pleistocene, edited by Stephen Porter, pp. 53–70. Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States, Vol. 1, H. E. Wright, Jr., general editor. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Waterman, T. T. 1922 The Geographical Names Used by the Indians of the Pacific Coast. The Geographical Review. 12:175–194. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2016-092 25        !"# $%&'()*+,++-./012(2345 67"8# $%& 67"8699:: $;;<4= 67"8>?>@>A 'B+,+22CDE F ? 8": 8 G4HI+5J,3K-1 L 8 MN NM O7 2JP+5J,3K-1Q154R/J;K4H @"  ST U 4512,/K25+VJ4/0*+0(5-B1/012(234545+=31235)R4*+ W7X 8 ;  !" F 2P.2,++2Y' Z ? 9 '& Z::X9  M O[: @X: $'G' 6::\89 (/5(<*(K-   $(,K+*] JJ,+11+)(*&+1K,3R2345V5+,Y(H+ V5+,$P45+ ^4535) M F F 2P.2,++2Y'$%<%GG_ E%5J+B+*4R+J &.G.Y `(K(52a(5J ? 8" : 452,(K24,$,3H(,b452(K2$P45+JJ,+11452,(K24,GbR+3K+51+ 3K+51+ ] .54P4H31P4/52b$%& M2P.2,++2 4512,/K2345452,(K24, .D Z8:" 8: &(2+ 51R+K2345GbR+&+1K,3R2345.KP+J/*+J&(2+4HR*+2+J&(2+51R+K24, .2(2/1  D ; <%&Yc Y&.$Yc     78def: &(2++B3+VGbR+&+1K,3R2345113)5+JG4G(,)+2&(2+ .GDG'(,KI(b+1       !"!     !"#$% &'(%)'     !* !* !+ ,(--   .  !* !/0%%* !(%)' Client#: 72336 PELLCONS ACORD DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) TM CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 3/29/2017 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER CONTACT Laurie Ross NAME: Propel Insurance PHONE 800 499-0933 FAX 866 577-1326 (A/C, No, Ext): (A/C, No): Seattle Commercial Insurance E-MAIL laurie.ross@propelinsurance.com ADDRESS: 925 4th Ave, Suite 3200 INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # Seattle, WA 98104 INSURER A : Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance C 23035 INSURED INSURER B : The Ohio Casualty Insurance Com 24074 Pellco Construction Inc. INSURER C : Crum & Forster Specialty Insura 44520 13036 Beverly Park Road INSURER D : Zurich-American Insurance Compa 16535 Mukilteo, WA 98275 INSURER E : Ohio Security Insurance Company 24082 INSURER F : COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR ADDLSUBR POLICY EFF POLICY EXP LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE INSR WVD POLICY NUMBER (MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY X X BKS57569338 01/01/2017 01/01/2018 EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 DAMAGE TO RENTED CLAIMS-MADE X OCCUR PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $100,000 X PD Ded:500 MED EXP (Any one person) $5,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $1,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $2,000,000 PRO- POLICY JECT LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $2,000,000 X OTHER: $ E AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY X X BAA57569338 01/07/2017 01/07/2018 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT 1,000,000 (Ea accident) $ X ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ ALL OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ AUTOS AUTOS NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE X HIRED AUTOS X AUTOS (Per accident) $ $ B X UMBRELLA LIAB X OCCUR X X USO57569338 01/01/2017 01/01/2018 EACH OCCURRENCE $5,000,000 EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $5,000,000 DED X RETENTION$10,000 $ A WORKERS COMPENSATION BKS57569338 01/01/2017 01/01/2018 PER X OTH- AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY STATUTE ER Y / N ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE WA Stop Gap E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $1,000,000 OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? N N / A (Mandatory in NH) E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $1,000,000 If yes, describe under 1,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ C Pollution Liab X X CPL106036 01/01/2017 01/01/2018 Occur/Agg: $2mil/$2mil D Install. Floater CPP023033801 01/01/2017 01/01/2018 Limit: $1,059,340 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) RE: Contract #CW2228659, PWC - Eagle Creek Substation Site Construction (RFP. Doc937810092) Snohomish County PUD No. 1 and City of Arlington is Additional Insured per the attached endorsement. Snohomish County PUD No. 1 and City of Arlington is loss payee as respects their interest is the installation floater. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION Snohomish County PUD No. 1 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN PO Box 1107 ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. Everett, WA 98206-1107 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE © 1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2014/01) 1 of 1 The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD #S2643916/M2627918#S2643916/M2627918 JYA00 This page has been left blank intentionally. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 84 16 12 03 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. GENERAL LIABILITY MASTER PAK PLUS FOR CONSTRUCTION This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART INDEX SUBJECT PAGE BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED (OWNERS, LESSEES, CONTRACTORS OR LESSORS) 2 FIRE, LIGHTNING, EXPLOSION AND SPRINKLER LEAKAGE DAMAGE TO PREMISES YOU RENT 3 NON-OWNED WATERCRAFT 4 SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS (BAIL BONDS) 4 PERSONAL AND ADVERTISING INJURY - ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION EXTENSION 5 AGGREGATE LIMITS (PER LOCATION) 5 AGGREGATE LIMITS (PER PROJECT) 5 VOLUNTARY PROPERTY DAMAGE COVERAGE 6 OFF PREMISES CARE, CUSTODY OR CONTROL COVERAGE 6 NEWLY FORMED OR ACQUIRED ORGANIZATIONS 7 DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF OCCURRENCE, OFFENSE, CLAIM OR SUIT 7 BODILY INJURY (MENTAL ANGUISH) 8 WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS 8 MEDICAL PAYMENTS 8 BROAD NAMED INSURED 8 BROADENED MOBILE EQUIPMENT 8 INCIDENTAL MALPRACTICE LIABILITY 8 NON-OWNED AIRCRAFT 9 PROPERTY DAMAGE - ELEVATORS 9 Includes copyrighted material of ISO Properties, Inc., with its permission. CG 84 16 12 03 ISO Properties, Inc., 2003 Page 1 of 9 1. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED (Owners, Lessees, Contractors or Lessors) (Includes a Primary/Non-Contributory provision) Who Is An Insured - Section II is amended to include as an insured any person or organization whom you are required to name as an additional insured on this policy in a written contract or written agreement. The written contract or written agreement must be currently in effect or becoming effective during the term of this policy and executed prior to the "bodily injury," "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury." The insurance provided the additional insured is limited as follows: A. The person or organization is only an additional insured with respect to liability: 1. Arising out of real property, as described in a written contract or written agreement, that you own, rent, lease or occupy; or 2. Caused in whole or in part by your ongoing operations performed for that insured. The insurance provided the additional insured in 1.A.2. above does not apply to: a. Coverage A - Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability, Coverage B - Personal and Advertising Injury Liability or defense coverage under the Supplementary Payments arising out of an architect's, engineer's or surveyor's rendering of or failure to render any professional services including: (1) The preparing, approving, or failing to prepare or approve maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders, change orders or drawings and specifications; and (2) Supervisory, inspection, architectural or engineering activities. b. "Bodily injury" or "property damage" occurring after: (1) All work, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work, on the project (other than service, maintenance or repairs) were performed by or on behalf of the additional insured(s) at the site where the covered operations have been completed; or (2) That portion of "your work" out of which the injury or damage arises has been put to its intended use by any person or organization other than another contractor or subcontractor engaged in performing operations for a principal as part of the same project. B. The limits of insurance applicable to the additional insured are those specified in a written contract or written agreement or the limits of Insurance as stated in the Declarations of this policy and defined in Section III - Limits Of Insurance of this policy, whichever are less. These limits are inclusive of and not in addition to the limits of insurance available under this policy. C. The insurance provided the additional insured does not apply to the liability resulting from the sole negligence of the additional insured. Includes copyrighted material of ISO Properties, Inc., with its permission. CG 84 16 12 03 ISO Properties, Inc., 2003 Page 2 of 9 D. As respects the coverage provided to the additional insured under this endorsement, Section IV- Conditions is amended as follows: 1. The following is added to Condition 2. Duties In The Event Of Occurrence, Offense, Claim, or Suit: An additional insured under this endorsement will as soon as practicable: a. Give written notice of an "occurrence" or an offense, that may result in a claim or “suit” under this insurance to us; b. Tender the defense and indemnity of any claim or “suit” to all insurers whom also have insurance available to the additional insured; and c. Agree to make available any other insurance which the additional insured has for a loss we cover under this Coverage Part. 2. The following is added to Condition 3. Legal Action Against Us: We have no duty to defend or indemnify an additional insured under this endorsement until we receive written notice of a claim or “suit” from the additional insured. 3. The following is added to Paragraph a., Primary Insurance of Condition 4. Other Insurance: If the additional insured's policy has an Other Insurance provision making its policy excess, and a Named Insured has agreed in a written contract or written agreement to provide the additional insured coverage on a primary and noncontributory basis, this policy shall be primary and we will not seek contribution from the additional insured's policy for damages we cover. 4. The following is added to Paragraph b., Excess Insurance of Condition 4. Other Insurance: Except as provided in Paragraph 4.a. Primary Insurance as amended above, any coverage provided hereunder shall be excess over any other valid and collectible insurance available to the additional insured whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis. In the event an additional insured has other coverage available for an "occurrence" by virtue of also being an additional insured on other policies, this insurance is excess over those other policies. 2. FIRE, LIGHTNING, EXPLOSION AND SPRINKLER LEAKAGE DAMAGE TO PREMISES YOU RENT If Damage To Premises Rented To You under Coverage A is not otherwise excluded from this policy, the following applies: A. The last paragraph of 2. Exclusions of Section I - Coverage A is replaced by the following: If Damage To Premises Rented To You is not otherwise excluded, Exclusions c. through n. do not apply to damage by fire, lightning, "explosion" or sprinkler leakage to premises while rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner. A separate limit of insurance applies to this coverage as described in Section III - Limits Of Insurance. Includes copyrighted material of ISO Properties, Inc., with its permission. CG 84 16 12 03 ISO Properties, Inc., 2003 Page 3 of 9 B. Paragraph 6. of Section III - Limits Of Insurance is replaced by the following: 6. Subject to 5. above, the higher of $300,000 or the Damage To Premises Rented To You Limit shown in the Summary of Limits and Charges section of this policy is the most we will pay under Coverage A for damages because of "property damage" to premises rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with the permission of the owner arising out of any one fire, lightning, "explosion" or sprinkler leakage incident. C. Paragraph b.(1)(b) of Condition 4. Other Insurance (Section IV – Conditions) is replaced by the following: (1) That is Fire, Lightning, Explosion or Sprinkler Leakage insurance for premises rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with the permission of the owner; D. Paragraph 9.a. of the definition of "insured contract" in Section V- Definitions is replaced by the following: 9. "Insured contract" means: a. A contract for the lease of premises. However, that portion of the contract for a lease of premises that indemnifies any person or organization for damages by fire, lightning, "explosion" or sprinkler leakage to premises while rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with the permission of the owner is not an "insured contract"; E. The following definition is added to Section V - Definitions: "Explosion" means a sudden release of expanding pressure accompanied by a noise, a bursting forth of material and evidence of the scattering of debris to locations further than would have resulted by gravity alone. "Explosion" does not include any of the following: 1. Artificially generated electrical current including electrical arcing that disturbs electrical devices, appliances or wires; 2. Rupture or bursting of water pipes; 3. Explosion of steam boilers, steam pipes, steam engines or steam turbines owned or leased by you, or operated under your control; or 4. Rupture or bursting caused by centrifugal force. 3. NON-OWNED WATERCRAFT Subparagraph g.(2) of Paragraph 2., Exclusions of Section I - Coverage A is replaced by the following: (2) A watercraft you do not own that is: (a) Less than 51 feet long; and (b) Not being used to carry persons or property for a charge; 4. SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS In the Supplementary Payments - Coverages A and B provision: The limit for the cost of bail bonds in Paragraph 1.b. is changed from $250 to $1000. Includes copyrighted material of ISO Properties, Inc., with its permission. CG 84 16 12 03 ISO Properties, Inc., 2003 Page 4 of 9 5. PERSONAL AND ADVERTISING INJURY - ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION EXTENSION Paragraphs 14.b., d. and e. of Section V - Definitions are replaced by the following: b. Malicious prosecution or abuse of process; d. Oral, written, televised, videotaped or electronic publication of material that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person's or organization's goods, products or services; e. Oral, written, televised, videotaped or electronic publication of material that violates a person's right of privacy; The following is added to Paragraph 14. "Personal and Advertising Injury" of Section V - Definitions: h. Discrimination or humiliation that results in injury to the feelings or reputation of a natural person, but only if such discrimination or humiliation is: (1) Not done intentionally by or at the direction of: (a) An insured; or (b) Any "executive officer" director, stockholder, partner or member of the insured; and (2) Not directly or indirectly related to the employment, prospective employment or termination of employment of any person or persons by any insured. Subparagraphs b. and c. of 2., Exclusions of Section I - Coverage B - Personal And Advertising Injury Liability are replaced by the following: b. Material Published With Knowledge Of Falsity "Personal and advertising injury" arising out of oral, written, televised, videotaped or electronic publication of material, if done by or at the direction of the insured with knowledge of its falsity; c. Material Published Prior To Policy Period "Personal and advertising injury" arising out of oral, written, televised, videotaped or electronic publication of material whose first publication took place before the beginning of the policy period; 6. AGGREGATE LIMITS OF INSURANCE (PER LOCATION) The General Aggregate Limit under Section III Limits Of Insurance applies separately to each of your "locations" owned by or rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with the permission of the owner. "Location" means premises involving the same or connecting lots, or premises whose connection is interrupted only by a street, roadway, waterway or right-of-way of a railroad. 7. AGGREGATE LIMITS OF INSURANCE (PER PROJECT) The General Aggregate Limit under Section III Limits Of Insurance applies separately to each of your projects away from premises owned by or rented to you. Includes copyrighted material of ISO Properties, Inc., with its permission. CG 84 16 12 03 ISO Properties, Inc., 2003 Page 5 of 9 8. VOLUNTARY PROPERTY DAMAGE COVERAGE At your request, we will pay for "loss" to property of others caused by your business operations. The most we will pay for this coverage is $500 each "occurrence." The "loss" must occur during the policy period. The "occurrence" must take place in the "coverage territory". "Loss" means unintended damage or destruction. "Loss" does not mean disappearance, abstraction or theft. This coverage does not apply to: 1. Damage arising out of the use of any "auto"; 2. Property you own, occupy, rent or lease from others; or 3. Property on your premises for sale, service, repair or storage. None of the other policy exclusions apply to this coverage. If the policy to which this endorsement is attached is written with a property damage liability deductible, the deductible shall apply to Voluntary Property Damage. The limit of coverage stated above shall not be reduced by the amount of this deductible. 9. OFF PREMISES CARE, CUSTODY OR CONTROL COVERAGE A. We will pay those sums that you become legally obligated to pay as damages because of "property damage" to personal property of others while in your or your "employees" care, custody or control or real property of others over which you or your "employees" are exercising physical control if the "property damage" arises out of your business operations. This Coverage is subject to sections B., C., D. and E. below. B. Exclusions This insurance shall not apply to: 1. "Property damage" of property at premises owned, rented, leased, operated or used by you; 2. "Property damage" of property while in transit; 3. The cost of repairing or replacing: (a) Any of your work defectively or incorrectly done by you or by others on your behalf; or (b) Any product manufactured, sold or supplied by you, unless the "property damage" is caused directly by you after delivery of the product or completion of the work and resulting from a subsequent undertaking; or 4. "Property damage" of property caused by or arising out of the "products-completed operations hazard". C. Limits Of Insurance - The most we will pay for "property damage" under this Section 9. is $25,000 for each "occurrence". The most we will pay for the sum of all damages covered under this Section 9. because of "property damage" is an annual aggregate limit of $25,000. The Limits Of Insurance provided under this Section 9. are inclusive of and not in addition to any other limits provided in the policy or endorsements attached to it. D. Deductible - We will not pay for "property damage" in any one "occurrence" until the amount of "property damage" exceeds $250. If the policy to which this endorsement is attached contains a "property damage" deductible, that deductible shall apply if it is greater than $250. E. In the event of "property damage" covered by this endorsement, you shall, if requested by us, replace the property or furnish the labor and materials necessary for repairs thereto at your actual cost, excluding profit or overhead charges. Includes copyrighted material of ISO Properties, Inc., with its permission. CG 84 16 12 03 ISO Properties, Inc., 2003 Page 6 of 9 10. NEWLY FORMED OR ACQUIRED ORGANIZATIONS A. Paragraph 4. of Section II - Who Is An Insured is deleted and replaced by the following: 4. Any business entity acquired by you or incorporated or organized by you under the laws of any individual state of the United States of America over which you maintain majority ownership interest exceeding fifty percent. Such acquired or newly formed organization will qualify as a Named Insured if there is no similar insurance available to that entity. However: a. Coverage under this provision applies only until the expiration of the policy period in which the entity was acquired or incorporated or organized by you. b. Coverage A does not apply to “bodily injury” or “property damage” that occurred before the entity was acquired or incorporated or organized by you. c. Coverage B does not apply to “personal and advertising injury” arising out of an offense committed before the entity was acquired or incorporated or organized by you. d. Records and descriptions of operations must be maintained by the first Named Insured. B. This Section 10. does not apply to newly formed or acquired organizations if coverage is excluded either by provisions of the Coverage Part or by other endorsement(s) attached to it. 11. DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF OCCURRENCE, OFFENSE, CLAIM OR SUIT A. The requirements in Section IV - Conditions, Paragraph 2.a., that you must see to it that we are notified of an "occurrence" applies only when the "occurrence" is known to: 1. You, if you are an individual; 2. A partner, if you are a partnership; 3. A member or manager, if you are a limited liability company; 4. An executive officer or designee, if you are a corporation; 5. A trustee, if you are a trust; or 6. A designee, if you are any other type of organization. B. The requirements in Section IV - Conditions Paragraph 2.b. that you must see to it that we receive written notice of a claim or "suit" will not be considered breached unless the breach occurs after such claim or "suit" is known to: 1. You, if you are an individual; 2. A partner, if you are a partnership; 3. A member or manager if you are a limited liability company; 4. An executive officer or designee, if you are a corporation; 5. A trustee, if you are a trust; or 6. A designee, if you are any other type of organization. Knowledge of an "occurrence," claim or "suit" by the agent, servant or "employee" of any insured shall not in itself constitute knowledge of the insured unless an officer or designee shall have received notice from its agent, servant or "employee". Includes copyrighted material of ISO Properties, Inc., with its permission. CG 84 16 12 03 ISO Properties, Inc., 2003 Page 7 of 9 12. BODILY INJURY Paragraph 3. of the definition of "bodily injury" in the Section V - Definitions is replaced by the following: 3. "Bodily injury" means bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by a person, including mental anguish or death resulting from any of these at any time. 13. WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against any person or organization for whom you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us. This agreement shall not operate directly or indirectly to benefit anyone not named in the agreement. 14. MEDICAL PAYMENTS If Coverage C Medical Payments is not otherwise excluded, the Medical Expense Limit provided by this policy shall be the greater of: A. $10,000; or B. The amount shown in the Declarations. 15. BROAD NAMED INSURED Paragraph 2.a.(1)(d) of Section II - Who Is An Insured is replaced by the following: (d) Arising out of his or her providing or failing to provide professional health care services. However, this exclusion does not apply to nurses, emergency medical technicians or paramedics who are employed by you to provide medical or paramedical services to your employees. 16. BROADENED MOBILE EQUIPMENT Paragraph 12.f.(1) of Section V - Definitions is replaced by the following: (1) Equipment designed primarily for: (a) Snow removal; (b) Road maintenance, but not construction or resurfacing; or (c) Street cleaning provided that vehicles have a Gross Vehicle Weight of 1,000 pounds or greater; 17. INCIDENTAL MALPRACTICE LIABILITY Paragraph 3. of Section V - Definitions is replaced by the following: 3. "Bodily injury" means bodily injury, sickness, disease or "incidental medical malpractice" sustained by a person, including mental anguish or death resulting from any of these at any time. The following is added to Section V - Definitions: 23. "Incidental medical malpractice" means injury arising out of the negligent rendering or failure to render medical or paramedical services to persons by any physician, dentist, nurse, emergency medical technician or paramedic who is employed by you to provide such services to your employees, provided you are not engaged in the business or occupation of providing any services referred to in this definition. Includes copyrighted material of ISO Properties, Inc., with its permission. CG 84 16 12 03 ISO Properties, Inc., 2003 Page 8 of 9 18. NON-OWNED AIRCRAFT The following is added to Subparagraph g. of 2., Exclusions of Section I - Coverage A Bodily Injury And Property Damage Liability: (6) An aircraft with a paid crew, that is hired, chartered or loaned but is not owned by any insured. 19. PROPERTY DAMAGE - ELEVATORS The following is added to Subparagraph j. of 2., Exclusions of Section I - Coverage A Bodily Injury And Property Damage Liability: Paragraphs (3) and (4) of this exclusion do not apply to damages that result from the use of elevators. All other terms and conditions of your policy remain unchanged. Includes copyrighted material of ISO Properties, Inc., with its permission. CG 84 16 12 03 ISO Properties, Inc., 2003 Page 9 of 9 This page has been left blank intentionally. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 85 83 04 13 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASEREAD IT CAREFULLY. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED CONTRACTORS - PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGEPART A. Paragraph 2. under Section II - Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an insured any person or organization whom you have agreed to add as an additional insured in a written contract or written agreement. Such person or organization is an additional insured but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury" or "property damage": 1. Caused by "your work" performed for that additional insured that is the subject of the written contract or written agreement; and 2. Included in the "products-completed operations hazard". However: a) The insurance afforded to such additional insured only applies to the extent permitted by law; and b) If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the insurance afforded to such additional insured will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured The insurance provided by this endorsement applies only if the written contract or written agreement is signed prior to the "bodily injury" or "property damage". We have no duty to defend an additional insured under this endorsement until we receive written notice of a "suit" by the additional insured as required in Paragraph b. of Condition 2. Duties In The Event Of Occurrence, Offense, Claim Or Suit under Section IV - Commercial General Liability Conditions. B. With respect to the insurance provided by this endorsement, the following are added to Paragraph 2. Exclusions under Section I - Coverage A - Bodily Injury And Property Damage Liability: This insurance does not apply to: 160 1. "Bodily injury" or "property damage" that occurs prior to you commencing operations at the of location where such "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs. 2. "Bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, any professional architectural, engineering or surveying services including: 74 a. The preparing, approving or failure to prepare or approve, maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders, change orders or drawing and specifications; and b. Supervisory, inspection, architectural or engineering activities. 2013Liberty Mutual Insurance CG 85 83 04 13 Includescopyrighted material of InsuranceServicesOffice,Inc.,with its permission . Page 1 of 2 C. With respect to the insurance afforded by this endorsement, exclusion l. Damage To Your Work of Paragraph 2. Exclusions under Section I - Coverage A - Bodily Injury And Property Damage Liability is replaced by the following: l. Damage To Your Work "Property damage" to "your work" arising out of it or any part of it and included in the "products- completed operations hazard". D. With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following is added to Section II - Limits of Insurance: If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the most we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the amount of insurance: 1. Required by contract or agreement; or 53347570 2. Available under the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declaration. whichever is less. This endorsement shall not increase the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declaratio ns. E. With respect to the insurance afforded by this endorsement, Section IV - Commercial General Liability 001969 Conditions is amended as follows: 1. The following is added to Paragraph 2. Duties In The Event Of Occurrence, Offense, Claims Or Suit: An additional insured under this endorsement will as soon as practicable: a. Give written notice of an "occurrence" or an offense that may result in a claim or "suit" under this insurance to us; 220 b. Tender the defense and indemnity of any claim or "suit" to all insurers whom also have insurance available to the additional insured; and c. Agree to make available any other insurance which the additional insured has for a loss we cover under this Coverage Part. d. We have no duty to defend or indemnify an additional insured under this endorsement until we receive written notice of a "suit" by the additional insured. 2. Paragraph 4. of Section IV - Commercial General Liability Conditions is amended as follows: a. The following is added to Paragraph a. Primary Insurance: If an additional insured’s policy has an Other Insurance provision making its policy excess, and you have agreed in a written contract or written agreement to provide the additional insured coverage on a primary and noncontributory basis, this policy shall be primary and 160 we will not seek contribution from the additional insured’s policy for damages we cover. of b. The following is added to Paragraph b. ExcessInsurance: When a written contract or written agreement, other than a premises lease, facilities rental 75 contract or agreement, an equipment rental or lease contract or agreement, or permit issued by a state or political subdivision between you and an additional insured does not require this insurance to be primary or primary and non-contributory, this insurance is excess over any other insurance for which the additional insured is designated as a Named Insured. Regardless of the written agreement between you and an additional insured, this insur- ance is excess over any other insurance whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis for which the additional insured has been added as an additional insured on other policies. 2013Liberty Mutual Insurance CG 85 83 04 13 Includescopyrighted material of InsuranceServicesOffice,Inc.,with its permission . Page 2 of 2 COMMERCIAL AUTO CA 88 10 01 10 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE ENHANCEMENT ENDORSEMENT This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM With respect to coverage afforded by this endorsement, the provisions of the policy apply unless modified by the endorsement. COVERAGE INDEX SUBJECT PROVISION NUMBER ADDITIONAL INSURED BY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT OR PERMIT 3 ACCIDENTAL AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT 12 AMENDED DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF ACCIDENT, CLAIM, SUIT OR LOSS 18 AMENDED FELLOW EMPLOYEE EXCLUSION 5 AUDIO, VISUAL AND DATA ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT COVERAGE 13 BROAD FORM INSURED 1 BODILY INJURY REDEFINED 21 EMPLOYEES AS INSUREDS (including employee hired auto) 2 EXTENDED CANCELLATION CONDITION 22 EXTRA EXPENSE – BROADENED COVERAGE 10 GLASS REPAIR – WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE 15 HIRED AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE(including employee hired auto) 6 HIRED AUTO COVERAGE TERRITORY 20 LOAN / LEASE GAP 14 PARKED AUTO COLLISION COVERAGE (WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE) 16 PERSONAL EFFECTS COVERAGE 11 PHYSICAL DAMAGE – ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE COVERAGE 8 RENTAL REIMBURSEMENT 9 SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS 4 TOWING AND LABOR 7 UNINTENTIONAL FAILURE TO DISCLOSE HAZARDS 17 WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US 19 SECTION II – LIABILITY COVERAGE is amended as follows: 1. BROAD FORM INSURED SECTION II – LIABILITY COVERAGE, paragraph A.1. –WHO IS AN INSURED is amended to include the following as an insured: d. Any legally incorporated entity of which you own more than 50 percent of the voting stock during the policy period. However, “insured” does not include any organization that: (1) Is a partnership or joint venture; or (2) Is an insured under any other automobile policy; or (3) Has exhausted its Limit of Insurance under any other automobile policy. Paragraph d. (2) of this provision does not apply to a policy written to apply specifically in excess of this policy. e. Any organization you newly acquire or form, other than a partnership or joint venture, of which you own more than 50 percent of the voting stock. This automatic coverage is afforded only for 180 days from the date of acquisition or formation. However, coverage under this provision does not apply: (1) If there is similar insurance or a self-insured retention plan available to that organization; ©2010 Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved. CA 88 10 01 10 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, with its permission. Page 1 of 7 (2) If the Limits of Insurance of any other insurance policy have been exhausted; or (3) To “bodily injury” or “property damage” that occurred before you acquired or formed the organization. 2. EMPLOYEES AS INSUREDS SECTION II – LIABILITY COVERAGE, paragraph A.1. –WHO IS AN INSURED is amended to include the following as an insured: f. Any “employee” of yours while using a covered “auto” you do not own, hire or borrow but only for acts within the scope of their employment by you. Insurance provided by this endorsement is excess over any other insurance available to any “employee”. g. An “employee” of yours while operating an “auto” hired or borrowed under a written contract or agreement in that “employee’s” name, with your permission, while performing duties related to the conduct of your business and within the scope of their employment. Insurance provided by this endorsement is excess over any other insurance available to the “employee”. 3. ADDITIONAL INSURED BY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT OR PERMIT SECTION II – LIABILITY COVERAGE, paragraph A.1. –WHO IS AN INSURED is amended to include the following as an insured: h. Any person or organization with respect to the operation, maintenance or use of a covered “auto”, provided that you and such person or organization have agreed in a written contract, agreement, or permit issued to you by governmental or public authority, to add such person, or organization, or governmental or public authority to this policy as an “insured”. However, such person or organization is an “insured”: (1) Only with respect to the operation, maintenance or use of a covered “auto”; (2) Only for “bodily injury” or “property damage” caused by an “accident” which takes place after you executed the written contract or agreement, or the permit has been issued to you; and (3) Only for the duration of that contract, agreement or permit 4. SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS SECTION II – LIABILITY COVERAGE, Coverage Extensions, 2.a. Supplementary Payments, paragraphs (2) and (4) are replaced by the following: (2) Up to $3,000 for cost of bail bonds (including bonds for related traffic violations) required because of an “accident” we cover. We do not have to furnish these bonds. (4) All reasonable expenses incurred by the insured at our request, including actual loss of earnings up to $500 a day because of time off from work. 5. AMENDED FELLOW EMPLOYEE EXCLUSION In those jurisdictions where, by law, fellow employees are not entitled to the protection afforded to the employer by the workers compensation exclusivity rule, or similar protection, the following provision is added: SECTION II – LIABILITY, exclusion B.5. FELLOW EMPLOYEE does not apply if the “bodily injury” results from the use of a covered “auto” you own or hire. SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE is amended as follows: 6. HIRED AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE Paragraph A.4. Coverage Extensions of SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, is amended by adding the following: If hired “autos” are covered “autos” for Liability Coverage, and if Comprehensive, Specified Causes of Loss or Collision coverage are provided under the Business Auto Coverage Form for any “auto” you own, then the Physical Damage coverages provided are extended to “autos”: a. You hire, rent or borrow; or ©2010 Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved. CA 88 10 01 10 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, with its permission. Page 2 of 7 b. Your “employee” hires or rents under a written contract or agreement in that “employee’s” name, but only if the damage occurs while the vehicle is being used in the conduct of your business, subject to the following limit and deductible: A. The most we will pay for “loss” in any one “accident” or “loss” is the smallest of: (1) $50,000; or (2) The actual cash value of the damaged or stolen property as of the time of the “loss”; or (3) The cost of repairing or replacing the damaged or stolen property with other property of like kind and quality, minus a deductible. B. The deductible will be equal to the largest deductible applicable to any owned “auto” for that coverage. C. Subject to the limit, deductible and excess provisions described in this provision, we will provide coverage equal to the broadest coverage applicable to any covered “auto” you own. D. Subject to a maximum of $750 per “accident”, we will also cover the actual loss of use of the hired “auto” if it results from an “accident”, you are legally liable and the lessor incurs an actual financial loss. E. This coverage extension does not apply to: (1) Any “auto” that is hired, rented or borrowed with a driver; or (2) Any “auto” that is hired, rented or borrowed from your “employee”. For the purposes of this provision, SECTION V – DEFINITIONS is amended by adding the following: “Total loss” means a “loss” in which the cost of repairs plus the salvage value exceeds the actual cash value. 7. TOWING AND LABOR SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, paragraph A.2. Towing, is amended by the addition of the following: We will pay towing and labor costs incurred, up to the limits shown below, each time a covered “auto” classified and rated as a private passenger type, “light truck” or “medium truck” is disabled: a. For private passenger type vehicles, we will pay up to $50 per disablement. b. For “light trucks”, we will pay up to $50 per disablement. “Light trucks” are trucks that have a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 10,000 pounds or less. c. For “medium trucks” , we will pay up to $150 per disablement. “Medium trucks” are trucks that have a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 10,001 – 20,000 pounds. However, the labor must be performed at the place of disablement. 8. PHYSICAL DAMAGE- ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE COVERAGE Paragraph A.4.a., Coverage Extension of SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, is amended to provide a limit of $50 per day and a maximum limit of $1,500 ©2010 Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved. CA 88 10 01 10 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, with its permission. Page 3 of 7 9. RENTAL REIMBURSEMENT SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, A. COVERAGE, is amended by adding the following: a. We will pay up to $75 per day for rental reimbursement expenses incurred by you for the rental of an “auto” because of “accident” or “loss”, to an “auto” for which we also pay a “loss” under Comprehensive, Specified Causes of Loss or Collision Coverages. We will pay only for those expenses incurred after the first 24 hours following the “accident” or “loss” to the covered “auto.” b. Rental Reimbursement will be based on the rental of a comparable vehicle, which in many cases may be substantially less than $75 per day, and will only be allowed for the period of time it should take to repair or replace the vehicle with reasonable speed and similar quality, up to a maximum of 30 days. c. We will also pay up to $500 for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by you to remove and replace your tools and equipment from the covered “auto”. d. This coverage does not apply unless you have a business necessity that other “autos” available for your use and operation cannot fill. e. If “loss” results from the total theft of a covered “auto” of the private passenger type, we will pay under this coverage only that amount of your rental reimbursement expenses which is not already provided under Paragraph 4. Coverage Extension. f. No deductible applies to this coverage. For the purposes of this endorsement provision, materials and equipment do not include “personal effects” as defined in provision 11. 10. EXTRA EXPENSE - BROADENED COVERAGE Under SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, A. COVERAGE, we will pay for the expense of returning a stolen covered “auto” to you. The maximum amount we will pay is $1,000. 11. PERSONAL EFFECTS COVERAGE A. SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, A. COVERAGE, is amended by adding the following: If you have purchased Comprehensive Coverage on this policy for an “auto” you own and that “auto” is stolen, we will pay, without application of a deductible, up to $600 for “personal effects” stolen with the “auto.” The insurance provided under this provision is excess over any other collectible insurance. B. SECTION V – DEFINITIONS is amended by adding the following: For the purposes of this provision, “personal effects” mean tangible property that is worn or carried by an insured.” “Personal effects” does not include tools, equipment, jewelry, money or securities. 12. ACCIDENTAL AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, B. EXCLUSIONS is amended by adding the following: If you have purchased Comprehensive or Collision Coverage under this policy, the exclusion for “loss” relating to mechanical breakdown does not apply to the accidental discharge of an airbag. Any insurance we provide shall be excess over any other collectible insurance or reimbursement by manufacturer’s warranty. However, we agree to pay any deductible applicable to the other coverage or warranty. 13. AUDIO, VISUAL AND DATA ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT COVERAGE SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, B. EXCLUSIONS, exception paragraph a. to exclusions 4.c. and 4.d. is deleted and replaced with the following: ©2010 Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved. CA 88 10 01 10 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, with its permission. Page 4 of 7 Exclusion 4.c. and 4.d. do not apply to: a. Electronic equipment that receives or transmits audio, visual or data signals, whether or not designed solely for the reproduction of sound, if the equipment is permanently installed in the covered “auto” at the time of the “loss” and such equipment is designed to be solely operated by use of the power from the “auto’s” electrical system, in or upon the covered “auto” and physical damage coverages are provided for the covered “auto”; or If the “loss” occurs solely to audio, visual or data electronic equipment or accessories used with this equipment, then our obligation to pay for, repair, return or replace damaged or stolen property will be reduced by a $100 deductible. 14. LOAN / LEASE GAP COVERAGE A. Paragraph C., LIMIT OF INSURANCE of SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE is amended by adding the following: The most we will pay for a “total loss” to a covered “auto” owned by or leased to you in any one “accident” is the greater of the: 1. Balance due under the terms of the loan or lease to which the damaged covered “auto” is subject at the time of the “loss” less the amount of: a. Overdue payments and financial penalties associated with those payments as of the date of the “loss”, b. Financial penalties imposed under a lease due to high mileage, excessive use or abnormal wear and tear, c. Costs for extended warranties, Credit Life Insurance, Health, Accident or Disability Insurance purchased with the loan or lease, d. Transfer or rollover balances from previous loans or leases, e. Final payment due under a “Balloon Loan”, f. The dollar amount of any unrepaired damage which occurred prior to the “total loss” of a covered “auto”, g. Security deposits not refunded by a lessor, h. All refunds payable or paid to you as a result of the early termination of a lease agreement or as a result of the early termination of any warranty or extended service agreement on a covered “auto”, i. Any amount representing taxes, j. Loan or lease termination fees; or 2. The actual cash value of the damage or stolen property as of the time of the “loss”. An adjustment for depreciation and physical condition will be made in determining the actual cash value at the time of the “loss”. This adjustment is not applicable in Texas. B. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS This coverage applies only to the original loan for which the covered “auto” that incurred the loss serves as collateral, or lease written on the covered “auto” that incurred the loss. C. SECTION V – DEFINTIONS is changed by adding the following: As used in this endorsement provision, the following definitions apply: “Total loss” means a “loss” in which the cost of repairs plus the salvage value exceeds the actual cash value. A “balloon loan” is one with periodic payments that are insufficient to repay the balance over the term of the loan, thereby requiring a large final payment. ©2010 Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved. CA 88 10 01 10 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, with its permission. Page 5 of 7 15. GLASS REPAIR - WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE Paragraph D. Deductible of SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE is amended by the addition of the following: No deductible applies to glass damage if the glass is repaired rather than replaced. 16. PARKED AUTO COLLISION COVERAGE (WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE) Paragraph D. Deductible of SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE is amended by the addition of the following: The deductible does not apply to “loss” caused by collision to such covered “auto” of the private passenger type or light weight truck with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 lbs. or less as defined by the manufacturer as maximum loaded weight the “auto” is designed to carry while it is: a. In the charge of an “insured”; b. Legally parked; and c. Unoccupied. The “loss” must be reported to the police authorities within 24 hours of known damage. The total amount of the damage to the covered “auto” must exceed the deductible shown in the Declarations. This provision does not apply to any “loss” if the covered “auto” is in the charge of any person or organization engaged in the automobile business. SECTION IV – BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS is amended as follows: 17. UNINTENTIONAL FAILURE TO DISCLOSE HAZARDS SECTION IV- BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS, Paragraph B.2. is amended by adding the following: If you unintentionally fail to disclose any hazards, exposures or material facts existing as of the inception date or renewal date of the Business Auto Coverage Form, the coverage afforded by this policy will not be prejudiced. However, you must report the undisclosed hazard of exposure as soon as practicable after its discovery, and we have the right to collect additional premium for any such hazard or exposure. 18. AMENDED DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF ACCIDENT, CLAIM, SUIT, OR LOSS SECTION IV – BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS, paragraph A.2.a. is replaced in its entirety by the following: a. In the event of “accident”, claim, “suit” or “loss”, you must promptly notify us when it is known to: 1. You, if you are an individual; 2. A partner, if you are a partnership; 3. Member, if you are a limited liability company; 4. An executive officer or the “employee” designated by the Named Insured to give such notice, if you are a corporation. To the extent possible, notice to us should include: (1) How, when and where the “accident” or “loss” took place; (2) The “insureds” name and address; and (3) The names and addresses of any injured persons and witnesses. 19. WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US SECTION IV – BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS, paragraph A.5., Transfer of Rights of Recovery Against Others to Us, is amended by the addition of the following: If the person or organization has waived those rights before an “accident” or “loss”, our rights are waived also. ©2010 Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved. CA 88 10 01 10 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, with its permission. Page 6 of 7 20. HIRED AUTO COVERAGE TERRITORY SECTION IV – BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS, paragraph B.7., Policy Period, Coverage Territory, is amended by the addition of the following: f. For “autos” hired 30 days or less, the coverage territory is anywhere in the world, provided that the insured’s responsibility to pay for damages is determined in a “suit”, on the merits, in the United States, the territories and possessions of the United States of America, Puerto Rico or Canada or in a settlement we agree to. This extension of coverage does not apply to an “auto” hired, leased, rented or borrowed with a driver. SECTION V – DEFINITIONS is amended as follows: 21. BODILY INJURY REDEFINED Under SECTION V – DEFINTIONS, definition C. is replaced by the following: “Bodily injury” means physical injury, sickness or disease sustained by a person, including mental anguish, mental injury, shock, fright or death resulting from any of these at any time. COMMMON POLICY CONDITIONS 22. EXTENDED CANCELLATION CONDITION COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS, paragraph A.– CANCELLATION condition applies except as follows: If we cancel for any reason other than nonpayment of premium, we will mail to the first Named Insured written notice of cancellation at least 60 days before the effective date of cancellation. This provision does not apply in those states which require more than 60 days prior notice of cancellation. ©2010 Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved. CA 88 10 01 10 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, with its permission. Page 7 of 7 This page has been left blank intentionally. THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY ADDITIONAL INSURED WITH WAIVER OF SUBROGATION FOR PROJECT OR CONTRACT This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART CONTRACTORS POLLUTION LIABILITY COVERAGE PART ERRORS AND OMISSIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name of Person(s) or Organization(s) Where Required by Written Contract. Designated Project or Contract: Where Required by Written Contract. Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations. A. SECTION III – WHO IS AN INSURED within the Common Provisions is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) indicated in the Schedule shown above, but solely with respect to “claims” caused in whole or in part, by “your work” for that person or organization performed by you, or by those acting on your behalf. This insurance shall be primary and non-contributory, but only in the event of a named insured’s sole negligence. B. We waive any right of recovery we may have against the person(s) or organization(s) indicated in the Schedule shown above because of payments we make for “damages” arising out of “your work” performed under a designated project or contract with that person(s) or organization(s). C. This Endorsement does not reinstate or increase the Limits of Insurance applicable to any “claim” to which the coverage afforded by this Endorsement applies. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE POLICY REMAIN UNCHANGED. EN0117-0211 Page 1 of 1 This page has been left blank intentionally. CU 64 95 12 07 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against any person or organization for whom you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us to the extent that such insurance is provided by a policy listed in the Schedule of Underlying Insurance, and for no broader coverage than is provided by such policy. This endorsement does not change any other provisions of the policy. CU 64 95 12 07 This page has been left blank intentionally. Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 6 Page: 3 of 4 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 4.13.17 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 6 Page: 4 of 4 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 4.13.17 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 7 Page: 3 of 5 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 4.14.17 Typical excavation sidewall showing fill and underlying soft and organic-rich soils 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 7 Page: 4 of 5 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 4.14.17 Pellco backfilling excavation with quarry spalls and chip rock (view to northeast) 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 7 Page: 5 of 5 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 4.14.17 Chip rock placement in east side of excavation 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 8 Page: 3 of 4 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 4.17.17 Placement and compaction of crushed rock fill. View is to the east. 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 8 Page: 4 of 4 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 4.17.17 Placement and compaction of crushed rock fill. View is to the north. 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 9 Page: 2 of 4 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 4.18.17 Based on our visual observations of backfill operations, hand probing, and in-field nuclear density testing, the observed section of structural backfill has been adequately compacted to a firm and unyielding state, in our opinion. Table 1. Summary of Field Density Test Results Test Test Test General Approx. Feet Mat’l Field % No. Date Method Location Elev. to Type Dry Field (ft) Grade Density Moist. (pcf) DT-1 4/18 N See site plan 147 6 1 131.9 7 DT-2 4/18 N See site plan 147 6 1 128 6 RT-2 4/18 N See site plan 147 6 1 132 6.5 DT-3 4/18 N See site plan 147 6 1 129.8 7 RT-3 4/18 N See site plan 147 6 1 132.7 6.3 DT-4 4/18 N See site plan 147 6 1 134.8 6.5 DT-5 4/18 N See site plan 148.5 4.5 1 132 7 DT-6 4/18 N See site plan 148.5 4.5 1 132.5 7 DT-7 4/18 N See site plan 149 4 1 127.9 6 RT-7 4/18 N See site plan 149 4 1 132.5 6 DT-8 4/18 N See site plan 149 4 1 127.4 6.5 RT-8 4/18 N See site plan 149 4 1 134.6 6.5 DT-9 4/18 N See site plan 150 3 1 133 5.5 DT-10 4/18 N See site plan 150 3 1 136 5 DT-11 4/18 N See site plan 151.5 2.5 1 135.7 6 DT-12 4/18 N See site plan 151.5 2.5 1 129.7 6 RT-12 4/18 N See site plan 151.5 2.5 1 132.4 6 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 9 Page: 3 of 4 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 4.18.17 DT = Density Test Material Reference Material Max. Dry Optimum RT = Retest Type Sample # Description Density (pcf) Moisture (%) Imported crushed TEST METHOD 1 surfacing base 041717 course (sandy N = Nuclear (ASTM D 2922) gravel) SC = Sand Cone (ASTM D 1556) Compaction of imported structural fill. View to the southwest. 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 10 Page: 2 of 3 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 4.19.17 Excavation around large boulder. 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 10 Page: 3 of 3 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 4.19.17 Boulder following removal. 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 15 Page: 2 of 2 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 5.5.17 Crew preparing to set Vault V2 above compacted crushed rock. 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 16 Page: 2 of 2 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 5.8.17 Root system and tree trunk removed from conduit trench excavation. 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 17 Page: 2 of 2 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 5.9.17 Pellco repairing interceptor trench above 6-5 conduit trench 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 18 Page: 3 of 3 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 5.10.17 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 4-11, and 4-12 conduit trench above sand bedded 6-5 conduit 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 19 Page: 3 of 4 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 5.11.17 Versatile Drilling with project foreman Rust Remick with Pellco set up to drill pier P2.5 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 19 Page: 4 of 4 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 5.11.17 Drilled shaft with temporary steel casing for pier P2.1 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 20 Page: 3 of 4 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 5.12.17 Versatile Drilling with assistance by Pellco setting temporary steel casing for P1.4 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 20 Page: 4 of 4 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 5.12.17 Water heading drilled shaft for pier P2.2, nested cobble and boulders at roughly 5 to 6 feet bgs 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 25 Page: 2 of 2 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 5.19.17 Cobble layer exposed at CSBC subgrade elevation south side of site 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 Zipper Geo Associates Daily Field Report ZGA Project No.: 1643.01A Daily Field Report No.: 26 Page: 2 of 2 Project: Eagle Creek Substation Date: 5.23.17 Formed and prepared transformer slab S2.2 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D, Lynnwood, WA98036 P (425) 582-9928 F (425) 582-9930 CONCRETE OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1000 Service Date: 05/11/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 05/23/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Rain Samples: (4) 4x8” cylinders On site for inspection of drilled shaft piers P2.1 and P2.5. Reinforcing steel cages and anchor bolts were set per details on sheet S-126-C13. Total of (10) cubic yards of Smokey Point mix #0160A placed by tailgate. One set of (4) 4x8” cylinders was cast for compressive strength testing. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: David Schmutzler Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1000A Service Date: 05/11/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/09/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 05/11/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: David Schmutzler Mix ID: 0160A Weather Conditions: Rain Supplier: Smokey Point Concrete Accumulative Yards: Batch Size (cy): Batch Time: Plant: 603R Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 82833 Water Added Before (gal): Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Drilled shaft piers P2.1 and P2.5. Slump (in): 6 Air Content (%): Concrete Temp. (F): 72 Ambient Temp. (F): 58 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 05/12/17 05/18/17 7 50,320 4,000 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 05/12/17 06/08/17 28 68,210 5,430 2 1 3 3.99 12.5 05/12/17 06/08/17 28 66,940 5,350 2 1 4 4.00 12.57 05/12/17 06/08/17 28 70,220 5,590 2 Average (28 days) 5,460 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: David Schmutzler Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1001 Service Date: 05/12/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 05/23/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Rain Samples: (4) 4x8” cylinders On site for inspection of drilled shaft piers P1.4, P2.3 and P2.4. Reinforcing steel cages and anchor bolts were set per details on sheet S-126-C13. Total of (20) cubic yards of Smokey Point mix #0160A placed by tailgate and mechanically consolidated. One set of (4) 4x8” cylinders was cast for compressive strength testing. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: David Schmutzler Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1001A Service Date: 05/12/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 05/22/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 05/12/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: David Schmutzler Mix ID: 0160A Weather Conditions: Rain Supplier: Smokey Point Concrete Accumulative Yards: 20 Batch Size (cy): 10 Batch Time: Plant: 603R Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 83026 Water Added Before (gal): Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Drilled shaft piers P1.4, P2.3 and Slump (in): 6 1/4 P2.4. Air Content (%): Concrete Temp. (F): 65 Ambient Temp. (F): 57 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): 20.0 Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 05/15/17 05/19/17 7 49,890 3,970 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 05/15/17 06/09/17 28 1 3 4.00 12.57 05/15/17 06/09/17 28 1 4 4.00 12.57 05/15/17 06/09/17 28 Comments: Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: David Schmutzler Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1001A Service Date: 05/12/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/12/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 05/12/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: David Schmutzler Mix ID: 0160A Weather Conditions: Rain Supplier: Smokey Point Concrete Accumulative Yards: 20 Batch Size (cy): 10 Batch Time: Plant: 603R Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 83026 Water Added Before (gal): Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Drilled shaft piers P1.4, P2.3 and Slump (in): 6 1/4 P2.4. Air Content (%): Concrete Temp. (F): 65 Ambient Temp. (F): 57 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): 20.0 Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 05/15/17 05/19/17 7 49,890 3,970 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 05/15/17 06/09/17 28 66,410 5,280 2 1 3 4.00 12.57 05/15/17 06/09/17 28 67,100 5,340 2 1 4 4.00 12.57 05/15/17 06/09/17 28 66,120 5,260 2 Average (28 days) 5,300 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: David Schmutzler Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1002 Service Date: 05/15/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 05/22/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Rain Samples: (4) 4x8” cylinders Monitored and tested placement of (25) cubic yards of Skagit concrete mix #0160A at Piles #P1.3 and P2.3. The concrete was placed by pump and mechanically consolidated. Reinforcing steel was inspected prior to placement and found to be installed according to contract documents. One set of (4) 4x8” concrete cylinders was cast for compressive strength testing. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Carl Reynolds Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1002A Service Date: 05/15/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 05/23/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 05/15/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Carl Reynolds Mix ID: 01608 Weather Conditions: Rain Supplier: Skagit Ready Mix Accumulative Yards: Batch Size (cy): Batch Time: Plant: Arlington Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 83172 Water Added Before (gal): Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Pile #'s P1.3 and P2.3 Slump (in): Air Content (%): Concrete Temp. (F): 63 Ambient Temp. (F): 56 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 05/16/17 05/22/17 7 46,590 3,710 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 05/16/17 06/12/17 28 1 3 4.00 12.57 05/16/17 06/12/17 28 1 4 4.00 12.57 05/16/17 06/12/17 28 Comments: Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Carl Reynolds Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1002A Service Date: 05/15/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/13/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 05/15/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Carl Reynolds Mix ID: 01608 Weather Conditions: Rain Supplier: Skagit Ready Mix Accumulative Yards: Batch Size (cy): Batch Time: Plant: Arlington Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 83172 Water Added Before (gal): Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Pile #'s P1.3 and P2.3 Slump (in): Air Content (%): Concrete Temp. (F): 63 Ambient Temp. (F): 56 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 05/16/17 05/22/17 7 46,590 3,710 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 05/16/17 06/12/17 28 65,160 5,190 2 1 3 4.00 12.57 05/16/17 06/12/17 28 63,280 5,040 2 1 4 4.00 12.57 05/16/17 06/12/17 28 64,690 5,150 2 Average (28 days) 5,120 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Carl Reynolds Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1003 Service Date: 05/16/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 05/23/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 743 Weather: Cloudy Samples: (4) 4x8” cylinders Verified reinforcing steel prior to placement for Pier P2.1 was per contract documents. Observed the placement of approximately (20) cubic yards of Smokey Point concrete mix #0160A (3000 psi required at 28 days) for Pier P2.1. Concrete was placed by concrete pump truck and tremie, and mechanically consolidated. A sample was taken and one set of (4) 4x8” cylinders cast for compressive strength testing. An air content test was performed with a result of 4.7%. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Randal Dohrman Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1003A Service Date: 05/16/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 05/24/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 05/16/17 Sample Time: 1130 Sampled By: Randal Dohrman Mix ID: 0160A Weather Conditions: Cloudy Supplier: Smokey Point Concrete Accumulative Yards: 20 Batch Size (cy): 10 Batch Time: Plant: 603R Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 83385 Water Added Before (gal): Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Pier P2.1 Slump (in): 5 1/2 Air Content (%): 4.7 Concrete Temp. (F): 62 Ambient Temp. (F): 58 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 05/17/17 05/23/17 7 50,020 3,980 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 05/17/17 06/13/17 28 1 3 4.00 12.57 05/17/17 06/13/17 28 1 4 4.00 12.57 05/17/17 06/13/17 28 Comments: Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Randal Dohrman Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1003A Service Date: 05/16/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/14/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 05/16/17 Sample Time: 1130 Sampled By: Randal Dohrman Mix ID: 0160A Weather Conditions: Cloudy Supplier: Smokey Point Concrete Accumulative Yards: 20 Batch Size (cy): 10 Batch Time: Plant: 603R Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 83385 Water Added Before (gal): Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Pier P2.1 Slump (in): 5 1/2 Air Content (%): 4.7 Concrete Temp. (F): 62 Ambient Temp. (F): 58 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 05/17/17 05/23/17 7 50,020 3,980 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 05/17/17 06/13/17 28 64,340 5,120 1 1 3 4.00 12.57 05/17/17 06/13/17 28 65,320 5,200 2 1 4 4.00 12.57 05/17/17 06/13/17 28 63,540 5,060 2 Average (28 days) 5,120 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Randal Dohrman Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1004 Service Date: 05/17/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 05/23/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: N/A Samples: (4) 4x8” cylinders On site for final inspection of P1.2 drilled shaft pier. Reinforcement and anchor bolts set per drawing S-126-C13. Total of (18) cubic yards of Smokey Point mix #0160A placed by boom pump with tremie. One set of (4) 4x8” cylinders was cast for compressive strength testing. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: David Schmutzler Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1004A Service Date: 05/17/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 05/25/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 05/17/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: David Schmutzler Mix ID: 0160A Weather Conditions: Partly Sunny Supplier: Smokey Point Accumulative Yards: 18 Batch Size (cy): 9 Batch Time: Plant: 603R Placement Method: Pump Truck No.: Ticket No.: 83712 Water Added Before (gal): Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Drilled shaft pier P1.2. Slump (in): 7 Air Content (%): Concrete Temp. (F): 62 Ambient Temp. (F): 63 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 05/18/17 05/24/17 7 47,880 3,810 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 05/18/17 06/14/17 28 1 3 4.00 12.57 05/18/17 06/14/17 28 1 4 4.00 12.57 05/18/17 06/14/17 28 Comments: Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: David Schmutzler Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1004A Service Date: 05/17/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/15/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 05/17/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: David Schmutzler Mix ID: 0160A Weather Conditions: Partly Sunny Supplier: Smokey Point Accumulative Yards: 18 Batch Size (cy): 9 Batch Time: Plant: 603R Placement Method: Pump Truck No.: Ticket No.: 83712 Water Added Before (gal): Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Drilled shaft pier P1.2. Slump (in): 7 Air Content (%): Concrete Temp. (F): 62 Ambient Temp. (F): 63 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 05/18/17 05/24/17 7 47,880 3,810 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 05/18/17 06/14/17 28 59,280 4,720 2 1 3 4.00 12.57 05/18/17 06/14/17 28 58,630 4,670 2 1 4 4.02 12.69 05/18/17 06/14/17 28 61,240 4,820 2 Average (28 days) 4,740 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: David Schmutzler Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1005 Service Date: 05/24/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 05/31/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Light rain Samples: (4) 4x8” cylinders Inspected reinforcement for transformer slabs located on Bank 1 east baseline (S2.1) and Bank 2 west baseline (S2.2) shown on page S-126-C12. The reinforcement was inspected for size, grade, lap and spacing per page S-126-C15. Verified final clearances for S2.1. For S2.2 transformer slab, verify secure top mat prior to placement. Observed the placement of (19) cubic yards of CalPortland mix #3310 into transformer slab (S2.1) on Bank 1 east baseline. The concrete was placed by mixer chute and mechanically consolidated. Cast (4) 4x8” cylinders for compressive strength testing (3000 psi required at 28 days). To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Andrew Bontrager Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1005A Service Date: 05/24/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/01/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 05/24/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Andrew Bontrager Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: light Rain Supplier: Calportland Accumulative Yards: 19 Batch Size (cy): 10 Batch Time: 0830 Plant: 261 Placement Method: Chute Truck No.: 7614 Ticket No.: 1615662 Water Added Before (gal): 15 Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Transformer Slab located on Bank 1 Slump (in): 5 1/2 of East Baseline Air Content (%): 4.5 Concrete Temp. (F): 66 Ambient Temp. (F): 50 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 05/25/17 05/31/17 7 57,860 4,600 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 05/25/17 06/21/17 28 1 3 4.00 12.57 05/25/17 06/21/17 28 1 4 4.00 12.57 05/25/17 06/21/17 28 Comments: Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Andrew Bontrager Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1005A Service Date: 05/24/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/22/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 05/24/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Andrew Bontrager Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: light Rain Supplier: Calportland Accumulative Yards: 19 Batch Size (cy): 10 Batch Time: 0830 Plant: 261 Placement Method: Chute Truck No.: 7614 Ticket No.: 1615662 Water Added Before (gal): 15 Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Transformer Slab located on Bank 1 Slump (in): 5 1/2 of East Baseline Air Content (%): 4.5 Concrete Temp. (F): 66 Ambient Temp. (F): 50 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 05/25/17 05/31/17 7 57,860 4,600 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 05/25/17 06/21/17 28 72,310 5,750 2 1 3 4.00 12.57 05/25/17 06/21/17 28 73,740 5,870 2 1 4 4.00 12.57 05/25/17 06/21/17 28 74,970 5,970 2 Average (28 days) 5,860 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Andrew Bontrager Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1006 Service Date: 05/25/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/02/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Partly cloudy Samples: (4) 4x8” cylinders On site for reinforcement inspection on S2.2 transformer slab and concrete placement. Reinforcement was per sheet S-126-C15. Total of (19) cubic yards of CalPortland mix #3310 placed by tailgate and mechanically consolidated. One set of (4) 4x8” cylinders was cast for compressive strength testing. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: David Schmutzler Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1006A Service Date: 05/25/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/02/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 05/25/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: David Schmutzler Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Partly Sunny Supplier: CalPortland Accumulative Yards: 9.5 Batch Size (cy): Batch Time: Plant: 261 Placement Method: tail gate Truck No.: Ticket No.: 1616825 Water Added Before (gal): 10 Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Transformer slab S2.2. Slump (in): 4 1/2 Air Content (%): 4.2 Concrete Temp. (F): 64 Ambient Temp. (F): 59 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 05/26/17 06/01/17 7 53,660 4,270 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 05/26/17 06/22/17 28 1 3 4.00 12.57 05/26/17 06/22/17 28 1 4 4.00 12.57 05/26/17 06/22/17 28 Comments: Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: David Schmutzler Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1006A Service Date: 05/25/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/23/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 05/25/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: David Schmutzler Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Partly Sunny Supplier: CalPortland Accumulative Yards: 9.5 Batch Size (cy): Batch Time: Plant: 261 Placement Method: tail gate Truck No.: Ticket No.: 1616825 Water Added Before (gal): 10 Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Transformer slab S2.2. Slump (in): 4 1/2 Air Content (%): 4.2 Concrete Temp. (F): 64 Ambient Temp. (F): 59 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 05/26/17 06/01/17 7 53,660 4,270 2 1 2 4.01 12.63 05/26/17 06/22/17 28 65,460 5,180 2 1 3 4.00 12.57 05/26/17 06/22/17 28 69,290 5,510 3 1 4 4.00 12.57 05/26/17 06/22/17 28 68,280 5,430 2 Average (28 days) 5,380 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: David Schmutzler Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1007 Service Date: 06/02/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/08/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Sunny Samples: (4) 4x8” cylinders Performed reinforcing steel inspection for the switchgear pad S4.2. Verified the reinforcing steel was placed per approved plan details. Observed the placement of (18) cubic yards of CalPortland concrete mix #3310 (3000 psi at 28 days) for the switchgear pad S4.2 noted above. The concrete was placed by direct discharge and mechanically vibrated for consolidation. A sample was taken and one set of (4) 4x8” cylinders cast for compressive strength testing. An air content test was performed with a result of 5.2%. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Randal Dohrman Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1007A Service Date: 06/02/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/12/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/02/17 Sample Time: 0930 Sampled By: Randal Dohrman Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Clear Supplier: CalPortland Accumulative Yards: 9 Batch Size (cy): 9 Batch Time: Plant: 261 Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 1621735 Water Added Before (gal): 1 Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: S4.2 Switch gear slab. Slump (in): 5 1/2 Air Content (%): 5.2 Concrete Temp. (F): 68 Ambient Temp. (F): 61 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 06/05/17 06/09/17 7 55,140 4,390 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 06/05/17 06/30/17 28 1 3 4.00 12.57 06/05/17 06/30/17 28 1 4 4.00 12.57 06/05/17 06/30/17 28 Comments: Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Randal Dohrman Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1007A Service Date: 06/02/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/03/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/02/17 Sample Time: 0930 Sampled By: Randal Dohrman Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Clear Supplier: CalPortland Accumulative Yards: 9 Batch Size (cy): 9 Batch Time: Plant: 261 Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 1621735 Water Added Before (gal): 1 Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: S4.2 Switch gear slab. Slump (in): 5 1/2 Air Content (%): 5.2 Concrete Temp. (F): 68 Ambient Temp. (F): 61 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 06/05/17 06/09/17 7 55,140 4,390 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 06/05/17 06/30/17 28 70,560 5,610 3 1 3 4.00 12.57 06/05/17 06/30/17 28 70,050 5,570 2 1 4 4.00 12.57 06/05/17 06/30/17 28 70,760 5,630 2 Average (28 days) 5,610 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Randal Dohrman Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1008 Service Date: 06/05/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/09/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Clear Samples: (4) 4x8” cylinders Performed reinforcing steel inspection for the S4.1 switchgear slab. Verified reinforcing was placed per approved plan details. Observed the placement of (17) cubic yards of CalPortland concrete mix #3310 (3000 psi at 28 days) for the S4.1 switchgear slab noted above. The concrete was placed by direct discharge and mechanically vibrated for consolidation. A sample was taken and (4) 4x8” cylinders cast for compressive strength testing. An air content test was performed with a result of 4.2%. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Randal Dohrman Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1008A Service Date: 06/05/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/13/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/05/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Randal Dohrman Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Sunny Supplier: CalPortland Accumulative Yards: 17 Batch Size (cy): 10 Batch Time: Plant: Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 1622649 Water Added Before (gal): Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Switch gear slab (S4.1). Slump (in): 5 1/2 Air Content (%): 4.2 Concrete Temp. (F): 68 Ambient Temp. (F): 65 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 06/06/17 06/12/17 7 58,790 4,680 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 06/06/17 07/03/17 28 1 3 4.00 12.57 06/06/17 07/03/17 28 1 4 4.00 12.57 06/06/17 07/03/17 28 Comments: Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Randal Dohrman Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1008A Service Date: 06/05/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/05/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/05/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Randal Dohrman Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Sunny Supplier: CalPortland Accumulative Yards: 17 Batch Size (cy): 10 Batch Time: Plant: Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 1622649 Water Added Before (gal): Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Switch gear slab (S4.1). Slump (in): 5 1/2 Air Content (%): 4.2 Concrete Temp. (F): 68 Ambient Temp. (F): 65 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 06/06/17 06/12/17 7 58,790 4,680 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 06/06/17 07/03/17 28 64,160 5,110 2 1 3 4.00 12.57 06/06/17 07/03/17 28 72,580 5,780 2 1 4 4.00 12.57 06/06/17 07/03/17 28 70,590 5,620 2 Average (28 days) 5,500 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Randal Dohrman Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1009 Service Date: 06/12/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/16/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Overcast, 55°F Samples: (5) 4x8” cylinders On site to inspect the oil containment curb for the S2.2 (west) structure. The reinforcing was per detail 3/S-126-C15. There were (16) cubic yards of CalPortland mix #3310 placed by chute and mechanically vibrated. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: David Bernier Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1009A Service Date: 06/12/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/20/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/12/17 Sample Time: 1015 Sampled By: David Bernier Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Overcast Supplier: CALPORTLAND Accumulative Yards: 3 Batch Size (cy): 9.5 Batch Time: 0925 Plant: Placement Method: Chute Truck No.: 7665 Ticket No.: 1627447 Water Added Before (gal): 0 Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: West footing Test Result Specification Placement Location: West containment curb. Slump (in): 4 3/4 3 - 5 Air Content (%): 5.7 3.5 - 6.5 Concrete Temp. (F): 65 50 - 90 Ambient Temp. (F): 56 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 A 4.00 12.57 06/13/17 06/19/17 7 56,360 4,480 3 1 B 4.00 12.57 06/13/17 07/10/17 28 1 C 4.00 12.57 06/13/17 07/10/17 28 1 D 4.00 12.57 06/13/17 07/10/17 28 1 E 4.00 12.57 06/13/17 07/10/17 28 Comments: Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: David Bernier Reported To: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1009A Service Date: 06/12/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/11/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/12/17 Sample Time: 1015 Sampled By: David Bernier Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Overcast Supplier: CALPORTLAND Accumulative Yards: 3 Batch Size (cy): 9.5 Batch Time: 0925 Plant: Placement Method: Chute Truck No.: 7665 Ticket No.: 1627447 Water Added Before (gal): 0 Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: West footing Test Result Specification Placement Location: West containment curb. Slump (in): 4 3/4 3 - 5 Air Content (%): 5.7 3.5 - 6.5 Concrete Temp. (F): 65 50 - 90 Ambient Temp. (F): 56 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 A 4.00 12.57 06/13/17 06/19/17 7 56,360 4,480 3 1 B 4.00 12.57 06/13/17 07/10/17 28 73,880 5,880 2 1 C 3.99 12.5 06/13/17 07/10/17 28 73,430 5,870 2 1 D 4.00 12.57 06/13/17 07/10/17 28 74,100 5,900 2 1 E 4.00 12.57 06/13/17 07/10/17 28 73,630 5,860 2 Average (28 days) 5,880 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: David Bernier Reported To: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1010 Service Date: 06/14/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/19/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Overcast Samples: (4) 4x8” cylinders Inspected oil containment curb for Transformer S2.2, shown on attached document. Reinforcement was inspected for size, grade, lap and spacing per detail 3/S-126-C15. Verified final clearances prior to placement. Inspected oil containment slab for Transformer S2.1, shown on attached document. Reinforcement was inspected for size, grade, lap and spacing per detail B/S-126-C15. Verified final clearances prior to placement. Observed the placement of (19) cubic yards of CalPortland mix #3310 into locations noted above. The concrete was placed by chute and mechanically consolidated. Cast (4) 4x8” cylinders for compressive strength testing (3000 psi at 28 days required) for slab only placed at the east and west portion. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Andrew Bontrager Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1010A Service Date: 06/14/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/22/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/14/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Andrew Bontrager Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Overcast Supplier: Calportland Accumulative Yards: 19 Batch Size (cy): 10 Batch Time: 0915 Plant: 261 Placement Method: Chute Truck No.: 5060 Ticket No.: 1629433 Water Added Before (gal): 10 Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Oil Containment curb for Transformer Slump (in): 6 S2.2 and Oil containment slab for Air Content (%): 3.5 transformer S2.1 East and West Concrete Temp. (F): 69 portions Ambient Temp. (F): 62 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 3.99 12.5 06/20/17 06/21/17 7 49,920 3,990 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 06/20/17 07/12/17 28 1 3 4.00 12.57 06/20/17 07/12/17 28 1 4 4.00 12.57 06/20/17 07/12/17 28 Comments: Not tested for plastic unit weight. Sampled 10 of 19 cy with 10 gallons added on site by contractor Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Andrew Bontrager Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1010A Service Date: 06/14/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/13/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/14/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Andrew Bontrager Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Overcast Supplier: Calportland Accumulative Yards: 19 Batch Size (cy): 10 Batch Time: 0915 Plant: 261 Placement Method: Chute Truck No.: 5060 Ticket No.: 1629433 Water Added Before (gal): 10 Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Oil Containment curb for Transformer Slump (in): 6 S2.2 and oil containment slab for Air Content (%): 3.5 transformer S2.1 east and west Concrete Temp. (F): 69 portions Ambient Temp. (F): 62 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 3.99 12.5 06/20/17 06/21/17 7 49,920 3,990 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 06/20/17 07/12/17 28 67,130 5,340 2 1 3 3.98 12.44 06/20/17 07/12/17 28 60,200 4,840 2 1 4 3.99 12.5 06/20/17 07/12/17 28 65,450 5,230 2 Average (28 days) 5,140 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. Sampled 10 of 19 cy with 10 gallons added on site by contractor Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Andrew Bontrager Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1011 Service Date: 06/16/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/23/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Overcast Samples: (4) 4x8” cylinders Inspect reinforcing steel and concrete placement for slabs-on-grade. Inspected reinforcement for (2) sections on the east and west sides of the S3.1 oil containment slab. Verified per detail B/S-126-C15. Inspected reinforcement for (2) stair landings at each of the S4.1 and S4.2 metal clad switchgear slabs. Verified per detail A/S-126-C17. Verified cover, clearance, cleanliness and bar size, grade and spacing. Expansion joint in place prior to the concrete placement. Monitored, tested and sampled the concrete placement of CalPortland mix #3310 from the truck chute with mechanical consolidation. Placed the (6) slabs listed above and cast (4) 4x8” cylinders for compression testing (3000 psi at 28 days required) per General Notes on S-126-C12. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Jesse Kane Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1011A Service Date: 06/16/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/26/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/16/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Jesse Kane Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Overcast Supplier: Cal Portland Accumulative Yards: 6 Batch Size (cy): 6 Batch Time: 1330 Plant: 261 Placement Method: Chute Truck No.: 7212 Ticket No.: 1632035 Water Added Before (gal): 12 Water Added After (gal): Slump After (in): 6.25 Field Test Data Sample Location: Oil Containment slab West section. Test Result Specification Placement Location: Oil Containment slab S3.1, East and Slump (in): 3 West sections; Metal Clad Switchgear Air Content (%): 3.7 S4.1 and S4.2, North and South stair Concrete Temp. (F): 73 landings. Ambient Temp. (F): 63 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 3.99 12.5 06/20/17 06/23/17 7 41,030 3,280 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 06/20/17 07/14/17 28 1 3 4.00 12.57 06/20/17 07/14/17 28 1 4 4.00 12.57 06/20/17 07/14/17 28 Comments: Not tested for plastic unit weight. Initiial cooler temperature - 66 degrees F. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Jesse Kane Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1011A Service Date: 06/16/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/17/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/16/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Jesse Kane Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Overcast Supplier: Cal Portland Accumulative Yards: 6 Batch Size (cy): 6 Batch Time: 1330 Plant: 261 Placement Method: Chute Truck No.: 7212 Ticket No.: 1632035 Water Added Before (gal): 12 Water Added After (gal): Slump After (in): 6.25 Field Test Data Sample Location: Oil Containment slab West section. Test Result Specification Placement Location: Oil Containment slab S3.1, East and Slump (in): 3 West sections; Metal Clad Switchgear Air Content (%): 3.7 S4.1 and S4.2, North and South stair Concrete Temp. (F): 73 landings. Ambient Temp. (F): 63 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 3.99 12.5 06/20/17 06/23/17 7 41,030 3,280 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 06/20/17 07/14/17 28 59,420 4,730 2 1 3 4.00 12.57 06/20/17 07/14/17 28 57,640 4,590 2 1 4 4.00 12.57 06/20/17 07/14/17 28 57,420 4,570 3 Average (28 days) 4,630 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. Initiial cooler temperature - 66 degrees F. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Jesse Kane Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1012 Service Date: 06/19/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/22/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Overcast Samples: (4) 4x8” cylinders Observed the placement of (20) cubic yards of CalPortland mix #3310 into remaining oil containment slabs for S3.1 and S3.2, north and south sections. Reinforcement and expansion joints were per detail B/S-126- C115, final clearances and cleanliness verified prior to placement. Concrete was placed by chute and consolidated. Cast (4) 4x8” cylinders for compressive strength testing (3000 psi at 28 days required). Test results as follows, with (10) gallons of water added on site by contractor: Ambient temperature - 59°F Concrete temperature - 73°F Air content - 3.5% Slump - 6” To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Andrew Bontrager Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1012A Service Date: 06/19/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/27/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/19/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Andrew Bontrager Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Overcast Supplier: Calportland Accumulative Yards: 20 Batch Size (cy): 10 Batch Time: 0814 Plant: 261 Placement Method: Chute Truck No.: 5060 Ticket No.: 1632743 Water Added Before (gal): 10 Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Slab on Grade for North and South Slump (in): 6 slabs of oil Containment slab S3.1 and Air Content (%): 3.5 S3.2 Concrete Temp. (F): 73 Ambient Temp. (F): 59 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 06/20/17 06/26/17 7 49,190 3,910 2 1 2 06/20/17 07/17/17 28 1 3 06/20/17 07/17/17 28 1 4 06/20/17 07/17/17 28 Comments: Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Andrew Bontrager Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1012A Service Date: 06/19/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/18/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/19/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Andrew Bontrager Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Overcast Supplier: Calportland Accumulative Yards: 20 Batch Size (cy): 10 Batch Time: 0814 Plant: 261 Placement Method: Chute Truck No.: 5060 Ticket No.: 1632743 Water Added Before (gal): 10 Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Slab on Grade for North and South Slump (in): 6 slabs of oil Containment slab S3.1 and Air Content (%): 3.5 S3.2 Concrete Temp. (F): 73 Ambient Temp. (F): 59 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 06/20/17 06/26/17 7 49,190 3,910 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 06/20/17 07/17/17 28 66,730 5,310 2 1 3 4.00 12.57 06/20/17 07/17/17 28 63,450 5,050 2 1 4 3.99 12.5 06/20/17 07/17/17 28 65,500 5,240 3 Average (28 days) 5,200 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Andrew Bontrager Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 STRUCTURAL STEEL OBSERVATIONS REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1013 Service Date: 06/20/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/27/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Rain Samples: N/A On site for visual inspection of #4/0 copper CAD welds per drawing S-126-C24, rev. 0. Inspected grounding rods and tails located on west side and southwest side of project outside fence line. A total of (16) ground rod welds and (16) tail CAD welds were inspected and found acceptable. Locations are marked on drawing for identification of inspection. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Mark Vassallo Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 STRUCTURAL STEEL OBSERVATIONS REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1014 Service Date: 06/21/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/27/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Cloudy Samples: N/A Continued visual inspection of #4/0 copper strand wire per drawing S-126-C24. Completed southern 1/3 of grid between Vault 1 and Vault 2 to southern end of fence posts. Cross-over, grounding rods and tail connections are welded per plan. Locations marked on drawing for inspection identification. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Mark Vassallo Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 STRUCTURAL STEEL OBSERVATIONS REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1015 Service Date: 06/22/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/03/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Clear Samples: N/A Visually inspected CAD welding of copper ground wire. Locations were logged onto site map and left on site for future inspections. Welds inspected were found to be acceptable. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Carl Reynolds Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 STRUCTURAL STEEL OBSERVATIONS REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1016 Service Date: 06/23/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/28/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Clear Samples: N/A Continued CAD welding inspection of #4/0 copper grounding wire welds. Inspected cross-over, tail and grounding rod welds between slabs S2, S5, S3 and S6 per Drawing S-126-C24. Welds were inspected and found acceptable, then locations were marked on jobsite drawing. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Mark Vassallo Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 STRUCTURAL STEEL OBSERVATIONS REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1017 Service Date: 06/24/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/28/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Sunny Samples: N/A Continued with CAD welding inspection of the #4/0 copper grounding wire to wire connections and grounding wire to grounding rod connections at the following locations: 1) East of switchgear slab S3 2) East of XFMR slab S2 3) East of strain bus pole The weldments inspected meet Erico Cadweld guidelines for visual acceptance criteria, less one weld connection failed visual acceptance criteria, and was replaced and now found to be acceptable. Using a yellow highlighter, marked locations of weldments inspected and dated them on the master grounding plan S-126-C24. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Todd Wirtz Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1018 Service Date: 06/27/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 06/30/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Cloudy Samples: (5) 4x8” cylinders On site for inspection and placement of the following foundation elements: S1.1, S1.2, F1.08, F1.10, F1.11 and F1.12. Also placed were perimeter security fence curbs from the southeast corner clockwise to the drive gate near the southwest corner, and unreinforced concrete curb along the south, east and west perimeter. Reinforcing steel inspected for grade, size, number, spacing and placement of bars per details A and 1/S-126- C18, details 1, 2, 3/S-126-C14, and detail C/S-126-C10. Monitored placement of approximately (34) cubic yards of CalPortland mix #3310, 3000 psi, via pump truck and consolidated via internal mechanical vibration in the foundation elements. Cast one set of (5) 4x8” laboratory-cure compressive strength specimens. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Stuart Carter Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1018A Service Date: 06/27/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/05/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/27/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Stuart Carter Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Overcast Supplier: CalPortland Accumulative Yards: Batch Size (cy): 10 Batch Time: Plant: 261 Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 1639333 Water Added Before (gal): 8 Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Foundation elements S1.1, S1.2, Slump (in): 7 1/2 F1.08, and F1.10 through F1.12; Air Content (%): 4.3 perimeter security fence curb, and Concrete Temp. (F): 73 unreinforced concrete curb along the Ambient Temp. (F): 58 south, east and west. Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 06/28/17 07/04/17 7 55,680 4,430 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 06/28/17 07/25/17 28 1 3 4.00 12.57 06/28/17 07/25/17 28 1 4 4.00 12.57 06/28/17 07/25/17 28 1 5 4.00 12.57 06/28/17 07/25/17 28 Comments: Not tested for plastic unit weight. 1 gallon of ADVA added on site Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Stuart Carter Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1018A Service Date: 06/27/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/26/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/27/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Stuart Carter Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Overcast Supplier: CalPortland Accumulative Yards: Batch Size (cy): 10 Batch Time: Plant: 261 Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 1639333 Water Added Before (gal): 8 Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Foundation elements S1.1, S1.2, Slump (in): 7 1/2 F1.08, and F1.10 through F1.12; Air Content (%): 4.3 perimeter security fence curb, and Concrete Temp. (F): 73 unreinforced concrete curb along the Ambient Temp. (F): 58 south, east and west. Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 06/28/17 07/04/17 7 55,680 4,430 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 06/28/17 07/25/17 28 72,260 5,750 2 1 3 3.98 12.44 06/28/17 07/25/17 28 68,800 5,530 5 1 4 4.00 12.57 06/28/17 07/25/17 28 68,570 5,460 6 1 5 4.00 12.57 06/28/17 07/25/17 28 72,570 5,770 2 Average (28 days) 5,630 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. 1 gallon of ADVA added on site Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Stuart Carter Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 STRUCTURAL STEEL OBSERVATIONS REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1019 Service Date: 06/28/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/03/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Sunny Samples: N/A Continued with CAD welding inspection of the #4/0 copper grounding wire to wire connections and grounding wire to grounding rod connections at the following locations: 1) Two ground wire to ground wire connections located southeast of the northeast strain pole. 2) One ground wire to ground rod connection off of the northwest corner of the XFMR slab S5. The weldments inspected meet Erico Cadweld guidelines for visual acceptance criteria. Using a green highlighter, marked locations of weldments inspected and dated them on the master grounding plan S-126- C24. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Todd Wirtz Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 STRUCTURAL STEEL OBSERVATIONS REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1020 Service Date: 07/01/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/31/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Sunny Samples: N/A Continued with CAD welding inspection of the #4/0 copper grounding wire to wire connections and grounding wire to grounding rod connections. The weldments inspected meet Erico CAD weld guidelines for visual acceptance criteria. Using a highlighter pen, marked locations of weldments inspected and dated them on the master grounding plan S-126-C24. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Todd Wirtz Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 GENERAL OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1021 Service Date: 06/30/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/07/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: PWD 843 Weather: Clear, 72°F Samples: (4) 4x8” cylinders On site for CAD weld inspections and concrete reinforcement inspection and sampling during concrete placement at the Eagle Creek Substation Arlington. Item 1: Reinforcement Inspected the reinforcement for (6) plinths and footings located between Transformer Slab S2.2 and Switchgear Slab S4.2 as indicated on sheet S126-C12 as F1.6, F1.4 and F1.6 and located between Transformer Slab S2.1 and SW Switchgear Slab S4.1 indicated as F1.5, F1.3, F1.4 on sheet S126-C12. Referencing was per S126-C14 with (8) #6 verticals and #4 ties surrounding verticals as shown on plans. Also inspected the perimeter curb at the site with (2) #4 bars at west, south, east and north fence curb. Reinforcement was per the approved plans. Item 2: Concrete Placement The Pelco crew placed CalPortland concrete mix #3310 at the (6) plinths and perimeter fence curb by pump. A sample was taken during placement for testing at (9.5) of (27.5) cubic yards and a set of (4) 4x8” cylinders was cast for compressive strength testing, 3000-psi requirement. Concrete slump was 5-1/2”, air entrainment 5.2% and temperature 73°F. Item 3: CAD Welds Inspected CAD welds installed this day and (1) ground rod located north side of the XFMR slab S2. CAD welds were acceptable per the CAD weld acceptance criteria and the locations were marked on sheet S126-C24 of both field log copies on site. CAD welds at (33) locations were per details1/C24, 2/C24, 3/C24, from sheet S126-C24. The CAD welds were buried after completion of the inspections. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Robert Emery Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1021A Service Date: 06/30/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/10/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/30/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Robert Emery Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Clear Supplier: CalPortland Accumulative Yards: 9.5 of 27 Batch Size (cy): Batch Time: Plant: 261 Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 1642865 Water Added Before (gal): Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Perimeter fence curbs and (6) plinths Slump (in): 5 1/2 and footings between switch gear Air Content (%): 5.2 slabs and transformer slabs S2.1, Concrete Temp. (F): 73 S2.2. Ambient Temp. (F): 71 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 07/03/17 07/07/17 7 64,410 5,130 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 07/03/17 07/28/17 28 1 3 4.00 12.57 07/03/17 07/28/17 28 1 4 4.00 12.57 07/03/17 07/28/17 28 Comments: Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Robert Emery Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1021A Service Date: 06/30/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/31/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 06/30/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Robert Emery Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Clear Supplier: CalPortland Accumulative Yards: 9.5 of 27 Batch Size (cy): Batch Time: Plant: 261 Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 1642865 Water Added Before (gal): Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Perimeter fence curbs and (6) plinths Slump (in): 5 1/2 and footings between switch gear Air Content (%): 5.2 slabs and transformer slabs S2.1, Concrete Temp. (F): 73 S2.2. Ambient Temp. (F): 71 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 07/03/17 07/07/17 7 64,410 5,130 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 07/03/17 07/28/17 28 83,860 6,670 2 1 3 4.00 12.57 07/03/17 07/28/17 28 81,300 6,470 2 1 4 4.00 12.57 07/03/17 07/28/17 28 81,260 6,470 2 Average (28 days) 6,540 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Robert Emery Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE OBSERVATION REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1022 Service Date: 07/07/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/12/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 425-742-9360 Client Project Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Project No.: M7171227 Permit No.: N/A Weather: Clear, 75°F Samples: N/A On site for CAD weld inspections and reinforcing steel inspection and concrete sampling during concrete placement at the Eagle Creek Substation Arlington. Item 1: Reinforcement Inspected the reinforcement for (2) plinths and footings located between Transformer Slab S2.2 and Transformer Slab S2.1 indicated as F1.13 and F1.14 on sheet S126-C12. Referencing was per S126-C14 with (8) #6 verticals and #4 ties surrounding verticals as shown on plans. North curb, which was mentioned on in report service date 06/30/17, was not placed as anticipated that day. Item 2: Concrete Placement The Pelco crew placed CalPortland concrete mix #3310 by pump at the (2) plinths. A sample was taken during placement at (6) cubic yards and a set of (4) 4x8” cylinders was cast for compressive strength testing, 3000-psi requirement. Concrete slump 5”, air entrainment 5.1%, temperature 73°F. Item 3: CAD Welds Inspected CAD welds installed this day for the north end fence grounding grid tails for each post. CAD welds were acceptable per the CAD weld acceptance criteria and the locations were marked on sheet S126-C24 of both field log copies on site. CAD welds at (20) locations along north fence line were per details 1/C24, 2/C24 and 3/C24 from sheet S126- C24. The CAD welds were buried after completion of the inspections. Note: Several CAD welds by slabs S4, S5 and S2 were inspected, according to the contractor, by Dennis (PUD foreman), but these have not been marked on the field CAD weld log sheet S126-C24. To the best of our knowledge, the items inspected today are in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Robert Emery Reported to: Pellco Construction Company Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, (1) Pellco Construction Company, Reviewed By: __________________________________ Todd Wirtz Rusty Remick (1) Pellco Construction Company, (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, __ Robert Gardner Todd Gordon Tom Hendricks Senior Project Field Manager The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. CT0001, 10-16-13, Rev.10 Page 1 of 1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1022A Service Date: 07/07/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 07/17/17 Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 07/07/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Robert Emery Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Clear Supplier: CalPortland Accumulative Yards: 6 Batch Size (cy): Batch Time: Plant: 261 Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 1646145 Water Added Before (gal): Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Two north side plinths and footings, Slump (in): 5 grids F1.13, F1. between transformer Air Content (%): 5.1 slabs S2.1 and S2.2.14 Concrete Temp. (F): 73 Ambient Temp. (F): 78 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 07/10/17 07/14/17 7 68,740 5,470 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 07/10/17 08/04/17 28 1 3 4.00 12.57 07/10/17 08/04/17 28 1 4 4.00 12.57 07/10/17 08/04/17 28 Comments: Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Robert Emery Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Report Number: M7171227.1022A Service Date: 07/07/17 20225 Cedar Valley Rd Ste 110 Report Date: 08/07/17 Revision 1 - 28-day results Lynnwood, WA 98036-6365 Task: 425-742-9360 Client Project - M7171227 Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Sno Co PUD Eagle Creek Substation Attn: Accounts Payable 8630 212th St NE P.O. Box H Arlington, WA Everett, WA 98206-0055 Permit No.: PWD 843 Material Information Sample Information Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days Sample Date: 07/07/17 Sample Time: Sampled By: Robert Emery Mix ID: 3310 Weather Conditions: Clear Supplier: CalPortland Accumulative Yards: 6 Batch Size (cy): Batch Time: Plant: 261 Placement Method: Truck No.: Ticket No.: 1646145 Water Added Before (gal): Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data Sample Location: Test Result Specification Placement Location: Two north side plinths and footings, Slump (in): 5 grids F1.13, F1. between transformer Air Content (%): 5.1 slabs S2.1 and S2.2.14 Concrete Temp. (F): 73 Ambient Temp. (F): 78 Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf): Yield (Cu. Yds.): Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive Set Specimen Avg Diam. Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type 1 1 4.00 12.57 07/10/17 07/14/17 7 68,740 5,470 2 1 2 4.00 12.57 07/10/17 08/04/17 28 81,380 6,480 2 1 3 4.00 12.57 07/10/17 08/04/17 28 85,620 6,810 2 1 4 4.00 12.57 07/10/17 08/04/17 28 81,680 6,500 2 Average (28 days) 6,600 Initial Cure: Cure Box Final Cure: Moist Room Min Temp: 50 Max Temp: 66 Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength. Not tested for plastic unit weight. Samples Made By: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Services: Special Inspections / Materials Testing Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. Rep.: Robert Emery Reported To: Contractor: Pellco Construction Company Report Distribution: (1) City of Arlington, Luana Peterson (1) HDR Engineering, Inc., John Hart Reviewed By: (1) Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc, Todd Wirtz (1) Pellco Construction Company, Rusty Remick Robert Gardner (1) Pellco Construction Company, Todd Gordon (1) Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Tom Senior Project Field Manager Hendricks Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C39, ASTM C138, ASTM C143, ASTM C172, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064, ASTM C1231 The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. Page 1 of 1 CR0001, 11-16-12, Rev.6 12/29/25, 11:34 AM RE: Eagle Creek Sub - Raelynn Jones - Outlook Outlook RE: Eagle Creek Sub From Nova Heaton <NHeaton@arlingtonwa.gov> Date Tue 3/28/2017 8:23 AM To Hendricks, Tom <TDHendricks@snopud.com>; Launa Peterson <lpeterson@arlingtonwa.gov> Good Morning Tom, I appreciate the ability to look over the plan prior to implementation. Hopefully it won’t be needed as you say. Launa Since I am going on vacation I am going to go ahead and approve the project today and review the dewatering plan when I get back. If they need to implement the dewatering plan before I get back Marc will have to review it. Thank you so much, Nova From: Hendricks, Tom [mailto:TDHendricks@snopud.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 4:49 PM To: Launa Peterson <lpeterson@arlingtonwa.gov> Cc: Nova Heaton <NHeaton@arlingtonwa.gov> Subject: RE: Eagle Creek Sub Hello Launa, Currently, the SWPPP document pages 12 & 13 has a section 3.1.10 Element #10 – Control Dewatering that discusses dewatering. This section’s second to the last sentence should have been written more clearly in stating something like the following: If such dewatering is required, water will either be discharged to the peat excavation or if dewatering is still necessary the water shall be pumped to pre-manufactured filter tanks (such as a Baker Tank) and released to the interceptor swale that flows to the level spreader discharge. If this means of discharge is unacceptable, the filtered water would be pumped into a tanker truck and discharged at an approved dump site. Then this section refers to the geotechnical report pages 12 & 15 for more information, as follows: Page 12 - The excavation will extend below groundwater, so the need for dewatering should be expected, as is discussed subsequently. (We selected the 4” – 8” quarry spalls to allow backfilling into water with a material that when placed would yield a large void space to accommodate a fairly large volume of water, and hoping for less water than the wettest months of the year would provide.) Page 15 – The contractor should be responsible for preparing a dewatering plan and provide it to the District for review prior to implementation. Originally we decided to not require dewatering as part of the bid proposal, hoping it would not be necessary; but if it was needed at that time request a dewatering plan from the site contractor for review prior to implementation. After your request below, I now see a flaw in our original logic and realize this dewatering plan really needs to have been reviewed and be in place prior to actually needing it. As a result, I have already contacted the site contractor and asked them to submit a dewatering plan as soon as possible. Hopefully I will be sending it to you tomorrow or at the latest on Wednesday. about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane4 1/2 12/29/25, 11:34 AM RE: Eagle Creek Sub - Raelynn Jones - Outlook In my opinion the basic plan for dewatering will be basically as outlined above in bold letters, but since the site contractor will be responsible for the TESC of the site I need their input. Have a great day, Tom Hendricks, P.E. Substation Engineering Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County (425)783-5022 or Fax (425)267-6224 tdhendricks@snopud.com From: Launa Peterson [mailto:lpeterson@arlingtonwa.gov] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 2:08 PM To: Hendricks, Tom <TDHendricks@snopud.com> Cc: Nova Heaton <NHeaton@arlingtonwa.gov> Subject: Eagle Creek Sub CAUTION: THIS EMAIL IS FROM AN EXTERNAL SENDER. Do not click on links or open attachments if the sender is unknown or the email is suspect. Tom, There is a question about dewatering on the Eagle Creek Substation Project. The proposed excavation will most likely encounter water, do you have a dewatering plan? Launa Peterson, CPT Permit Technician City of Arlington 18204 59th Avenue NE Arlington, WA 98223 (located inside the Airport Office Building) 360-403-3551 ced@arlingtonwa.gov The Arlington / Darrington community has been selected as a finalist in the nationwide America’s Best Communities competition. Read more here, and like our ABC Facebook page about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane4 2/2 CESCL CERTIFIED This card certifies that Rusty Remick ID #TIG-111516-3 has completed: CESCL Training in accordance with WA State Ecology and Federal environmental standards. Issue date: 11/15/2016 Expires 3 years after issue The originators of Safety, Production, Qualityâ„¢ Specializing in comprehensive management and training in safety, health, and environmental needs. www.theintegratedgroup.com 425-822-8500 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan For Eagle Creek Substation Prepared For Public Utility District #1 of Snohomish County (SnoPUD) 1802 75th Street SW, Everett, WA 98203 425‐783‐5022 Owner Developer Operator/Contractor Snohomish PUD Snohomish PUD Snohomish PUD 1802 75th Street SW, 1802 75th Street SW, 1802 75th Street SW, Everett, WA 98203 Everett, WA 98203 Everett, WA 98203 Project Site Location Eagle Creek Substation 8630 212th St NE Arlington, WA 98203 Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead Pending SWPPP Prepared By David Harmsen, PE Harmsen & Associates, Inc 840 SE 8th Avenue Monroe, WA 98272 360‐794‐7811 SWPPP Preparation Date 10/18/16 Approximate Project Construction Dates Start Date: 3‐27‐17 End Date: 7‐30‐17 i Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Site Description 3 2.1 Existing Conditions 3 2.2 Proposed Construction Activities 3 3.0 Construction Stormwater BMPs 5 3.1 The 12 BMP Elements 5 3.1.1 Element #1 – Mark Clearing Limits 5 3.1.2 Element #2 – Establish Construction Access 5 3.1.3 Element #3 – Control Flow Rates 6 3.1.4 Element #4 – Install Sediment Controls 7 3.1.5 Element #5 – Stabilize Soils 8 3.1.6 Element #6 – Protect Slopes 10 3.1.7 Element #7 – Protect Drain Inlets 11 3.1.8 Element #8 – Stabilize Channels and Outlets 11 3.1.9 Element #9 – Control Pollutants 12 3.1.10 Element #10 – Control Dewatering 13 3.1.11 Element #11 – Maintain BMPs 13 3.1.12 Element #12 – Manage the Project 13 3.1.13 Element #13 – Protect LID BMPs 13 3.2 Site Specific BMPs 17 3.3 Additional Advanced BMPs 17 4.0 Construction Phasing and BMP Implementation 19 5.0 Pollution Prevention Team 21 5.1 Roles and Responsibilities 21 5.2 Team Members 22 6.0 Site Inspections and Monitoring 23 6.1 Site Inspection 23 6.1.1 Site Inspection Frequency 24 6.1.2 Site Inspection Documentation 24 6.2 Stormwater Quality Monitoring 24 6.2.1 Turbidity Sampling 24 6.2.2 pH Sampling 25 7.0 Reporting and Recordkeeping 27 ii 7.1 Recordkeeping 27 7.1.1 Site Log Book 27 7.1.2 Records Retention 27 7.1.3 Access to Plans and Records 27 7.1.4 Updating the SWPPP 27 7.2 Reporting 28 7.2.1 Discharge Monitoring Reports 28 7.2.2 Notification of Noncompliance 28 7.2.3 Permit Application and Changes 28 Appendix A Site plans  Vicinity map (with all discharge points)  Site plan with TESC measures Appendix B Construction BMPs  Copies of selected BMP’s. Appendix C Alternative Construction BMP list  List of BMPs not selected, but can be referenced if needed in each of the 12 elements Appendix D General Permit Appendix E Site Log and Inspection Forms Appendix F Engineering Calculations  Flows, ponds, etc… iii Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 1.0 Introduction This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared as part of the NPDES stormwater permit requirements for the Eagle Creek Substation located at 8630 212th St NE, Arlington. It lies to the southwest of the intersection of 212th St NE and 87th Ave NE. The site is a 1‐acre parcel that currently contains the PUD Arlington Pole Yard. The proposed development consists of the removal of the pole yard and its replacement with a new substation. Construction activities will include grading, erosion control and the installation of drainage features. The purpose of this SWPPP is to describe the proposed construction activities and all temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures, pollution prevention measures, inspection/monitoring activities, and recordkeeping that will be implemented during the proposed construction project. The objectives of the SWPPP are to: 1. Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and sedimentation, and to identify, reduce, eliminate or prevent stormwater contamination and water pollution from construction activity. 2. Prevent violations of surface water quality, ground water quality, or sediment management standards. 3. Prevent, during the construction phase, adverse water quality impacts including impacts on beneficial uses of the receiving water by controlling peak flow rates and volumes of stormwater runoff at the Permittee’s outfalls and downstream of the outfalls. This SWPPP was prepared using the Ecology SWPPP Template downloaded from the Ecology website on May 20, 2014. This SWPPP was prepared based on the requirements set forth in the Construction Stormwater General Permit, Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW 2012/14). The report is divided into seven main sections with several appendices that include stormwater related reference materials. The topics presented in the each of the main sections are:  Section 1 – INTRODUCTION. This section provides a summary description of the project, and the organization of the SWPPP document.  Section 2 – SITE DESCRIPTION. This section provides a detailed description of the existing site conditions, proposed construction activities, and calculated stormwater flow rates for existing conditions and post–construction conditions. 1 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan  Section 3 – CONSTRUCTION BMPs. This section provides a detailed description of the BMPs to be implemented based on the 12 required elements of the SWPPP (SWMMEW 2004).  Section 4 – CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND BMP IMPLEMENTATION. This section provides a description of the timing of the BMP implementation in relation to the project schedule.  Section 5 – POLLUTION PREVENTION TEAM. This section identifies the appropriate contact names (emergency and non‐emergency), monitoring personnel, and the onsite temporary erosion and sedimentation control inspector  Section 6 – INSPECTION AND MONITORING. This section provides a description of the inspection and monitoring requirements such as the parameters of concern to be monitored, sample locations, sample frequencies, and sampling methods for all stormwater discharge locations from the site.  Section 7 – RECORDKEEPING. This section describes the requirements for documentation of the BMP implementation, site inspections, monitoring results, and changes to the implementation of certain BMPs due to site factors experienced during construction. Supporting documentation and standard forms are provided in the following Appendices: Appendix A – Site plans Appendix B – Construction BMPs Appendix C – Alternative Construction BMP list Appendix D – General Permit Appendix E – Site Log and Inspection Forms Appendix F – Engineering Calculations 2 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 2.0 Site Description 2.1 Existing Conditions The site is located to the south of 212th St NE in the City of Arlington. Eagle Creek lies with the east with buffers that extend onto the site. The ground cover on the site is almost fully gravel surfacing with some areas of weeds along the edges. Equipment and power poles are stored on the site and there are two portable storage structures. Grades generally descend from northwest to southeast and east with the local high elevation of 158 at the northwest corner and the low of 150 at the southeast corner and running half way up the east line. Typical slopes range from 2‐10%, there are no natural slopes left on the site. There are no existing storm structures as all flow sheet flows to the east and southeast, discharging into Eagle Creek. A review of the Department of Ecology 303d listings indicates no local water quality issues. Adjacent to the south is a single family residence, to the east is Eagle Creek, to the west is a power right of way, and to the north is 212th Street NE. Upstream runoff will be discharged to the east while on‐site runoff is proposed to be infiltrated. The site will have no impact on adjacent properties. There are no erosion or slope hazards associated with the project. Zipper Geo Associates, LLC has prepared a geotechnical report for the site titled Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Eagle Creek Substation dated September 15, 2016. To the northwest, their borings and test pits encountered fill lying over outwash material that lies over till. In the southeast, they encountered a large area of peat overlying till at depth. 2.2 Proposed Construction Activities The proposal is to construct a substation on the site with two transformers. Upstream flow will bypass the development and be discharged to the wetland buffer to the east over a level spreader. On‐site runoff will be infiltrated through the substation gravel surfacing. In general, the site will slope from northwest to southeast with an asphalt apron providing access to the site from the north and a gravel access from the existing gravel driveway to the west. The site will be enclosed in a security fence. Construction activities will include site preparation, TESC installation, grading, and storm drainage appurtenances, utility installation, paving and landscaping. The schedule and phasing of BMPs during construction is provided in Section 4.0. 3 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan The following summarizes details regarding site areas:  Total site area: 1.00 acre  Percent impervious area before construction: 87%  Percent impervious area after construction: 64%  Disturbed area during construction: 0.95 acres  Disturbed area that is characterized as impervious (i.e., access roads, staging, parking): 0.67 acres  2‐year stormwater runoff peak flow prior to construction (existing): 0.31 cfs  10‐year stormwater runoff peak flow prior to construction (existing): 0.50 cfs  2‐year stormwater runoff peak flow during construction: 0.31 cfs  10‐year stormwater runoff peak flow during construction: 0.51 cfs  2‐year stormwater runoff peak flow after construction: 0.0 cfs  10‐year stormwater runoff peak flow after construction: 0.0 cfs All stormwater flow calculations are provided in Appendix F. 4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3.0 Construction Stormwater BMPs 3.1 The 12 BMP Elements 3.1.1 Element #1 – Mark Clearing Limits To protect adjacent properties and to reduce the area of soil exposed to construction, the limits of construction will be clearly marked before land‐disturbing activities begin. The site is largely developed as a gravel pad without native vegetation to protect. The BMPs relevant to marking the clearing limits that will be applied for this project include: ï‚· Preserving Natural Vegetation (BMP C101) ï‚· High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP C103) Preserving Natural Vegetation (BMP C101) This BMP will be implemented immediately after mobilization and prior to any grading or clearing activities. The purpose will be to prevent disturbance of areas outside the construction zone. These areas will be marked per BMP 103. High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP C103) This BMP will be implemented prior to clearing and grading. This will provide the protection for Preserving Natural Vegetation, as well as provide site security. Alternate BMPs for marking clearing limits are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.2 Element #2 – Establish Construction Access Construction access or activities occurring on unpaved areas shall be minimized, yet where necessary, access points shall be stabilized to minimize the tracking of sediment onto public roads, and street sweeping, and street cleaning shall be employed to prevent sediment from entering state waters. All wash wastewater shall be controlled on site. The specific BMPs related to establishing construction access that will be used on this project include: ï‚· Stabilized Construction Entrance (BMP C105) ï‚· Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization (BMP C107) 5 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Stabilized Construction Entrance (BMP C105) A construction entrance will be placed at the current access from 212th St NE. Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization (BMP C107) On‐site haul routes and staging areas will be stabilized with crushed rock. Alternate construction access BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.3 Element #3 – Control Flow Rates In order to protect the properties and waterways downstream of the project site, stormwater discharges from the site will be controlled. The specific BMPs for flow control that shall be used on this project include: Temporary Excavation The southeastern portion of the site is underlain by peat to a depth of 10‐15 feet. This material will need to be excavated and then backfilled with riprap. The excavation will cover the entire southeast corner of the site and will ultimately be backfilled with quarry spalls. During construction, storm water will flow into this excavation and ultimately infiltrate into the groundwater. No other sedimentation settling facility is proposed. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, the project must comply with Minimum Requirement 7 (Ecology 2005). The temporary excavation will provide this protection through the initial stages of construction. Alternate flow control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 6 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3.1.4 Element #4 – Install Sediment Controls All stormwater runoff from disturbed areas shall pass through an appropriate sediment removal BMP before leaving the construction site. The specific BMPs to be used for controlling sediment on this project include: ï‚· Silt Fence ï‚· Temporary Pond Silt Fence Silt fence will be placed along the east boundary of disturbance. Temporary Excavation The excavation will occur early in the construction following site demolition of the existing pole yard. Alternate sediment control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. In addition, sediment will be removed from paved areas in and adjacent to construction work areas manually or using mechanical sweepers, as needed, to minimize tracking of sediments on vehicle tires away from the site and to minimize washoff of sediments from adjacent streets in runoff. Whenever possible, sediment laden water shall be discharged into onsite, relatively level, vegetated areas (BMP C240 paragraph 5, page 4‐102). In some cases, sediment discharge in concentrated runoff can be controlled using permanent stormwater BMPs (e.g., infiltration swales, ponds, trenches). Sediment loads can limit the effectiveness of some permanent stormwater BMPs, such as those used for infiltration or biofiltration; however, those BMPs designed to remove solids by settling (wet ponds or detention ponds) can be used during the construction phase. When permanent stormwater BMPs will be used to control sediment discharge during construction, the structure will be protected from excessive sedimentation with adequate erosion and sediment control BMPs. Any accumulated sediment shall be removed after construction is complete and the permanent stormwater BMP will be restabilized with vegetation per applicable design requirements once the remainder of the site has been stabilized. 7 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3.1.5 Element #5 – Stabilize Soils Exposed and unworked soils shall be stabilized with the application of effective BMPs to prevent erosion throughout the life of the project. The specific BMPs for soil stabilization that shall be used on this project include: ï‚· Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120) ï‚· Mulching (BMP C121) ï‚· Plastic Covering (BMP C123) ï‚· Topsoiling (BMP C125) ï‚· Dust Control (BMP C140) ï‚· Construction Road Stabilization (BMP C107) ï‚· Materials on Hand (BMP C150). Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120) Temporary seeding will be used on those areas disturbed but not completed or for areas brought to final grades that are not ready for the permanent seeding. The construction documents indicate a seeding mix. Permanent seeding will follow the requirements of the final planting plan and specifications. Mulching (BMP C121) (compost) Placed in support of the temporary seeding (BMP C120) and used as a temporary cover. The compost proposed can then be tilled into the surface in preparation of Permanent Seeding. Plastic Covering (BMP C123) Proposed for immediate stabilization of threatened areas and for stockpiles. Provide sand bags and rope to anchor plastic. Topsoiling (BMP C125) Stockpile topsoil for use in support of permanent vegetation according to landscape specifications and BMP T5.13. Dust Control (BMP C140) Depending on weather conditions, surface protections such as mulching and surface watering will control the wind transport of sediment. Timing of this BMP is weather dependent throughout the construction process. Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization (BMP C107) On‐site haul routes will be stabilized with crushed rock. Materials on Hand (BMP C150) Due to construction activity occurring during the wet season (October through March) the contractor shall stockpile additional erosion 8 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan control material on site. Offsite stockpiling is allowed if the location is within one (1) hour from the construction area. A list of materials to stockpile on‐site follows: Clear Plastic (6mil) 2 ‐ 100 ft rolls Drain pipe (8” diameter) 6 ‐ 20’ sections Sandbags (filled) 15 Straw Bales 20 (20 lb min.) Quarry Spalls 4 ton Geotextile Fabric 2 ‐ 100 ft rolls Catch Basin Inserts 24 Steel T Posts 50 Alternate soil stabilization BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. In general, cut and fill slopes will be stabilized as soon as possible and soil stockpiles will be temporarily covered with plastic sheeting. All stockpiled soils shall be stabilized from erosion, protected with sediment trapping measures, and where possible, be located away from storm drain inlets, waterways, and drainage channels. 3.1.6 Element #6 – Protect Slopes All cut and fill slopes will be designed, constructed, and protected in a manner that minimizes erosion. The site will not contain slopes steeper than 3:1. The following specific BMPs will be used to protect slopes for this project: Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120) Temporary seeding will be used on those areas disturbed but not completed or for areas brought to final grades that are not ready for the permanent seeding. The construction documents indicate a seeding mix. Permanent seeding will follow the requirements of the final planting plan and specifications. 9 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Mulching (BMP C121) (compost) Placed in support of the temporary seeding (BMP C120) and used as a temporary cover. The compost proposed can then be tilled into the surface in preparation of Permanent Seeding. Alternate slope protection BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.7 Element #7 – Protect Drain Inlets ï‚· Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220) Storm Drain Inlet Protect (BMP C220) Place catchbasin inserts into existing inlets in 212th St NE that are downstream of the site access and in new inlets on‐site as they are constructed. See plan detail. If the BMP options listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D), or if no BMPs are listed above but deemed necessary during construction, the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall implement one or more of the alternative BMP inlet protection options listed in Appendix C. 3.1.8 Element #8 – Stabilize Channels and Outlets Where site runoff is to be conveyed in channels efforts will be taken to prevent downstream erosion. The specific BMPs for channel and outlet stabilization that shall be used on this project include: ï‚· Grass‐Lined Swales (BMP C201) ï‚· Check Dams (BMP C207) ï‚· Outlet Protection (BMP C209) Grass‐Lined Swales (BMP C201) Channels with slopes less than 5% shall be grass lined either by seeding or sod. Check Dams (BMP C207) Checkdams will be placed in the channels to reduce velocities. They are detailed and located on the plans. They will be installed with the channels. 10 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Outlet Protection (BMP C209) All pipe outlets to open channels will discharge to rock pads as detailed and located on the plans. These pads will be installed at the time of the pipe installation. Alternate channel and outlet stabilization BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.9 Element #9 – Control Pollutants All pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, that occur onsite shall be handled and disposed of in a manner that does not cause contamination of stormwater. Good housekeeping and preventative measures will be taken to ensure that the site will be kept clean, well organized, and free of debris. If required, BMPs to be implemented to control specific sources of pollutants are discussed below. Vehicles, construction equipment, and/or petroleum product storage/dispensing:  All vehicles, equipment, and petroleum product storage/dispensing areas will be inspected regularly to detect any leaks or spills, and to identify maintenance needs to prevent leaks or spills.  On‐site fueling tanks and petroleum product storage containers shall include secondary containment.  Spill prevention measures, such as drip pans, will be used when conducting maintenance and repair of vehicles or equipment.  In order to perform emergency repairs on site, temporary plastic will be placed beneath and, if raining, over the vehicle.  Contaminated surfaces shall be cleaned immediately following any discharge or spill incident. Chemical storage:  Any chemicals stored in the construction areas will conform to the appropriate source control BMPs listed in Volume IV of the Ecology stormwater manual. In Western WA, all chemicals shall have cover, 11 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan containment, and protection provided on site, per BMP C153 for Material Delivery, Storage and Containment in SWMMWW 2005  Application of agricultural chemicals, including fertilizers and pesticides, shall be conducted in a manner and at application rates that will not result in loss of chemical to stormwater runoff. Manufacturers’ recommendations for application procedures and rates shall be followed. Demolition:  Process water and slurry resulting from sawcutting and surfacing operations will be prevented from entering the waters of the State by implementing Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention measures (BMP C152). Concrete and grout:  Process water and slurry resulting from concrete work will be prevented from entering the waters of the State by implementing Concrete Handling measures (BMP C151). See plan notes for additional details. Sanitary wastewater:  Portable sanitation facilities will be firmly secured, regularly maintained, and emptied when necessary. Solid Waste:  Solid waste will be stored in secure, clearly marked containers. Other:  Other BMPs will be administered as necessary to address any additional pollutant sources on site. The facility will not require a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan under the Federal regulations of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Petroleum based products stored on site shall be covered from rainfall, limited to 1,000 gallons total of all products, and have spill containment measures immediately available and stored at the same location on site as the petroleum based products. 3.1.10 Element #10 – Control Dewatering The peat excavation will occur under the groundwater surface but any water excavated with the material will be discharged back into the excavation. Site grading and utilities are not 12 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan expected to need dewatering. If such dewatering is required, water will either be discharged to the peat excavation or, once the peat excavation is backfilled, pumped to pre‐manufactured filter tanks and released via the level spreader (BMP C206). See geotechnical report from Zipper Geo Associates pages 12 and 15 for more information. 3.1.11 Element #11 – Maintain BMPs All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Maintenance and repair shall be conducted in accordance with each particular BMPs specifications (attached). Visual monitoring of the BMPs will be conducted at least once every calendar week and within 24 hours of any stormwater or non‐stormwater discharge from the site. If the site becomes inactive, and is temporarily stabilized, the inspection frequency will be reduced to once every month. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be removed within 30 days after the final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary BMPs are no longer needed. Trapped sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil resulting from removal of BMPs or vegetation shall be permanently stabilized. 3.1.12 Element #12 – Manage the Project Erosion and sediment control BMPs for this project have been designed based on the following principles:  Design the project to fit the existing topography, soils, and drainage patterns.  Emphasize erosion control rather than sediment control.  Minimize the extent and duration of the area exposed.  Keep runoff velocities low.  Retain sediment on site.  Thoroughly monitor site and maintain all ESC measures.  Schedule major earthwork during the dry season. In addition, project management will incorporate the key components listed below: As this project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest, the project will be managed according to the following key project components: 13 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Phasing of Construction  The construction project is being phased to the extent practicable in order to prevent soil erosion, and, to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment from the site during construction.  Revegetation of exposed areas and maintenance of that vegetation shall be an integral part of the clearing activities during each phase of construction, per the Scheduling BMP (C 162). Seasonal Work Limitations  From October 1 through April 30, clearing, grading, and other soil disturbing activities shall only be permitted if shown to the satisfaction of the local permitting authority that silt‐laden runoff will be prevented from leaving the site through a combination of the following:  Site conditions including existing vegetative coverage, slope, soil type, and proximity to receiving waters; and  Limitations on activities and the extent of disturbed areas; and  Proposed erosion and sediment control measures.  Based on the information provided and/or local weather conditions, the local permitting authority may expand or restrict the seasonal limitation on site disturbance.  The following activities are exempt from the seasonal clearing and grading limitations:  Routine maintenance and necessary repair of erosion and sediment control BMPs;  Routine maintenance of public facilities or existing utility structures that do not expose the soil or result in the removal of the vegetative cover to soil; and  Activities where there is 100 percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities. 14 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Coordination with Utilities and Other Jurisdictions  Care has been taken to coordinate with utilities, other construction projects, and the local jurisdiction in preparing this SWPPP and scheduling the construction work. Inspection and Monitoring  All BMPs shall be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Site inspections shall be conducted by a person who is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. This person has the necessary skills to:  Assess the site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater, and  Assess the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges.  A Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall be on‐site or on‐call at all times.  Whenever inspection and/or monitoring reveals that the BMPs identified in this SWPPP are inadequate, due to the actual discharge of or potential to discharge a significant amount of any pollutant, appropriate BMPs or design changes shall be implemented as soon as possible. Maintaining an Updated Construction SWPPP  This SWPPP shall be retained on‐site or within reasonable access to the site.  The SWPPP shall be modified whenever there is a change in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the construction site that has, or could have, a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state.  The SWPPP shall be modified if, during inspections or investigations conducted by the owner/operator, or the applicable local or state regulatory authority, it is determined that the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site. The SWPPP shall be modified as necessary to include additional or modified BMPs designed to correct problems 15 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan identified. Revisions to the SWPPP shall be completed within seven (7) days following the inspection. ‐‐‐  3.1.13 Element #13 – Protect Low Impact Development BMP’s ï‚· The site subgrades shall be prepared under the direction of the geotechnical testing agency prior to placement of gravel surfacing. ï‚· Prevent compacting BMPs by excluding construction equipment and foot traffic. ï‚· Protect completed lawn and landscaped areas from compaction due to construction equipment. ï‚· Keep all heavy equipment off existing soils under LID facilities that have been excavated to final grade to retain the infiltration rate of the soils. 3.2 Site Specific BMPs Site specific BMPs are shown on the TESC Plan Sheets and Details in Appendix A. These site specific plan sheets will be updated annually. 3.3 Additional Advanced BMPs The BMP implementation schedule will be driven by the construction schedule. The following provides a sequential list of the proposed construction schedule milestones and the corresponding BMP implementation schedule. The list contains key milestones such as wet season construction. The BMP implementation schedule listed below is keyed to proposed phases of the construction project, and reflects differences in BMP installations and inspections that relate to wet season construction. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, the dry season is considered to be from May 1 to September 30 and the wet season is considered to be from October 1 to April 30.  Estimate of Construction start date: 03/27/17  Estimate of Construction finish date: 11/17/17  Mobilize equipment on site: 03/27/17  Mobilize and store all ESC and soil stabilization products (store materials on hand BMP C150): 03/27/17 16 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan  Install perimeter ESC controls prior to any earth disturbing activities: 03/28/17  Clear and grub. 04/03/17  Commence grading. 04/03/17  Begin utilities. 05/02/17  Complete site work 07/12/17  Landscaping. 07/21/17  Remove remaining TESC facilities 07/28/17  Electrical Assembly Complete 10/06/17  Wet Season starts: 10/01/17  Energize site: 11/17/17 17 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 5.0 Pollution Prevention Team 5.1 Roles and Responsibilities The pollution prevention team consists of personnel responsible for implementation of the SWPPP, including the following:  Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) – primary contractor contact, responsible for site inspections (BMPs, visual monitoring, sampling, etc.); to be called upon in case of failure of any ESC measures.  Resident Engineer – For projects with engineered structures only (sediment ponds/traps, sand filters, etc.): site representative for the owner that is the project's supervising engineer responsible for inspections and issuing instructions and drawings to the contractor's site supervisor or representative  Emergency Ecology Contact – individual to be contacted at Ecology in case of emergency.  Emergency Owner Contact – individual that is the site owner or representative of the site owner to be contacted in the case of an emergency.  Non‐Emergency Ecology Contact – individual that is the site owner or representative of the site owner than can be contacted if required.  Monitoring Personnel – personnel responsible for conducting water quality monitoring; for most sites this person is also the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead. 18 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 5.2 Team Members Names and contact information for those identified as members of the pollution prevention team are provided in the following table. Title Name(s) Phone Number Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) Pending Project Bid Resident Engineer David Harmsen, PE 360‐794‐7811 Emergency Ecology Contact Northwest Region 425‐649‐7000 Emergency Owner Contact Tom Hendricks 425‐783‐5022 Non‐Emergency Ecology Contact Pending Project Bid Monitoring Personnel Pending Project Bid 19 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 6.0 Site Inspections and Monitoring Monitoring includes visual inspection, monitoring for water quality parameters of concern, and documentation of the inspection and monitoring findings in a site log book. A site log book will be maintained for all on‐site construction activities and will include:  A record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit requirements;  Site inspections; and,  Stormwater quality monitoring. For convenience, the inspection form and water quality monitoring forms included in this SWPPP include the required information for the site log book. This SWPPP may function as the site log book if desired, or the forms may be separated and included in a separate site log book. However, if separated, the site log book but must be maintained on‐site or within reasonable access to the site and be made available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. 6.1 Site Inspection All BMPs will be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. The inspector will be a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) per BMP C160. The name and contact information for the CESCL is provided in Section 5 of this SWPPP. Site inspection will occur in all areas disturbed by construction activities and at all stormwater discharge points. Stormwater will be examined for the presence of suspended sediment, turbidity, discoloration, and oily sheen. The site inspector will evaluate and document the effectiveness of the installed BMPs and determine if it is necessary to repair or replace any of the BMPs to improve the quality of stormwater discharges. All maintenance and repairs will be documented in the site log book or forms provided in this document. All new BMPs or design changes will be documented in the SWPPP as soon as possible. 6.1.1 Site Inspection Frequency Site inspections will be conducted at least once a week and within 24 hours following any discharge from the site. For temporary stabilization inactive sites, inspection can be reduced to once per month. 6.1.2 Site Inspection Documentation The site inspector will record each site inspection using the site log inspection forms provided in Appendix E. The site inspection log forms may be separated from this SWPPP document, but 21 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be maintained on‐site or within reasonable access to the site and be made available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. 6.2 Stormwater Quality Monitoring 6.2.1 Turbidity Site discharge during construction will drain to the north ditch line of SR20 south of the site. The downstream eventually leads to Puget Sound. No waters in the downstream are on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list The two sample locations will be: Sample Location A. Stormwater along the gutter of 212th St NE. This will represent upstream background turbidity. Sample Location B. The discharge point from the level spreader. This sample location represents turbidity downstream of the discharge point. Monitoring requirements for the proposed project will include either turbidity or water transparency sampling to monitor site discharges for water quality compliance with the 2005 Construction Stormwater General Permit (Appendix D). Sampling will be conducted at all discharge points at least once per calendar week. Turbidity or transparency monitoring will follow the analytical methodologies described in Section S4 of the 2005 Construction Stormwater General Permit (Appendix D). The key benchmark values that require action are 25 NTU for turbidity (equivalent to 32 cm transparency) and 250 NTU for turbidity (equivalent to 6 cm transparency). If the 25 NTU benchmark for turbidity (equivalent to 32 cm transparency) is exceeded, the following steps will be conducted: 1. Ensure all BMPs specified in this SWPPP are installed and functioning as intended. 2. Assess whether additional BMPs should be implemented, and document revisions to the SWPPP as necessary. 3. Sample discharge location daily until the analysis results are less than 25 NTU (turbidity) or greater than 32 cm (transparency). If the turbidity is greater than 25 NTU (or transparency is less than 32 cm) but less than 250 NTU (transparency greater than 6 cm) for more than 3 days, additional treatment BMPs will be implemented within 24 hours of the third consecutive sample that exceeded the benchmark 22 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan value. Additional treatment BMPs to be considered will include, but are not limited to, off‐site treatment, infiltration, filtration and chemical treatment. If the 250 NTU benchmark for turbidity (or less than 6 cm transparency) is exceeded at any time, the following steps will be conducted: 1. Notify Ecology by phone within 24 hours of analysis (see Section 5.0 of this SWPPP for contact information). 2. Continue daily sampling until the turbidity is less than 25 NTU (or transparency is greater than 32 cm). 3. Initiate additional treatment BMPs such as off‐site treatment, infiltration, filtration and chemical treatment within 24 hours of the first 250 NTU exceedance. 4. Implement additional treatment BMPs as soon as possible, but within 7 days of the first 250 NTU exceedance. 5. Describe inspection results and remedial actions taken in the site log book and in monthly discharge monitoring reports as described in Section 7.0 of this SWPPP. 6.2.2 pH Sampling 1. The work does not involve the placement of concrete. 23 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 7.0 Reporting and Recordkeeping 7.1 Recordkeeping 7.1.1 Site Log Book A site log book will be maintained for all on‐site construction activities and will include:  A record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit requirements;  Site inspections; and,  Stormwater quality monitoring. For convenience, the inspection form and water quality monitoring forms included in this SWPPP include the required information for the site log book. 7.1.2 Records Retention Records of all monitoring information (site log book, inspection reports/checklists, etc.), this Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and any other documentation of compliance with permit requirements will be retained during the life of the construction project and for a minimum of three years following the termination of permit coverage in accordance with permit condition S5.C. 7.1.3 Access to Plans and Records The SWPPP, General Permit, Notice of Authorization letter, and Site Log Book will be retained on site or within reasonable access to the site and will be made immediately available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. A copy of this SWPPP will be provided to Ecology within 14 days of receipt of a written request for the SWPPP from Ecology. Any other information requested by Ecology will be submitted within a reasonable time. A copy of the SWPPP or access to the SWPPP will be provided to the public when requested in writing in accordance with permit condition S5.G. 7.1.4 Updating the SWPPP In accordance with Conditions S3, S4.B, and S9.B.3 of the General Permit, this SWPPP will be modified if the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site or there has been a change in design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the site that has a significant effect on the discharge, or potential 25 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for discharge, of pollutants to the waters of the State. The SWPPP will be modified within seven days of determination based on inspection(s) that additional or modified BMPs are necessary to correct problems identified, and an updated timeline for BMP implementation will be prepared. 7.2 Reporting 7.2.1 Discharge Monitoring Reports 7.2.2 Notification of Noncompliance If any of the terms and conditions of the permit are not met, and it causes a threat to human health or the environment, the following steps will be taken in accordance with permit section S5.F: 1. Ecology will be immediately notified of the failure to comply. 2. Immediate action will be taken to control the noncompliance issue and to correct the problem. If applicable, sampling and analysis of any noncompliance will be repeated immediately and the results submitted to Ecology within five (5) days of becoming aware of the violation. 3. A detailed written report describing the noncompliance will be submitted to Ecology within five (5) days, unless requested earlier by Ecology. 7.2.3 Permit Application and Changes In accordance with permit condition S2.A, a complete application form will be submitted to Ecology and the appropriate local jurisdiction (if applicable) to be covered by the General Permit. 26 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix A – Site Plans 27 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix B – Construction BMPs The following list of BMPs for each of the 12 elements are proposed for use on the site. More information on each BMP is available on the Department of Ecology Website in the 2014 drainage manual. Element #1 ‐ Mark Clearing Limits BMP C101 Preserving Natural Vegetation BMP C103 High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence Element #2 ‐ Establish Construction Access BMP C105 Stabilized Construction Access BMP C107 Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization Element #3 ‐ Control Flow Rates Element #4 ‐ Install Sediment Controls BMP C233 Silt Fence Element #5 ‐ Stabilize Soils BMP C120 Temporary and Permanent Seeding BMP C121 Mulching BMP C125 Topsoiling BMP C140 Dust Control BMP C107 Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization BMP C150 Materials On Hand Element #6 ‐ Protect Slopes BMP C120 Temporary and Permanent Seeding BMP C121 Mulching Element #7 – Protect Drain Inlets BMP C220 Strom Drain Inlet Protection Element #8 ‐ Stabilize Channels and Outlets BMP C201 Grass Lined Swales BMP C207 Check Dams BMP C209 Outlet Protection 28 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Element #9 – Control Pollutants Element #10 ‐ Control Dewatering Element #11 – Maintain BMP’s Element #12 – Manage the Project Element #13 – Protect Low Impact Development 29 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix C – Alternative BMPs The following includes a list of possible alternative BMPs for each of the 12 elements not described in the main SWPPP text. This list can be referenced in the event a BMP for a specific element is not functioning as designed and an alternative BMP needs to be implemented. Element #1 ‐ Mark Clearing Limits BMP C102 Buffer Zones Element #2 ‐ Establish Construction Access BMP C106 Wheel Wash Element #3 ‐ Control Flow Rates BMP C203 Water Bars BMP C235 Wattles BMP C240 Sediment Trap BMP C241 Sediment Pond Element #4 ‐ Install Sediment Controls BMP C231 Brush Barrier BMP C232 Gravel Filter Berm BMP C234 Vegetated Strip BMP C235 Wattles BMP C240 Sediment Trap BMP C241 Sediment Pond BMP C251 Construction Stormwater Filtration Element #5 ‐ Stabilize Soils BMP C122 Nets & Blankets BMP C124 Sodding BMP C126 Polyacrylamides for Soil Erosion Protection BMP C130 Surface Roughening BMP C131 Gradient Terraces Element #6 ‐ Protect Slopes BMP C122 Nets & Blankets BMP C130 Surface Roughening BMP C131 Gradient Terraces Element #7 – Protect Drain Inlets Element #8 ‐ Stabilize Channels and Outlets BMP C122 Nets & Blankets BMP C202 Channel Lining 30 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan BMP C208 Triangular Silt Dike Element #9 – Control Pollutants BMP C154 Concrete Washout Area Element #10 ‐ Control Dewatering BMP C203 Water Bars BMP C206 Level Spreader BMP C236 Vegetated Filtration Element #11 – Maintain BMP’s Element #12 – Manage the Project Element #13 – Protect Low Impact Development BMP C102 Buffer Zones BMP C208 Triangular Silt Dike BMP C231 Brush Barrier BMP C234 Vegetated Strip 31 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix D – General Permit 33 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix E – Site Inspection Forms (and Site Log) The results of each inspection shall be summarized in an inspection report or checklist that is entered into or attached to the site log book. It is suggested that the inspection report or checklist be included in this appendix to keep monitoring and inspection information in one document, but this is optional. However, it is mandatory that this SWPPP and the site inspection forms be kept onsite at all times during construction, and that inspections be performed and documented as outlined below. At a minimum, each inspection report or checklist shall include: a. Inspection date/times b. Weather information: general conditions during inspection, approximate amount of precipitation since the last inspection, and approximate amount of precipitation within the last 24 hours. c. A summary or list of all BMPs that have been implemented, including observations of all erosion/sediment control structures or practices. d. The following shall be noted: i. locations of BMPs inspected, ii. locations of BMPs that need maintenance, iii. the reason maintenance is needed, iv. locations of BMPs that failed to operate as designed or intended, and v. locations where additional or different BMPs are needed, and the reason(s) why e. A description of stormwater discharged from the site. The presence of suspended sediment, turbid water, discoloration, and/or oil sheen shall be noted, as applicable. f. A description of any water quality monitoring performed during inspection, and the results of that monitoring. g. General comments and notes, including a brief description of any BMP r repairs, maintenance or installations made as a result of the inspection. h. A statement that, in the judgment of the person conducting the site inspection, the site is either in compliance or out of 34 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan compliance with the terms and conditions of the SWPPP and the NPDES permit. If the site inspection indicates that the site is out of compliance, the inspection report shall include a summary of the remedial actions required to bring the site back into compliance, as well as a schedule of implementation. i. Name, title, and signature of person conducting the site inspection; and the following statement: “I certify under penalty of law that this report is true, accurate, and complete, to the best of my knowledge and belief”. When the site inspection indicates that the site is not in compliance with any terms and conditions of the NPDES permit, the Permittee shall take immediate action(s) to: stop, contain, and clean up the unauthorized discharges, or otherwise stop the noncompliance; correct the problem(s); implement appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), and/or conduct maintenance of existing BMPs; and achieve compliance with all applicable standards and permit conditions. In addition, if the noncompliance causes a threat to human health or the environment, the Permittee shall comply with the Noncompliance Notification requirements in Special Condition S5.F of the permit. 35 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Site Inspection Form General Information Project Name: Inspector Name: Title: CESCL # : Date: Time: Inspection Type: □ After a rain event   □ Weekly   □ Turbidity/transparency benchmark exceedance   □ Other Weather Precipitation Since last inspection In last 24 hours Description of General Site Conditions: Inspection of BMPs Element 1: Mark Clearing Limits BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP Element 2: Establish Construction Access BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP 36 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Element 3: Control Flow Rates BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP Element 4: Install Sediment Controls BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP 37 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Element 5: Stabilize Soils BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP Element 6: Protect Slopes BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP 38 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Element 7: Protect Drain Inlets BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP Element 8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP 39 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Element 9: Control Pollutants BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP Element 10: Control Dewatering BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Inspected Functioning Location Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP 40 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Stormwater Discharges From the Site Observed? Problem/Corrective Action Y N Location Turbidity Discoloration Sheen Location Turbidity Discoloration Sheen 41 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Water Quality Monitoring Was any water quality monitoring â–¡ Yes □  No conducted? If water quality monitoring was conducted, record results here: If water quality monitoring indicated turbidity 250 NTU or greater; or transparency 6 cm or less, was Ecology notified by phone within 24 hrs? â–¡ Yes □  No If Ecology was notified, indicate the date, time, contact name and phone number below: Date: Time: Contact Name: Phone #: General Comments and Notes Include BMP repairs, maintenance, or installations made as a result of the inspection. Were Photos Taken? â–¡ Yes □  No If photos taken, describe photos below: 42 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix F – Engineering Calculations There are no calculations associated with this SWPPP. 43