The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19201 63rd Ave NE_PWD330_2026 Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. 2802 Wetmore Avenue Suite 220 Everett, WA 98201 425.339.8266 Smokey Point Distributing Traffic Impact Analysis Jurisdiction: City of Arlington November 2014 GTC #14-246 Smokey Point Distributing Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 2. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 1 3. TRIP GENERATION .............................................................................................................. 3 4. TRIP DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................................................... 4 5. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 7 6. MITIGATION ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 7 6.1 City of Arlington .............................................................................................................. 7 6.2 Washington State Department of Transportation ............................................................. 8 6.3 Snohomish County ........................................................................................................... 8 7. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: AM Peak-Hour Development Trip Distribution and Key Intersection Volume ............. 5 Figure 3: PM Peak-Hour Development Trip Distribution and Key Intersection Volume .............. 6 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Trip Generation Summary ................................................................................................ 3 Table 2: AM Peak-Hour Key Intersection Volumes ....................................................................... 7 Table 3: PM Peak-Hour Key Intersection Volumes ....................................................................... 7 ATTACHMENTS Trip Generation Calculations ......................................................................................................... A WSDOT Exhibit C List ................................................................................................................... B Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. November 2014 info@gibsontraffic.com i GTC #14-246 Smokey Point Distributing Traffic Impact Analysis 1. INTRODUCTION Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. (GTC) has been retained to analyze the traffic impacts of the proposed Smokey Point Distributing development. The proposed development is located east of 63rd Avenue NE at 192nd Street NE. A site vicinity map is included in Figure 1. The development is proposed to consist of a 58,400 square-foot (SF) building. The site is proposed to have one access to 63rd Avenue NE that will align with 192nd Street NE, creating a 4-way intersection. Brad Lincoln, responsible for this report, is a licensed professional engineer (Civil) in the State of Washington and member of the Washington State section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2. METHODOLOGY Trip generation calculations for the development are based on data published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (2012). Average trip generation rates were utilized to estimate the weekday daily, AM peak-hour, and PM peak-hour trips. The City of Arlington and Snohomish County have an interlocal agreement that provides for reciprocal mitigation fees. Snohomish County mitigation fees can be calculated based on the default percentage in the interlocal agreement, which is 70%, or based on actual impacts. The City of Arlington also has an interlocal agreement with WSDOT that provides for mitigation fees to WSDOT for impacts to WSDOT improvement projects. WSDOT improvement projects and their associated fees are based on the most recent Exhibit C list, which is included in the attachments. City of Arlington developments are required to pay for any WSDOT improvement project on the Exhibit C list impacted with 3 or more directional PM peak-hour trips or based on the area wide mitigation fee. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. November 2014 info@gibsontraffic.com 1 GTC #14-246 RD RN BU N D W V O L R B C E G ID R MAP DIVISION ST HIGHLINE DR R GTC #14-246 D D FIGURE 1 L OLYMPIC AVE E I F SITE VICINITY 204TH ST NE E L G A E TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY T SN O N A B E L E N L P 204TH ST NE 188TH ST NE H 67TH AVE NE T 1 1 2 T #85 S H T 79 63RD AVE SITE 1 T 199TH ST S H 192ND ST T 5 9 1 59TH AVE NE 152ND ST NE CEMETERY RD 51ST AVE NE 47TH AVE 188TH ST NE DEVELOPMENT SITEKEY INTERSECTION D #XX BLV OINT 204TH ST NE P EY OK LEGEND SM ONSULTANTS C RAFFIC T 172ND ST NE N 58,400 SF 11/11/14 HWY SMOKEY POINTDISTRIBUTING PIONEER IBSON G CITY OF ARLINGTON Smokey Point Distributing Traffic Impact Analysis 3. TRIP GENERATION The Smokey Point Distributing building is proposed to include two uses, operations space associated with the transportation of goods and maintenance of the vehicles and warehouse space associated with the storage of materials that have or will need to be shipped. The trip generation from the site has been calculated using national research data for land uses contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineersâ€™ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (2012). The trip generation using the ITE data has then been compared to the anticipated use of the site to ensure the accuracy of the trip generation calculations. The site is proposed to consist of 48,000 SF of operations space, including office space, parts area and truck maintenance area. The remaining 10,400 SF is warehouse area for parts that have been delivered or will be shipped. In addition, there are areas around the building that will be used for the storage of vehicles and equipment. Outdoor storage areas are not typically included in trip generation calculations for industrial uses. The trip generation calculations for the Smokey Point Distributing development have been calculated using ITE Land Use Code 110, General Light Industrial, for the 48,000 SF of operations area and ITE Land Use Code 150, Warehousing, for the 10,400 SF of warehouse space. The trip generation calculations have been performed based on the average trip generation rates for 1,000 SF of space and are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Trip Generation Summary Average AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips Use Size Daily Trips Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Operations Area General Light Industrial 48,00 SF 335 39 5 44 6 41 47 ITE Land Use Code 110 Warehouse Area Warehouse 10,400 SF 37 2 1 3 1 2 3 ITE Land Use Code 110 TOTAL 58,400 SF 372 41 6 47 7 43 50 The ITE trip generation calculations were also compared to the anticipated trip generation based on the activities of the site. A summary of the employment and delivery information is included below: ï‚· 75 daily employees ï‚· 15 to 20 additional truck drivers weekly ï‚· 30 truck deliveries per day Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. November 2014 info@gibsontraffic.com 3 GTC #14-246 Smokey Point Distributing Traffic Impact Analysis There are anticipated to be approximately 80 employees/truck drivers per day and 30 deliveries. However, a portion of the employees arrive/leave outside of the peak-hours (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) and would be spread over several hours. Additionally, many of the deliveries will occur outside the peak-hours. It was estimated that the peak-hour trip generation would be between 40 and 60 peak-hour trips and the daily trip generation would be 300 to 400 trips. The ITE trip generation calculations are representative of the anticipated use of the site and has therefore been utilized to determine the impacts to the surrounding street system and to calculate the traffic mitigation fees for the site. The trip generation calculations are included in the attachments. 4. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The trip distribution for the Smokey Point Distributing development is based on previously approved distributions for industrial uses in the site vicinity and the anticipated routes for trucks. It is important to note that the majority of trips during the AM and PM peak-hours are employee trips and therefore have a greater influence on the peak-hour distributions than truck traffic. It is anticipated that 70% of the developmentâ€™s trips will travel along 172nd Street NE (SR-531), sixty percent to and from the west and ten percent to and from the east. Approximately 25% of the developmentâ€™s trips will travel to and from the north along 67th Avenue NE, north of 197th Street NE. The remaining 5% of the developmentâ€™s trips are anticipated to travel to and from the south along 67th Avenue NE, south of 172nd Street NE (SR-531). Detailed distributions for the AM and PM peak-hours are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively. The interlocal agreement between the City of Arlington and Snohomish County requires detailed development trip turning movement data at Snohomish County key intersections impacted with three or more directional trips in the AM peak-hour and PM peak-hour. The development will only impact one Snohomish County key intersection with 3 or more directional development trips in the AM and PM peak-hours. Individual trip turning movements at the impacted Snohomish County key intersection are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 for the AM and PM peak-hours, respectively. The key intersection volumes are also shown in Table 2 and Table 3 for the AM and PM peak- hours, respectively Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. November 2014 info@gibsontraffic.com 4 GTC #14-246 10 RD 37 RN BU 4 1 N D W V O L R B C E 1 G ID R DIVISION ST HIGHLINE DR R 1037 GTC #14-246 D D 4 FIGURE 2 L OLYMPIC AVE E I F 204TH ST NE E L G A 0 E 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 0 4 0 0 0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND 1 KEY INTERSECTION VOLUME 7 10 3 10 37 1 AM PEAK-HOUR DEVELOPMENT 4 0 T 4 0 0 0 SN 0 O N A B E L E 25 5 N 1 L 204TH ST NE 93 19 P 6 188TH ST NE H 5 67TH AVE NE 1T 6 1 10 2 0 1 2 15 6 1 T 56 #85 S H T 79 63RD AVE SITE 15 1 25 T 2 199TH ST S 223 60 H 192ND ST T 5 19 5 4 9 1 59TH AVE NE 0 152ND ST NE 25 60223 4 5 19 CEMETERY RD 2 0 51ST AVE NE 47TH AVE 5 LOCAL 2 188TH ST NE 18 NEW DAILY TRIPSNEW AM PEAK-HOUR TRIPSTRIP DISTRIBUTION %KEY INTERSECTION VOLUME 5 1 19 3 0 PEAK D BLV OINT XX 204TH ST NE EY P AWDT XXX SMOK 18 LEGENDAM 45167 3 ONSULTANTS C 1 56 6 10 93 2 2 15 5 18 25 0 RAFFIC T 172ND ST NE N 58,400 SF 11/11/14 HWY SMOKEY POINTDISTRIBUTING PIONEER IBSON G CITY OF ARLINGTON 10 RD 37 RN BU 1 4 N D W V O L R B C E 4 G ID R DIVISION ST HIGHLINE DR R 1037 GTC #14-246 D D 1 FIGURE 3 L OLYMPIC AVE E I F 204TH ST NE E L G A 0 E 0 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 4 1 0 0 0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND 4 KEY INTERSECTION VOLUME 7 10 3 10 37 4 PM PEAK-HOUR DEVELOPMENT 1 2 T 1 0 0 0 SN 0 O N A B E L E 25 5 N 7 L 204TH ST NE 93 19 P 6 188TH ST NE H 5 67TH AVE NE 1T 1 11 2 0 2 1 2 15 1 6 T 56 #85 S H T 79 63RD AVE SITE 15 1 4 T 0 199TH ST S 223 60 H 192ND ST T 5 19 5 26 9 1 59TH AVE NE 3 152ND ST NE 4 60223 26 5 19 CEMETERY RD 0 2 51ST AVE NE 47TH AVE 5 LOCAL 0 188TH ST NE 18 NEW DAILY TRIPSNEW PM PEAK-HOUR TRIPSTRIP DISTRIBUTION %KEY INTERSECTION VOLUME 5 3 19 1 2 PEAK D BLV OINT XX 204TH ST NE EY P 3 AWDT XXX SMOK LEGENDPM 45167 19 ONSULTANTS C 6 56 1 2 93 11 0 15 5 18 25 2 RAFFIC T 172ND ST NE N 58,400 SF 11/11/14 HWY SMOKEY POINTDISTRIBUTING PIONEER IBSON G CITY OF ARLINGTON Smokey Point Distributing Traffic Impact Analysis Table 2: AM Peak-Hour Key Intersection Volumes Intersection EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR #85: 172nd St NE at 67th Ave NE 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 1 0 0 Table 3: PM Peak-Hour Key Intersection Volumes Intersection EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR #85: 172nd St NE at 67th Ave NE 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 0 5. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The main impacts of the Smokey Point Distributing development are along 172nd Street NE (SR- 531). WSDOT is currently collection traffic mitigation fees for impacts to 172nd Street NE (SR- 531) between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE to fund improvements, consisting of additional through lanes and turning lanes. The impacts of the Smokey Point Distributing development on this section of 172nd Street NE (SR-531) will be mitigated through the payment of WSDOT traffic mitigation fees and is discussed in more detail later in this report. The majority of the trips in the site vicinity will travel along 59th Avenue NE and 188th Street NE. Both of these roadway are included in the City of Arlington Cost Fee Basis. Therefore, City of Arlington traffic mitigation fees are based on improvements to these roadways. Intersection level of service analysis has therefore not been performed along these roadways since the development will be paying for planned improvements to these roadways as part of the City of Arlington traffic mitigation fees, which are discussed in more detail later in this report. 6. MITIGATION ANALYSIS The City of Arlington collects traffic mitigation fees based on the number of PM peak-hour trips generated by a development. The City of Arlington also has interlocal agreements with Snohomish County and WSDOT for traffic mitigation fees. 6.1 City of Arlington The City of Arlington currently has a traffic mitigation fee of $3,355 per PM peak-hour trip. The Smokey Point Distributing development is anticipated to generate 50 PM peak-hour trips. These trips result in a City of Arlington traffic mitigation fees of $167,750.00. It is important to note that City of Arlington traffic mitigation fees do not vest to the time of application. It is possible that the City of Arlington mitigation fees will increase between the time of this report and when the traffic mitigation fees are required to be paid. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. November 2014 info@gibsontraffic.com 7 GTC #14-246 Smokey Point Distributing Traffic Impact Analysis 6.2 Washington State Department of Transportation WSDOT improvement projects and their associated fees are based on the most recent Exhibit C list, which is included in the attachments. City of Arlington developments are required to pay for the WSDOT improvement projects on the Exhibit C list impacted with 10 or more PM peak-hour trips. The Smokey Point Distributing development will only impact the WSDOT improvement project along 172nd Street NE (SR-531) between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE with 10 or more PM peak-hour trips. The fee for this improvement project is $200.50 per daily trip. The development is anticipated to impact this improvement project with 223 daily trips and will therefore have WSDOT traffic mitigation fees of $44,711.50. 6.3 Snohomish County The City of Arlington has an interlocal agreement with Snohomish County that provides for mitigation payments for impacts to Snohomish County arterials. City of Arlington developments that impact road improvement projects with 3 directional PM peak-hour trips identified in Snohomish Countyâ€™s Transportation Needs Report (TNR) are required to pay mitigation fees to Snohomish County. The Smoke Point Distributing development will not impact any improvement projects with 3 or more directional PM peak-hour trips identified in Snohomish Countyâ€™s TNR. The Smokey Point Distributing development is therefore not required to pay any mitigation fees to Snohomish County. 7. CONCLUSIONS The proposed Smokey Point Distributing development is located on the east side of 63rd Avenue NE at 192nd Street NE. The development is proposed to consist of a 58,400 SF building that will include 48,000 SF of general light industrial and 10,400 SF of warehouse. The Smokey Point Distributing development is anticipated to generate 372 daily trips with 50 PM peak-hour trips. The City of Arlington traffic mitigation fees, which will help fund roadway improvements in the site vicinity, are $167,750. The WSDOT traffic mitigation fees, which will help fund improvements to 172nd Street NE (SR-531), are $44,711.50. The development will not impact any Snohomish County improvements projects on the Transportation Needs Report and is therefore not required to pay Snohomish County traffic mitigation fees. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. November 2014 info@gibsontraffic.com 8 GTC #14-246 Trip Generation Calculations A NEW LINK DIVERTED In Out In Out In Out NEW PASS-BY In+Out(Total) 0 30 35 0000 137 0000 168 19 167 8 In+Out(Total) LINK NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE DIVERTED 0%0% % ofExt.Trips 0 0 In+Out(Total) IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS % ofExt.Trips0%0% TOTALIn+Out(Total)PASS-BY 0 03335 7 TripsIn+Out(Total) GTC #14-246 City CenterReduction 0%0% % ofGrossTrips Smokey Point Distributing 372 0 372 0 0 372 0000 187 185 In+Out(Total) % OUT50%50% 33537 % IN Gross Trips TripRate ITE LU code 48.000 ksqft10.400 ksqft 110150 6.973.5650%50% (a.k.a.): Average Weekday Daily Trips (AWDT) Trip Generation for: Weekday LAND USESGeneral Light IndustrialWarehousingTOTAL VARIABLE A - 1 NEW LINK DIVERTED In Out In Out In Out NEW PASS-BY In+Out(Total) In+Out(Total) LINK NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE DIVERTED % ofExt.Trips In+Out(Total) IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS % ofExt.Trips TOTALIn+Out(Total)PASS-BY 0 0 0 44 03 047 % 0 0% 0 00 % 0% 0 0 44 0000 33 0000 247 0000 49 51 61 TripsIn+Out(Total) GTC #14-246 City CenterReduction 0%0% % ofGrossTrips Smokey Point Distributing 47 In+Out(Total) % OUT12%21% 44 3 % IN Gross Trips r TripRate0.920.3088%79% ITE LU code 48.000 ksqft10.400 ksqft 110150 (a.k.a.): Weekday AM Peak Hou Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 7 and 9 AM LAND USESGeneral Light IndustrialWarehousingTOTAL VARIABLE A - 2 NEW LINK DIVERTED In Out In Out In Out NEW PASS-BY In+Out(Total) In+Out(Total) LINK NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE DIVERTED % ofExt.Trips In+Out(Total) IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS % ofExt.Trips TOTALIn+Out(Total)PASS-BY 0 0 0 47 03 050 % 0 0% 0 00 % 0% 0 0 47 0000 6 43 0000 150 0000 7 41 2 3 TripsIn+Out(Total) GTC #14-246 City CenterReduction 0%0% % ofGrossTrips Smokey Point Distributing 50 In+Out(Total) % OUT88%75% 47 3 % IN Gross Trips r TripRate0.970.3212%25% ITE LU code 48.000 ksqft10.400 ksqft 110150 (a.k.a.): Weekday PM Peak Hou Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 4 and 6 PM LAND USESGeneral Light IndustrialWarehousingTOTAL VARIABLE A - 3 Smokey Point Distributing GTC #14-246 AM Peak-Hour New New AM Peak Hour Trips New New AM Peak Hour Trips %% ADT In Out Total ADT In Out Total 100% 372 41 6 47.00 100% 372 41 6 47 1% 3.72 0.41 0.06 0.47 51% 189.72 20.91 3.06 23.97 2% 7.44 0.82 0.12 0.94 52% 193.44 21.32 3.12 24.44 3% 11.16 1.23 0.18 1.41 53% 197.16 21.73 3.18 24.91 4% 14.88 1.64 0.24 1.88 54% 200.88 22.14 3.24 25.38 5% 18.60 2.05 0.30 2.35 55% 204.60 22.55 3.30 25.85 6% 22.32 2.46 0.36 2.82 56% 208.32 22.96 3.36 26.32 7% 26.04 2.87 0.42 3.29 57% 212.04 23.37 3.42 26.79 8% 29.76 3.28 0.48 3.76 58% 215.76 23.78 3.48 27.26 9% 33.48 3.69 0.54 4.23 59% 219.48 24.19 3.54 27.73 10% 37.20 4.10 0.60 4.70 60% 223.20 24.60 3.60 28.20 11% 40.92 4.51 0.66 5.17 61% 226.92 25.01 3.66 28.67 12% 44.64 4.92 0.72 5.64 62% 230.64 25.42 3.72 29.14 13% 48.36 5.33 0.78 6.11 63% 234.36 25.83 3.78 29.61 14% 52.08 5.74 0.84 6.58 64% 238.08 26.24 3.84 30.08 15% 55.80 6.15 0.90 7.05 65% 241.80 26.65 3.90 30.55 16% 59.52 6.56 0.96 7.52 66% 245.52 27.06 3.96 31.02 17% 63.24 6.97 1.02 7.99 67% 249.24 27.47 4.02 31.49 18% 66.96 7.38 1.08 8.46 68% 252.96 27.88 4.08 31.96 19% 70.68 7.79 1.14 8.93 69% 256.68 28.29 4.14 32.43 20% 74.40 8.20 1.20 9.40 70% 260.40 28.70 4.20 32.90 21% 78.12 8.61 1.26 9.87 71% 264.12 29.11 4.26 33.37 22% 81.84 9.02 1.32 10.34 72% 267.84 29.52 4.32 33.84 23% 85.56 9.43 1.38 10.81 73% 271.56 29.93 4.38 34.31 24% 89.28 9.84 1.44 11.28 74% 275.28 30.34 4.44 34.78 25% 93.00 10.25 1.50 11.75 75% 279.00 30.75 4.50 35.25 26% 96.72 10.66 1.56 12.22 76% 282.72 31.16 4.56 35.72 27% 100.44 11.07 1.62 12.69 77% 286.44 31.57 4.62 36.19 28% 104.16 11.48 1.68 13.16 78% 290.16 31.98 4.68 36.66 29% 107.88 11.89 1.74 13.63 79% 293.88 32.39 4.74 37.13 30% 111.60 12.30 1.80 14.10 80% 297.60 32.80 4.80 37.60 31% 115.32 12.71 1.86 14.57 81% 301.32 33.21 4.86 38.07 32% 119.04 13.12 1.92 15.04 82% 305.04 33.62 4.92 38.54 33% 122.76 13.53 1.98 15.51 83% 308.76 34.03 4.98 39.01 34% 126.48 13.94 2.04 15.98 84% 312.48 34.44 5.04 39.48 35% 130.20 14.35 2.10 16.45 85% 316.20 34.85 5.10 39.95 36% 133.92 14.76 2.16 16.92 86% 319.92 35.26 5.16 40.42 37% 137.64 15.17 2.22 17.39 87% 323.64 35.67 5.22 40.89 38% 141.36 15.58 2.28 17.86 88% 327.36 36.08 5.28 41.36 39% 145.08 15.99 2.34 18.33 89% 331.08 36.49 5.34 41.83 40% 148.80 16.40 2.40 18.80 90% 334.80 36.90 5.40 42.30 41% 152.52 16.81 2.46 19.27 91% 338.52 37.31 5.46 42.77 42% 156.24 17.22 2.52 19.74 92% 342.24 37.72 5.52 43.24 43% 159.96 17.63 2.58 20.21 93% 345.96 38.13 5.58 43.71 44% 163.68 18.04 2.64 20.68 94% 349.68 38.54 5.64 44.18 45% 167.40 18.45 2.70 21.15 95% 353.40 38.95 5.70 44.65 46% 171.12 18.86 2.76 21.62 96% 357.12 39.36 5.76 45.12 47% 174.84 19.27 2.82 22.09 97% 360.84 39.77 5.82 45.59 48% 178.56 19.68 2.88 22.56 98% 364.56 40.18 5.88 46.06 49% 182.28 20.09 2.94 23.03 99% 368.28 40.59 5.94 46.53 50% 186.00 20.50 3.00 23.50 100% 372.00 41.00 6.00 47.00 A - 4 Smokey Point Distributing GTC #14-246 PM Peak-Hour New New PM Peak Hour Trips New New PM Peak Hour Trips %% ADT In Out Total ADT In Out Total 100% 372 7 43 50.00 100% 372 7 43 50 1% 3.72 0.07 0.43 0.50 51% 189.72 3.57 21.93 25.50 2% 7.44 0.14 0.86 1.00 52% 193.44 3.64 22.36 26.00 3% 11.16 0.21 1.29 1.50 53% 197.16 3.71 22.79 26.50 4% 14.88 0.28 1.72 2.00 54% 200.88 3.78 23.22 27.00 5% 18.60 0.35 2.15 2.50 55% 204.60 3.85 23.65 27.50 6% 22.32 0.42 2.58 3.00 56% 208.32 3.92 24.08 28.00 7% 26.04 0.49 3.01 3.50 57% 212.04 3.99 24.51 28.50 8% 29.76 0.56 3.44 4.00 58% 215.76 4.06 24.94 29.00 9% 33.48 0.63 3.87 4.50 59% 219.48 4.13 25.37 29.50 10% 37.20 0.70 4.30 5.00 60% 223.20 4.20 25.80 30.00 11% 40.92 0.77 4.73 5.50 61% 226.92 4.27 26.23 30.50 12% 44.64 0.84 5.16 6.00 62% 230.64 4.34 26.66 31.00 13% 48.36 0.91 5.59 6.50 63% 234.36 4.41 27.09 31.50 14% 52.08 0.98 6.02 7.00 64% 238.08 4.48 27.52 32.00 15% 55.80 1.05 6.45 7.50 65% 241.80 4.55 27.95 32.50 16% 59.52 1.12 6.88 8.00 66% 245.52 4.62 28.38 33.00 17% 63.24 1.19 7.31 8.50 67% 249.24 4.69 28.81 33.50 18% 66.96 1.26 7.74 9.00 68% 252.96 4.76 29.24 34.00 19% 70.68 1.33 8.17 9.50 69% 256.68 4.83 29.67 34.50 20% 74.40 1.40 8.60 10.00 70% 260.40 4.90 30.10 35.00 21% 78.12 1.47 9.03 10.50 71% 264.12 4.97 30.53 35.50 22% 81.84 1.54 9.46 11.00 72% 267.84 5.04 30.96 36.00 23% 85.56 1.61 9.89 11.50 73% 271.56 5.11 31.39 36.50 24% 89.28 1.68 10.32 12.00 74% 275.28 5.18 31.82 37.00 25% 93.00 1.75 10.75 12.50 75% 279.00 5.25 32.25 37.50 26% 96.72 1.82 11.18 13.00 76% 282.72 5.32 32.68 38.00 27% 100.44 1.89 11.61 13.50 77% 286.44 5.39 33.11 38.50 28% 104.16 1.96 12.04 14.00 78% 290.16 5.46 33.54 39.00 29% 107.88 2.03 12.47 14.50 79% 293.88 5.53 33.97 39.50 30% 111.60 2.10 12.90 15.00 80% 297.60 5.60 34.40 40.00 31% 115.32 2.17 13.33 15.50 81% 301.32 5.67 34.83 40.50 32% 119.04 2.24 13.76 16.00 82% 305.04 5.74 35.26 41.00 33% 122.76 2.31 14.19 16.50 83% 308.76 5.81 35.69 41.50 34% 126.48 2.38 14.62 17.00 84% 312.48 5.88 36.12 42.00 35% 130.20 2.45 15.05 17.50 85% 316.20 5.95 36.55 42.50 36% 133.92 2.52 15.48 18.00 86% 319.92 6.02 36.98 43.00 37% 137.64 2.59 15.91 18.50 87% 323.64 6.09 37.41 43.50 38% 141.36 2.66 16.34 19.00 88% 327.36 6.16 37.84 44.00 39% 145.08 2.73 16.77 19.50 89% 331.08 6.23 38.27 44.50 40% 148.80 2.80 17.20 20.00 90% 334.80 6.30 38.70 45.00 41% 152.52 2.87 17.63 20.50 91% 338.52 6.37 39.13 45.50 42% 156.24 2.94 18.06 21.00 92% 342.24 6.44 39.56 46.00 43% 159.96 3.01 18.49 21.50 93% 345.96 6.51 39.99 46.50 44% 163.68 3.08 18.92 22.00 94% 349.68 6.58 40.42 47.00 45% 167.40 3.15 19.35 22.50 95% 353.40 6.65 40.85 47.50 46% 171.12 3.22 19.78 23.00 96% 357.12 6.72 41.28 48.00 47% 174.84 3.29 20.21 23.50 97% 360.84 6.79 41.71 48.50 48% 178.56 3.36 20.64 24.00 98% 364.56 6.86 42.14 49.00 49% 182.28 3.43 21.07 24.50 99% 368.28 6.93 42.57 49.50 50% 186.00 3.50 21.50 25.00 100% 372.00 7.00 43.00 50.00 A - 5 WSDOT Exhibit C List B B - 1 B - 2 Smokey Point Distributing 63RD AVE NE 11/19/2014 SITE CIVIL DRAINAGE REPORT Applicant Smokey Point Distributing, Inc. 17305 59th Ave NE Arlington, WA 98223 Phone: 360.435.5737 Engineer Hale Milligan & Associates LLC 307 N Olympic Ave Suite 209 Arlington, WA 98223 Phone: 360.474.4624 Fax: 425.968.1245 A State of Washington Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) A Federal Small Business Administration Certified Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Minimum Requirement #1 Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans ............................................................... 7 Minimum Requirement #2 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention ................................................ 7 The 12 BMP Elements ............................................................................................................................... 7 Element #1 â€“ Mark Clearing Limits ....................................................................................................... 7 Element #2 â€“ Establish Construction Access ........................................................................................ 7 Element #3 â€“ Control Flow Rates .......................................................................................................... 7 Element #4 â€“ Install Sediment Controls ................................................................................................ 8 Element #5 â€“ Stabilize Soils................................................................................................................... 8 Element #6 â€“ Protect Slopes ................................................................................................................. 8 Element #7 â€“ Protect Drain Inlets ......................................................................................................... 8 Element #8 â€“ Stabilize Channels and Outlets ....................................................................................... 8 Element #9 â€“ Control Pollutants ........................................................................................................... 8 Element #10 â€“ Control Dewatering ...................................................................................................... 9 Element #11 â€“ Maintain BMPs .............................................................................................................. 9 Element #12 â€“ Manage the Project ...................................................................................................... 9 Minimum Requirement #3 Source Control of Pollution ............................................................................. 12 Minimum Requirement #4 Preservation of Natural Drainage System and Outfalls .................................. 13 Existing Drainage ................................................................................................................................. 13 Soil ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 Downstream Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 13 Minimum Requirement #5 Onâ€Site Stormwater Management .................................................................. 13 Minimum Requirement #6 Runoff Treatment ............................................................................................ 13 Minimum Requirement #7 Flow Control .................................................................................................... 14 Temporary Drainage Calculations ....................................................................................................... 17 Minimum Requirement #8 â€“ Wetlands Protection .................................................................................... 17 Minimum Requirement #9 â€“ Basin Watershed Planning............................................................................ 17 Minimum Requirement #10 â€“ Operations and Maintenance .................................................................... 17 APPENDIX A DRAINAGE PLAN APPENDIX B FLOW CONTROL CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C WATER QUAILITY QUAILTY CALCULATIONS & INFORMATION APPENDIX D SWPPP PLAN APPENDIX E GEOâ€TECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX F NRCS SOIL SURVEY APPENDIX G OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE MANUAL Introduction The project is generally located in the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 31 North, Range 05 East of the Willamette Meridian. More specifically the site is located North of 188th Street on 63rd Ave NE. The parcel numbers for the site are 31051500400300, 31051500400400, and 31051500401500. The current use of the site is 910 Undeveloped (Vacant) Land and is 15.97 acres and contains 100% of low growing vegetation. The site is generally flat with less than 3% slope and consists of loamy sand type soils. There are no known wetlands onâ€site or in the adjacent areas. The proposed project mainly consists of slight grading and vegetation removal and the construction of a new 58,656 sf. building, parking lots, access roads, permeable gravel parking/storage areas, and associated utilities. Note that the proposed building will have a roof area of 63,968 sf. The new asphalt entrance along the west side of the site will provide access to the east side of 63rd Ave NE. Water is to be provided by a new water main bisecting the property from 63rd Ave NE to 66th Ave NE. Sewer is to be provided by a new stubâ€out extending from the existing main located along the east side of 63rd Ave NE. All stormwater runoff is to be treated prior to flow control through either a WSDOT Media Filter, 3 BayFilters, or 18â€ of loamy sand that meets treatment specifications. Flow control facilities consist of large infiltration trenches. Refer to Minimum Requirements #6â€7 for further drainage information. Note that the building is permitted per Land Used Code, Table of Permissible Uses Section 10.400 General Industrial. Page | 4 Page | 5 Minimum Requirement #1 Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans Stormwater Site Plans are being prepared in accordance with Volume I of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington as part of this project. The plans are prepared as part of the Land Use Permit submittal for the City of Arlington. Minimum Requirement #2 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan has been created for this project. This project does not meet the requirements that warrant an NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit because it does not discharge to waters of the state. All of the stormwater generated by the construction site will be infiltrated on the site. The 12 BMP Elements have been addressed in this report and in the SWPP plan. The 12 BMP Elements Element #1 â€“ 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 landâ€disturbing activities begin. Trees that are to be preserved, as well as all sensitive areas and their buffers, shall be clearly delineated, both in the field and on the plans. In general, natural vegetation and native topsoil shall be retained in an undisturbed state to the maximum extent possible. The BMPs relevant to marking the clearing limits that will be applied for this project include: BMP C103: High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence: The clearing limits will be marked only by property boundary stakes. If entrances other than the construction entrance are used and need to be limited, high visibility or construction fencing will be used. Element #2 â€“ 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 wheel washing, 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: BMP C105: Stabilize Construction Entrance Element #3 â€“ Control Flow Rates Flow control will be achieved by infiltrating all stormwater on the site. There will be no runoff leaving the site during storm events. Page | 7 Element #4 â€“ Install Sediment Controls Stormwater runoff is not anticipated to leave the site. Sediment controls will be installed on the site to protect the existing and proposed infiltration facilities. All stormwater runoff from disturbed areas shall pass through an appropriate sediment removal BMP before leaving the construction site or prior to being discharged to an infiltration facility. The specific BMPs to be used for controlling sediment on this project include: BMP C220: Storm Drain Inlet Protection BMP C233: Silt Fence Element #5 â€“ 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: BMP C120: Temporary and Permanent Seeding BMP C121: Mulching Element #6 â€“ Protect Slopes All cut and fill slopes will be designed, constructed, and protected in a manner than minimizes erosion. The slopes on the site in the existing and proposed condition are minimal therefore BMPs for slope protection are not necessary. Element #7 â€“ Protect Drain Inlets All storm drain inlets and culverts made operable during construction shall be protected to prevent unfiltered or untreated water from entering the drainage conveyance system. However, the first priority is to keep all access roads clean of sediment and keep street wash water separate from entering storm drains until treatment can be provided. Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220) will be implemented for all drainage inlets and culverts that could potentially be impacted by sedimentâ€laden runoff on and near the project site. The following inlet protection measures will be applied on this project: BMP C201: Grassâ€Lined Channels BMP C220: Storm Drain Inlet Protection Element #8 â€“ Stabilize Channels and Outlets The site will not produce runoff that will be conveyed in channels, or discharged to a stream or some other natural drainage point. Element #9 â€“ 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 Page | 8 housekeeping and preventative measures will be taken to ensure that the site will be kept clean, wellâ€organized, and free of debris. If required, BMPs to be implemented to control specific sources of pollutants are discussed below. The facility does not require a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan under the Federal regulations of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Element #10 â€“ Control Dewatering There will be no dewatering as part of this construction project. Element #11 â€“ 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 nonâ€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. Element #12 â€“ Manage the Project Erosion and sediment control BMPs for this project have been designed based on the following principles: ï‚§ The site has been designed so that the project fits the existing topography, soils, and drainage patterns. ï‚§ Erosion control is emphasized rather than sediment control. ï‚§ The project is being phased in order to minimize the extent and duration of the area exposed. ï‚§ Runoff velocities are kept low due to the slope of the site. No runoff will leave the site. ï‚§ Sediment will be retained on site. ï‚§ ESC measures will be thoroughly monitored throughout the duration of the project. ï‚§ Most of the earthwork will be scheduled during the dry season however due to the low erosive nature of the soils winter grading is not expected to create an additional erosion problem. In addition, project management will incorporate the key components listed below: Page | 9 As this project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest, the project will be managed according to the following key project components: Phasing of Construction ï‚§ 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. ï‚§ Reâ€vegetation 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 ï‚§ Since the site is expected to have 100 percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities. It is not necessary to limit the work to a seasonal window. Coordination with Utilities and Other Jurisdictions ï‚§ 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 ï‚§ 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: ï‚· Assess the site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater, and ï‚· Assess the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges. ï‚§ A Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall be onâ€site or onâ€call at all times. ï‚§ 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 ï‚§ This SWPPP shall be retained onâ€site or within reasonable access to the site. Page | 10 ï‚§ 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. ï‚§ 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 identified. Revisions to the SWPPP shall be completed within seven (7) days following the inspection. Page | 11 Minimum Requirement #3 Source Control of Pollution All known, available and reasonable source control BMPs shall be applied to this project. BMPs will be used to prevent stormwater from coming into contract with pollutants. Owner will assign one individuals to be responsible for stormwater pollution control. Hold regular meetings to review the overall operation of the BMPs. The owner will establish responsibilities for inspections, operation and maintenance, and availability for emergency situations. Owner agrees to train all team members in the operation, maintenance and inspections of BMPs, and reporting procedures. Owner agrees to promptly contain and clean up solid and liquid pollutant leaks and spills including oils, solvents, fuels, and dust from manufacturing operations on any exposed soil, vegetation, or paved area. Owner agrees to sweep paved material handling and storage areas regularly as needed, for the collection and disposal of dust and debris that could contaminate stormwater. Owner agrees to not hose down pollutants from any area to the ground, storm drain, conveyance ditch, or receiving water unless necessary for dust control purposes to meet air quality regulations and unless the pollutants are conveyed to a treatment system approved by the local jurisdiction. Owner agrees to clean oils, debris, sludge, etc. from all BMP systems regularly, including catch basins, settling/detention basins, oil/water separators, boomed areas, and conveyance systems, to prevent the contamination of stormwater. If hazardous waste is ever encountered on the site it will be handled in accordance with Chapter 173â€303 WAC. Owner agrees to promptly repair or replace all substantially cracked or otherwise damaged paved secondary containment, highâ€intensity parking and any other drainage areas, which are subjected to pollutant material leaks or spills. Owner agrees to promptly repair or replace all leaking connections, pipes, hoses, valves, etc. which can contaminate stormwater. Page | 12 Minimum Requirement #4 Preservation of Natural Drainage System and Outfalls The proposed grading project will not alter the existing drainage system or outfalls. Existing Drainage The existing 15.97 acre site is undeveloped and is covered mostly in low growing vegetation. All of the existing drainage infiltrates onsite and does not discharge to waters of the state. This project will preserve the natural drainage system and outfalls by using infiltration for stormwater management. Soil The existing soils consist of Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam 0â€8 percent slopes per the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Snohomish County, see Appendix F. The physical and chemical properties of the soil are listed in the Soil Report in Appendix F. Additionally, a geoâ€technical report has been completed by Geotest, Inc., which correlates with NRCS and provides further insight to the type of soils at deeper depths and the location of the water table. Per geoâ€technical report the subâ€surface soils generally consist of 6 to 9 inches of topsoil over 1 to 3 feet of orange tan weathered glacial outwash over native sand and gravel outwash. Note that per geoâ€technical report groundwater was not encounter. For further soil descriptions and information refer to the geoâ€technical report in Appendix E. Downstream Analysis The existing site infiltrates onsite therefore a downstream analysis was not conducted for the project. Minimum Requirement #5 Onâ€Site Stormwater Management Infiltration will be used on the proposed project site for flow control. In general, the runoff from the proposed parking and building will flow to infiltration trenches. Runoff from the permeable gravel parking and access road will flow into the permeable gravel and infiltrate into the subâ€grade below. Minimum Requirement #6 Runoff Treatment Runoff treatment for the northwest pavement area is provided by a Type 1 WSDOT Media Filter (RT.07) along the northern boundary of the site. The WSDOT Media Filter is a linear flowâ€ through stormwater runoff treatment device that is typically used along highway side slopes, Page | 13 medians, burrow ditches, and along other linear depressions. The media filter treats total suspended solids (TSS â€“ Basic), phosphorus, and dissolved metals (Enhanced Treatment).The west and southwest pavement areas are to be treated by 3 BayFilterâ€™s (TSS â€“Basic) that are inâ€ line with the stormwater conveyance system. All remaining pollution generating impervious surfaces are to sheet flow into the permeable gravel and infiltrate through a minimum of 18â€ inches of loamy sand soil that meets the treatment requirements set forth in Section 3.3.7 of Volume III of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Note all proposed roofs are to consist of coated metal material and are considered nonâ€pollution generating surfaces per section 4.1.3 of Volume V from the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington For further product and design information refer to Appendix C. Note all water quality facilities were modeled using WWHM12 with 15â€minute time steps as outlined in Appendix III of Volume III from the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Minimum Requirement #7 Flow Control All of the stormwater generated on the project site will be infiltrated onâ€site creating no downstream runoff. The long term infiltration rate of the outwash soils is estimated at 9 in/hr. This estimation is based on the D10 grain size determined by Geotest Inc., which refers to the particle size when 10% of the remaining particles are finer. The D10 grain size is widely used and accepted in estimating the infiltration rate of soils and has been incorporated into the 2005 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington, refer to Figure 1. Using data from Test Pit #6 & 8 at depths of 5â€™ & 2.5â€™, Geotest determined that the D10 grain size was 0.407 and 0.504 mm, respectively. These D10 grain sizes correlated to a long term infiltration rate of 9 in/hr. Data used for this estimated infiltration rate can be seen in Figures 15 & 16 of the geoâ€tech report in Appendix E. Figure 1: Table 3.8 from Volume III of the 2005 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington Page | 14 The long term infiltration rate for the loamy sand type soil is estimated at 0.5 in/hr. Due to the D10 particle size being smaller than 0.05 mm Table 3.8 could not be use, therefore the long term infiltration rate was estimated using the USDA Soil Textural Classification outlined in Table 3.7 of Volume III from the 2005 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington, refer to Figure 2. Flow control facilities for this site are separated into three parts, the north infiltration trench, the south infiltration trench, and the permeable gravel parking/storage area. The north infiltration trench will control runoff from the pavement and landscape areas located in the northwest portion of the site and the northern half of the roof. The trench is located along the northern edge of the site is to be 548â€™ long, 7.5â€™ wide, and 3â€™ deep. The bottom of the infiltration trench is approximately 5â€™ below grade and was sized with an infiltration rate of 9 in/hr. The south infiltration trench will control runoff from pavement, gravel, and landscape areas located west and south of the proposed shop/office and the southern half of the roof runoff. The trench is located along the southern boundary of the western portion of the site and is to be 130.5â€™ long, 30â€™ wide, and 3â€™ deep. The bottom of the infiltration trench is approximately 10â€™ below grade and was sized with an infiltration rate of 9 in/hr. All remaining runoff is to sheet flow into the permeable gravel parking/storage area and infiltrate into the native soils. Note that the gravel is to have a storage depth of approximately 4â€ and the subâ€grade is to have an infiltration rate of 0.5 in/hr. Note that the subâ€grade is to consist of 18â€inches of loamy sand for water quality. Page | 15 Figure 2: Table 3.7 from Volume III of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Note all flow control facilities were modeled using WWHM12 with 1â€hour time steps as outlined in Appendix III of Volume III from the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Existing Site Conditions Site contains 100% of shrub vegetation and grasses (15.97 Ac.) Proposed Site Conditions Impervious Surfaces Pavement (Concrete/Asphalt) 4.71 Ac. Roof Area 1.46 Ac. Total 6.17 Ac. Pervious Surfaces Landscape Areas 0.43 Ac. Permeable Gravel 9.37 Ac. Total 9.80 Ac. Page | 16 Drainage Calculations All calculations and assumptions were based on the requirements outlined in the 2005 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and are included in Appendix B (Flow Control) and Appendix C (Water Quality) of this report. Minimum Requirement #8 â€“ Wetlands Protection This requirement does not apply because this project does not discharge stormwater into a wetland. Minimum Requirement #9 â€“ Basin Watershed Planning This site is not located in a Basin Watershed Protection Area. Minimum Requirement #10 â€“ Operations and Maintenance An Operations and Maintenance Manual, consistent with the provisions of Volume V of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington is included in Appendix G of this report. Page | 17 APPENDIX A DRAINAGE PLAN APPENDIX B FLOW CONTROL CALCULATIONS North Infiltration Trench Notes The surfaces being infiltrated by the north trench are listed below. Surface Type Total Area Pavement (Flat) 1.123 Ac. Roof Area 0.709 Ac. Landscape 0.143 Ac. Total 1.975 Ac. South Infiltration Trench Notes The surfaces being infiltrated the south trench are listed below. Note that the gravel and pavement areas directly above the trench are included in these calculations. Surface Type Total Area Pavement (Flat) 1.186 Ac. Roof Area 0.761 Ac. Landscape 0.123 Ac. *Gravel Area 0.105 Ac. Total 2.175 Ac. *Permeable Gravel Area was modeled as 50% Lawn & 50% Impervious per City of Arlington The adjusted modeled areas are shown below. Surface Type Total Area Pavement (Flat) 1.2385 Ac. Roof Area 0.761 Ac. Landscape 0.1755 Ac. Total 2.175 Ac. Permeable Gravel Parking/Storage Area Notes The permeable gravel parking/storage area was model per 1,000 sf. of average area. This was done by determining the percentage of each type of area flowing to the permeable gravel area and corresponding those percentages to an area of 1,000 sf., refer to the table below. These areas where then modeled per WWHM2012 to determine percentage of infiltration. Refer to WWHM2012 calculation sheets. Surface Type Total Area Percentage Avg. Area per 1,000 sf. *Gravel Area (Flat) 9.265 Ac. 76.38% 763.8 sf. Pavement (Flat) 2.391 Ac. 22.23% 222.3 sf. Landscape 0.164 Ac. 1.39% 13.9 sf. Total 11.820 Ac. *Permeable Gravel Area was modeled as 50% Lawn & 50% Impervious per City of Arlington The adjusted modeled areas are shown below. Surface Type Modeled Avg. Area per 1,000 sf. *Pavement (Flat) 604.2 sf. *Landscape 395.8 sf. *Note that the adjusted areas are infiltrating through 763.8 sf. of permeable gravel. WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ Project Name: SPD North Trench Site Name: SPD - Trucking Co. Site Address: 63rd Ave NE City : Arlington Report Date: 11/19/2014 Gage : Everett Data Start : 1948/10/01 Data End : 2009/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.20 Version : 2014/10/28 ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Acres C, Forest, Flat 1.975 Pervious Total 1.975 Impervious Land Use Acres Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 1.975 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Lawn, Flat .143 Pervious Total 0.143 Impervious Land Use Acres ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.709 PARKING FLAT 1.123 Impervious Total 1.832 Basin Total 1.975 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Gravel Trench Bed 1 Gravel Trench Bed 1 ___________________________________________________________________ Name : Gravel Trench Bed 1 Bottom Length: 548.00 ft. Bottom Width: 7.50 ft. Trench bottom slope 1: 0.00000001 To 1 Trench Left side slope 0: 0 To 1 Trench right side slope 2: 0 To 1 Material thickness of first layer: 3 Pour Space of material for first layer: 0.33 Material thickness of second layer: 0 Pour Space of material for second layer: 0 Material thickness of third layer: 0 Pour Space of material for third layer: 0 Infiltration On Infiltration rate: 9 Infiltration safety factor: 1 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft): 369.21 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft): 0.016 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft): 369.226 Percent Infiltrated: 100 Total Precip Applied to Facility: 0 Total Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 3 ft. Riser Diameter: 24 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 ___________________________________________________________________ Gravel Trench Bed Hydraulic Table Stage(ft) Area(ac) Volume(ac-ft) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.094 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0333 0.094 0.001 0.000 0.856 WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ Project Name: SPD South Trench Site Name: SPD - Trucking Co. Site Address: 63rd Ave N.E. City : Arlington Report Date: 11/19/2014 Gage : Everett Data Start : 1948/10/01 Data End : 2009/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.20 Version : 2014/10/28 ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Acres C, Forest, Flat 2.175 Pervious Total 2.175 Impervious Land Use Acres Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 2.175 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Lawn, Flat .1755 Pervious Total 0.1755 Impervious Land Use Acres ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.761 PARKING FLAT 1.2385 Impervious Total 1.9995 Basin Total 2.175 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Gravel Trench Bed 1 Gravel Trench Bed 1 ___________________________________________________________________ Name : Gravel Trench Bed 1 Bottom Length: 130.50 ft. Bottom Width: 30.00 ft. Trench bottom slope 1: 0.00000001 To 1 Trench Left side slope 0: 0 To 1 Trench right side slope 2: 0 To 1 Material thickness of first layer: 3 Pour Space of material for first layer: 0.33 Material thickness of second layer: 0 Pour Space of material for second layer: 0 Material thickness of third layer: 0 Pour Space of material for third layer: 0 Infiltration On Infiltration rate: 9 Infiltration safety factor: 1 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft): 405.619 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft): 0.02 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft): 405.639 Percent Infiltrated: 100 Total Precip Applied to Facility: 0 Total Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 3 ft. Riser Diameter: 24 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 ___________________________________________________________________ Gravel Trench Bed Hydraulic Table Stage(ft) Area(ac) Volume(ac-ft) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.089 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0333 0.089 0.001 0.000 0.815 WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ Project Name: SPD Gravel Parking Areas Site Name: Site Address: City : Report Date: 11/19/2014 Gage : Everett Data Start : 1948/10/01 Data End : 2009/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.20 Version : 2014/10/28 ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Acres C, Forest, Flat .02295 Pervious Total 0.02295 Impervious Land Use Acres Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 0.02295 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Lawn, Flat .00908 Pervious Total 0.00908 Impervious Land Use Acres PARKING FLAT 0.01387 Impervious Total 0.01387 Basin Total 0.02295 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Gravel Trench Bed 1 Gravel Trench Bed 1 ___________________________________________________________________ Name : Gravel Trench Bed 1 Bottom Length: 76.38 ft. Bottom Width: 10.00 ft. Trench bottom slope 1: 0.00000001 To 1 Trench Left side slope 0: 0 To 1 Trench right side slope 2: 0 To 1 Material thickness of first layer: 0.333 Pour Space of material for first layer: 0.33 Material thickness of second layer: 0 Pour Space of material for second layer: 0 Material thickness of third layer: 0 Pour Space of material for third layer: 0 Infiltration On Infiltration rate: 2 Infiltration safety factor: 0.25 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft): 3.202 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft): 0 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft): 3.202 Percent Infiltrated: 100 Total Precip Applied to Facility: 0 Total Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 0.333 ft. Riser Diameter: 24 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 ___________________________________________________________________ Gravel Trench Bed Hydraulic Table Stage(ft) Area(ac) Volume(ac-ft) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0037 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.0074 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.008 APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS & INFORMATION WSDOT MEDIA FILTER Q = Water Quality Design Flow Rate (WWHM2012), cfs = 0.2143 C = Conversion Factor of 43,200 ((in/hr)(ft/sec)) SF = Safety Factor = 1 L = Length of media filter drain (perpendicular to flow), ft = 548 LTIR = Long term infiltration rate of media filter, in/hr = 10 0.2143 .âˆ— 43,200 âˆ—1 âˆ— âˆ— sec. â†’ 1.69 âˆ— 10 âˆ— 528 Due to flow path being greater than 35â€feet the minimum media filter drain width is 4â€feet. BAYFILTER CALCULATIONS Q = Water Quality Design Flow Rate (WWHM2012), cfs = 0.2273 QB = Water Treatment Rate = 45 gpm âˆ— 448.8 0.2273 .âˆ— 448.8 . # â†’ 2. .27 3 45 WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ Project Name: SPD Media Filter Site Name: SPD - Trucking Co. Site Address: 63rd Ave NE City : Arlington Report Date: 11/19/2014 Gage : Everett Data Start : 1948/10/01 Data End : 2009/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.20 Version : 2014/10/28 ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Acres C, Forest, Flat 1.266 Pervious Total 1.266 Impervious Land Use Acres Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 1.266 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Lawn, Flat .143 Pervious Total 0.143 Impervious Land Use Acres PARKING FLAT 1.123 Impervious Total 1.123 Basin Total 1.266 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Sand Filter 1 Sand Filter 1 ___________________________________________________________________ Name : Sand Filter 1 Bottom Length: 548.00 ft. Bottom Width: 4.00 ft. Depth: 2 ft. Side slope 1: 1 To 1 Side slope 2: 0.00000001 To 1 Side slope 3: 1 To 1 Side slope 4: 0 To 1 Filtration On Hydraulic conductivity: 10 Depth of filter medium: 1 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft): 232.675 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft): 0 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft): 232.675 Percent Infiltrated: 100 Total Precip Applied to Facility: 0 Total Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 1.5 ft. Riser Diameter: 24 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 ___________________________________________________________________ Sand Filter Hydraulic Table Stage(ft) Area(ac) Volume(ac-ft) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0222 0.050 0.001 0.000 0.518 0.0444 0.051 0.002 0.000 0.530 0.0667 0.052 0.003 0.000 0.541 0.0889 0.052 0.004 0.000 0.552 0.1111 0.053 0.005 0.000 0.563 0.1333 0.053 0.006 0.000 0.575 Functional Description The MFD removes suspended solids, phosphorus (MFD without 3-inch medium compost blanket), and metals from highway runoff through physical straining, ion exchange, carbonate precipitation, and biofiltration. Stormwater runoff is conveyed to the MFD via sheet flow or is redispersed to a vegetation-free gravel zone (MFD Type 1 â€“ Type 5) to ensure dispersion and provide some pollutant trapping. Next, a grass strip provides pretreatment, further enhancing filtration and extending the life of the system. The runoff is then filtered through a bed of porous, alkalinity-generating granular mediumâ€”the media filter drain mix. Treated water drains away from the MFD mix bed into a downstream conveyance system. Geotextile lines the underside of the MFD mix bed and the underdrain pipe and trench (if applicable). The underdrain trench is an option for hydraulic conveyance of treated stormwater to a desired location, such as a downstream flow control facility or stormwater outfall. The trenchâ€™s perforated underdrain pipe is a protective measure to ensure free flow through the MFD mix. It may be possible to omit the underdrain pipe if it can be demonstrated that the pipe is not necessary to maintain free flow through the MFD mix and underdrain trench. It is critical to note that water should sheet flow across or be redispersed to the MFD. To ensure sediment accumulation does not restrict sheet flow, edge of pavement installations should include a 1-inch drop between the pavement surface and nonvegetation zone where there is no guardrail or include a 1-inch drop where there is guardrail. Note that MFD Types 4 through Type 7 include a 3-inch drop between the flow spreader and the MFD mix bed to ensure sheet flow continues over time. Applications, Limitations, and LID Feasibility Applications Provides basic, phosphorus (MFD without 3-inch medium compost blanket on MFD mix area), and enhanced water quality treatment. MFD Type 1 and Type 3 â€“ Ideal along highway side slopes, when adjacent to wetlands, and in narrow right of way locations. Dual MFD for Highway Medians (MFD Type 2) â€“ Prime locations for the MFD Type 2 are in highway medians, roadside drainage or borrow ditches, or other linear depressions. It is especially critical for water to sheet flow across the MFD Type 2. Channelized flows or ditch flows running down the middle of the MFD Type 2 (continuous off-site inflow) should be minimized. MFD Type 4 and Type 5 â€“ Ideal where stormwater needs to be or already is captured and conveyed to a discharge location that can accommodate this BMP. These options provide maximum flexibility for placement where sheet flow off the edge of pavement is not feasible. Catch basins and pipes are used to convey stormwater to the MFD Type 4 and Type 5. BAYSAVE R TECHNOLOGI ES, I N C. Chapter 1 Introduction Founded in 1997, BaySaver Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of stormwater treatment technologies. BayFilterâ„¢ (1) is a stormwater filtration device designed to remove fine sediments, heavy metals, and phosphorus from stormwater runoff. BayFilterâ„¢ relies on a spiral wound media filter cartridge with approximately 43 square feet of active filtration area. The filter cartridges are housed in a concrete structure that evenly distributes the flow between cartridges. System design is offline with an external bypass that routes high intensity storms away from the system to prevent sediment resuspension. Flow through the filter cartridges is gravity driven and self-regulating, which makes the BayFilterâ„¢ system a low maintenance, high performance stormwater treatment technology. The BayFilterâ„¢ system has been extensively tested, and has consistently shown more than 80% removal of suspended sediment from influent water. The system also demonstrated the capability to remove more than 50% of the total phosphorus influent load, including a portion of the dissolved phosphorus. This manual provides detailed technical information on the BayFilterâ„¢ system including its capabilities and limitations. The manual describes the steps involved in designing a BayFilterâ„¢ system as well as the installation and maintenance requirements of the system. BaySaver Technologies is a complete stormwater solutions provider. We are always willing to assist design professionals to achieve the most efficient, economical systems for their clients and projects. Please call the BaySaver Technologies Inc. Engineering Department at 1.800.229.7283 for assistance. (1) The BayFilterâ„¢ stormwater filtration system is protected by U.S. Patent #6869528, in addition to several pending patents. 1 BayFilter Water Quality Rate (WWHM2012) SSC-5 Depth to Bedrock, Water Table, or Impermeable Layer The base of all infiltration basins or trench systems shall be 5 feet above the seasonal high-water mark, bedrock (or hardpan) or other low permeability layer. A separation down to 3 feet may be considered if the ground water mounding analysis, volumetric receptor capacity, and the design of the overflow and/or bypass structures are judged by the site professional to be adequate to prevent overtopping and meet the site suitability criteria specified in this section. SSC-6 Soil Physical and Chemical Suitability for Treatment (Applies to infiltration facilities used as treatment facilities not to facilities used for flow control) The soil texture and design infiltration rates should be considered along with the physical and chemical characteristics specified below to determine if the soil is adequate for removing the target pollutants. The following soil properties must be carefully considered in making such a determination: Cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the treatment soil must be 5 milliequivalents CEC/100 g dry soil (USEPA Method 9081). Consider empirical testing of soil sorption capacity, if practicable. Ensure that soil CEC is sufficient for expected pollutant loadings, particularly heavy metals. CEC values of >5 meq/100g are expected in loamy sands, according to Rawls, et al. Lower CEC content may be considered if it is based on a soil loading capacity determination for the target pollutants that is accepted by the local jurisdiction. Depth of soil used for infiltration treatment must be a minimum of 18 inches. Organic Content of the treatment soil (ASTM D 2974): Organic matter can increase the sorptive capacity of the soil for some pollutants. The site professional should evaluate whether the organic matter content is sufficient for control of the target pollutant(s). Waste fill materials should not be used as infiltration soil media nor should such media be placed over uncontrolled or non-engineered fill soils. Engineered soils may be used to meet the design criteria in this chapter and the performance goals in Chapters 3 and 4 of Volume V. Field performance evaluation(s), using acceptable protocols, would be needed to determine feasibility and acceptability by the local jurisdiction. See also Chapter 12 of Volume V. 3-84 Volume III â€“ Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control BMPs February 2005 APPENDIX D SWPPP PLAN APPENDIX E GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 741 Marine Drive PHONE Bellingham, WA 98225 360 733_7318 20611-67th Avenue NE FAX TOLL FREE 360 733_7418 Arlington, WA 98223 888 251_5276 April 10, 2014 Job No. 14-0086 Smokey Point Distributing, Inc. 17305 59th Avenue NE Arlington, WA 98223 Attn: Ms. Chris Tauzin Re: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Smokey Point Distributing Facility East of 63rd Avenue NE and 192nd Street NE Arlington, Washington Dear Ms. Tauzin: As requested, GeoTest Services, Inc. is pleased to submit this geotechnical engineering report summarizing the results of our subsurface evaluation for the proposed Smokey Point Distributing Facility to be located east of the intersection of 63rd Avenue NE and 192nd Street NE in Arlington, Washington. The subject property consists of three separate parcels (tax parcel numbers 31051500400400, 310515004001500 and 31051500400300) with a total area of approximately 16 acres. The purpose of this evaluation was to establish general subsurface conditions beneath the site from which conclusions and recommendations for foundation design could be formulated. Specifically, our scope of services included the following tasks: â€¢ Exploration of soil and groundwater conditions underlying the site by advancing four boring explorations with a subcontracted drill rig to depths ranging from approximately 21.5 to 36.5 feet below ground surface (BGS) and 10 test pit explorations dug by an excavator subcontracted by Smokey Point Distributing to depths ranging from approximately 3.5 to 13.5 feet BGS. â€¢ Laboratory testing on representative samples in order to classify and evaluate the engineering characteristics of the soils encountered. â€¢ Provide this written report containing a description of subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, exploratory boring and test pit logs, findings and recommendations pertaining to site preparation and earthwork, fill and compaction, wet weather earthwork, seismic design considerations, foundation support, slab-on-grade construction, foundation and site drainage, utilities, stormwater infiltration and geotechnical consultation and construction monitoring. PROJECT DESCRIPTION GTS understands that an approximately 58,000 square foot building will be constructed in the northwestern portion of the property referenced above. The building will be a large office/shop/warehouse facility. New building construction is anticipated to consist of a steel framed structure with shallow conventional concrete foundations, slab-on- Page 1 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 grade floors and a metal-sheet exterior. Foundation loads are anticipated to be relatively light. Asphalt and concrete drive paths and parking facilities are proposed around the perimeter of the new building. Pervious gravel parking and surfacing is proposed throughout the eastern and southern portions of the property. The site is flat with less than a few feet of elevation differential across the property. Tree cover has been completely removed from the site. GTS anticipates that some grading is likely to occur, but that changes to site grades will be minimal. SITE CONDITIONS This section discusses the general surface and subsurface conditions observed at the project site at the time of our field investigation. Interpretations of site conditions are based on the results of our review of available information, site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, and laboratory testing. General Geologic Conditions Geologic information for the project site was obtained from the Geologic Map of the Arlington West Quadrangle (Minard, 1985), published by the U.S. Geological Survey. According to the referenced map, near surface soils in the vicinity of the project site consist of Marysville Sand Member recessional glacial outwash (Qvrm) and Advance Outwash (Qva). According to Minard, Marysville Sand recessional glacial outwash generally consists of well-drained, stratified to massive, outwash sand with some pebble gravel with localized areas of silt and clay. Advance Outwash was described as clean, gray, pebbly sand with increasing amounts of gravel higher in the soil unit. Advance Outwash was deposited by meltwater flowing from the advancing front of the glacier and then overridden. Native soils encountered during our subsurface exploration were generally consistent with the mapped glacial outwash deposits. Surface Conditions The subject property is currently an undeveloped property located directly east of the intersection of 63rd Avenue NE and 192nd St NE, extending from 63rd Avenue NE to 66th Avenue NE. The property is flat, with less than a few feet of elevation differential across the building footprint. Native tree cover has been removed from the site, leaving only short brush and overgrowth from the initial clearing of the property. Several brush, log and woodchip stockpiles were present across the site. Surface water was not observed within the proposed development area at the time of our field investigation. Subsurface Soil Conditions Subsurface conditions were explored by advancing 10 test pit explorations TP-01 through TP-10) on March 11, 2014 with an excavator contracted by the client and 4 exploration borings (B-1 through B-4) on March 19, 2014 using a subcontracted drill rig. Test pit exploration were advanced to depths between 3.5 and 13.5 feet below ground surface (BGS) while boring explorations were advanced to depths of between 21 and 36.5 feet BGS. Page 2 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 Representative samples were obtained during drilling by using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedure in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM D1586 during the explorations. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard 2-inch, outside-diameter, split-barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is recorded and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the Standard Penetration Resistance (â€œNâ€) or blow count. If a total of 50 is recorded within one 6-inch interval, the blow count is recorded as the number of blows for the corresponding number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils; these values are reported on the attached boring logs. The on-site subsurface soils generally consisted of approximately 6 to 9 inches of topsoil over 1 to 3 feet of orange tan weathered glacial outwash over native sand and gravel outwash to the base of all explorations. Blow counts from SPT sampling generally indicated medium dense soils within the weathered outwash. The thickness of the orange tan weathered glacial outwash varied significantly between explorations and occasionally within an exploration. We anticipate the thicker portions of the weathered glacial outwash are related to the locations of removed tree root balls. Native glacial outwash within the upper approximately 20 feet of soil consisted of very gravelly sand to very sandy gravel. Blow counts from SPT sampling generally indicated dense to very dense soils at depth. In several of the test pit explorations, surficial outwash appeared to consist of alternating sand and gravel layers. Glacial outwash below approximately 20 feet BGS became significantly less gravelly. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. Please refer to the attached logs at the end of this report for more detail at specific locations. Groundwater At the time of our subsurface investigation in March of 2014, no groundwater seepage was encountered within our explorations. A thin red mottled horizon, potentially indicative of a high groundwater elevation, was noted at a depth of 35.5 feet BGS in exploration B-4. Our explorations occurred in late winter and are likely at or near seasonal groundwater elevations. The groundwater conditions reported on the exploration logs are for the specific locations and dates indicated, and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other locations and/or times. Groundwater levels are not static and it is anticipated that groundwater conditions will vary depending on local subsurface conditions, season, precipitation, changes in land use both on and off site, and other factors. Liquefaction Hazard Potential Based on the online interactive Geologic Map of Washington State, published by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, the subject site is rated as a low to moderate liquefaction susceptibility area. However, this map only provides an estimate Page 3 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 of the likelihood that soil will liquefy as a result of earthquake shaking and is meant as a general guide to delineate areas prone to liquefaction. Based on our field exploration, the subject site has a low liquefaction susceptibility during an earthquake under developed conditions due to the relative density and the depth to groundwater. Near-surface conditions at the site typically consists of medium dense to dense glacial outwash deposits (generally gravelly sand with relatively low amounts of silt). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the subsurface soil conditions observed at the site, it is our opinion that subsurface conditions at the site are suitable for the proposed construction, provided the recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the project design. Soil conditions observed in the explorations located within the areas of proposed improvements consist of medium dense to very dense glacial outwash deposits with variable, but generally low, silt contents. For the proposed structure, foundation support may be provided by continuous or isolated spread footings founded on firm native soil or properly prepared and compacted structural fill placed directly over undisturbed native soil to promote uniform support of foundation elements. Site Preparation and Earthwork The portions of the site to be occupied by foundations, slabs-on-grade floors, pavement, or sidewalks should be prepared by removing any existing topsoil, debris, significant accumulations of organics, or loose native soil from the area to be developed. Prior to placement of any structural fill, the exposed subgrade under all areas to be occupied by soil-supported foundations, floor slabs, or pavements should be recompacted to a firm and unyielding condition and proof rolled with a loaded dump truck, large self-propelled vibrating roller, or equivalent piece of equipment applicable to the size of the excavation. The purpose of this effort is to identify possible loose or soft soil deposits and recompact the soil exposed during site preparation and excavation activities. Proof rolling should be carefully observed by qualified geotechnical personnel. Areas exhibiting significant deflection, pumping, or are over optimum moisture contents cannot be readily compacted should be overexcavated to firm soil. Overexcavated areas should be backfilled with compacted granular material placed in accordance with subsequent recommendations for structural fill. During periods of wet weather, proof rolling could damage the exposed subgrade. Under these conditions, qualified geotechnical personnel should observe subgrade conditions to determine if proof rolling is feasible. Fill and Compaction Structural fill used to obtain final elevations for foundations must be properly placed and compacted. In general, any suitable, non-organic, predominantly granular soil may be used for fill material provided the material is properly moisture conditioned prior to placement and compaction, and the specified degree of compaction is obtained. Page 4 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 Reuse of Onsite Soil Native site soils in the upper 2 to 4 feet have somewhat variable, but slightly elevated, â€œfinesâ€ contents (percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve). Soils 2 to 4 feet below existing site grades, however, generally had low fines contents. Soils containing more than approximately 5 percent â€œfinesâ€ are considered moisture sensitive, and are very difficult to compact to a firm and unyielding condition when over the optimum moisture content by more than approximately 2 percent. The optimum moisture content is that which allows the greatest dry density to be achieved at a given level of compactive effort. It is our opinion that the near-surface native soil is suitable for re-use as structural fill when placed at or near optimum moisture contents as determined by ASTM D1557 and if allowed for in the project plans and specifications. It should be noted that organic topsoils were encountered in our explorations and that materials with elevated levels of organics cannot be reused as structural fill and should be segregated from mineral soils. Imported Structural Fill We recommend that imported structural fill consist of clean, well-graded sandy gravel, gravelly sand, or other approved naturally occurring granular material (pit run) with at least 30 percent retained on the No. 4 sieve, or a well-graded crushed rock. Structural fill for dry weather construction may contain on the order of 10% fines (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) based on the portion passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve. Soil containing more than about 5 percent fines cannot consistently be compacted to a dense, non-yielding condition when the water content is greater than optimum. Accordingly, we recommend that imported structural fill with less than 5% fines be used during wet weather conditions. Due to wet weather or wet site conditions, soil moisture contents could be high enough that it may be very difficult to compact even â€œcleanâ€ imported select granular fill to a firm and unyielding condition. Soils with over-optimum moisture contents should be either scarified and dried back to more suitable moisture contents during periods of dry weather or removed and replaced with fill soils at a more suitable range of moisture contents. Compaction of Structural Fill Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts 8 to 10 inches in loose thickness and thoroughly compacted. All structural fill placed under load bearing areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D1557. The top of the compacted structural fill should extend outside all foundations and other structural improvements a minimum distance equal to the thickness of the fill. We recommend that compaction be tested periodically throughout the fill placement. Wet Weather Earthwork It is our experience that the near-surface native soil is more susceptible to degradation during wet weather. As a result, it may be difficult to control the moisture content of the site soils during the wet season. If construction is accomplished during wet weather, we recommend that structural fill consist of imported, clean, well-graded sand or sand and Page 5 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 gravel as described above. If fill is to be placed or earthwork is to be performed in wet weather or under wet conditions, the contractor may reduce soil disturbance by: â€¢ Limiting the size of areas that are stripped of topsoil and left exposed â€¢ Accomplishing earthwork in small sections â€¢ Limiting construction traffic over unprotected soil â€¢ Sloping excavated surfaces to promote runoff â€¢ Limiting the size and type of construction equipment used â€¢ Providing gravel "working matsâ€ over areas of prepared subgrade â€¢ Removing wet surficial soil prior to commencing fill placement each day â€¢ Sealing the exposed ground surface by rolling with a smooth drum compactor or rubber-tired roller at the end of each working day â€¢ Providing upgradient perimeter ditches or low earthen berms and using temporary sumps to collect runoff and prevent water from ponding and damaging exposed subgrades. Seismic Design Considerations The Pacific Northwest is seismically active and the site could be subject to ground shaking from a moderate to major earthquake. Consequently, moderate levels of earthquake shaking should be anticipated during the design life of the project, and the proposed structure should be designed to resist earthquake loading using appropriate design methodology. Site Class Definition For structures designed using the seismic design provisions of the 2012 International Building Code, the underlying alluvial soils interpreted to underlie the site within the upper 100 feet classifies as Site Class D according to 2010 ASCE -7 Standard â€“ Table 20.3-1, Site Class Definitions. The corresponding values for calculating a design response spectrum for the assumed soil profile type is considered appropriate for the site. Please use the following values for seismic structural design purposes: Conterminous 48 States â€“ 2012 International Building Code Zip Code 98223 Central Latitude = 48.170171, Central Longitude = -122.143292 Short Period (0.2 sec) Spectral Acceleration Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Value of Ss = 1.066 (g) Site Response Coefficient, Fa = 1.074 (Site Class D) Adjusted spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SMS = Ss x Fa = 1.144 (g) Design spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SDS = 2/3 x SMs = 0.763 (g) Page 6 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 One Second Period (1 sec) Spectral Acceleration Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Value of S1 = 0.415 (g) Site Response Coefficient, Fv = 1.585 (Site Class D) Adjusted spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SM1 = S1 x Fv = 0.658 (g) Design spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SD1 = 2/3 x SM1 = 0.438 (g) Foundation Support and Settlement Foundation support for the proposed improvements may be provided by continuous or isolated spread footings founded on proof-rolled, undisturbed, medium dense to dense native soils or on properly compacted structural fill placed directly over undisturbed native soil. We recommend that qualified geotechnical personnel confirm that suitable bearing conditions have been reached prior to placement of structural fill or foundation formwork. To provide proper foundation support, we recommend that existing topsoil, existing fill, and/or loose upper portions of the native soil be removed from beneath the building foundation area(s) or replaced with properly compacted structural fill as described elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, localized overexcavation could be backfilled to the design footing elevation with lean concrete or foundations may be extended to bear on undisturbed native soil. In areas requiring overexcavation to competent native soil, the limits of the overexcavation should extend laterally beyond the edge of each side of the footing a distance equal to the depth of the excavation below the base of the footing. If lean concrete is used to backfill the overexcavation, the limits of the overexcavation need only extend a nominal distance beyond the width of the footing. In addition, we recommend that foundation elements for the proposed structure(s) bear entirely on similar soil conditions to help prevent differential settlement from occurring. Continuous and isolated spread footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade for freeze/thaw protection. Perimeter footings should be at least 14 inches wide and sized in accordance with the structural engineerâ€™s prescribed design criteria and seismic considerations. Allowable Bearing Capacity Assuming the above foundation support criteria are satisfied, continuous or isolated spread footings founded directly on medium dense to dense native soils or on compacted structural fill placed directly over undisturbed native soils may be proportioned using a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The term "net allowable bearing pressure" refers to the pressure that can be imposed on the soil at foundation level resulting from the total of all dead plus live loads, exclusive of the weight of the footing or any backfill placed above the footing. The net allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient wind or seismic loads. Page 7 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 Foundation Settlements Settlement of shallow foundations depends on foundation size and bearing pressure, as well as the strength and compressibility characteristics of the underlying soil. Assuming construction is accomplished as previously recommended and foundations donâ€™t exceed the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure recommended above, we estimate the total settlement of building foundations under static conditions should be less than about one inch and differential settlement between two adjacent load-bearing components supported on competent soil should be less than about one half the total settlement. Floor Support Conventional slab-on-grade floor construction is considered feasible for the planned site improvements. Floor slabs may be supported on properly prepared native subgrade or on structural fill placed over properly prepared native soil. New floor slabs should not be founded on existing pavement sections, topsoil, existing fill, or loose native soils. Prior to placement of the structural fill, the native soil should be proof-rolled as recommended in the Site Preparation and Earthwork section of this report. For design purposes, a vertical modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) should be expected for slab-on-grade floors constructed over properly prepared medium dense to dense native soils or structural fill placed over native soil. The planned use of the building will likely require large open sections of concrete that will be more susceptible to differential settlements and cracking than shorter, more conventional sections of concrete. As such, GTS recommends that the structural engineer review the design and determine if additional precautions are warranted to prevent excessive cracking of floor slabs by placing grade beams, extra reinforcement, or similar mitigation techniques. We recommend that interior concrete slab-on-grade floors be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of compacted, clean, free-draining gravel with less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve (based on a wet sieve analysis of that portion passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 sieve). The purpose of this layer is to provide uniform support for the slab, provide a capillary break, and act as a drainage layer. To help reduce the potential for water vapor migration through floor slabs, at a minimum a continuous impermeable membrane of 6- to 10-mil polyethylene sheeting with tape-sealed joints should be installed below the slab. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines suggest that the slab may either be poured directly on the vapor retarding membrane or on a granular curing layer placed over the vapor retarding membrane depending on conditions anticipated during construction. We recommend that the architect or structural engineer specify if a curing layer should be used. If moisture control within the building is critical, we recommend an inspection of the vapor retarding membrane to verify that all openings have been properly sealed. Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade, such as sidewalks, may be supported directly on undisturbed native or on properly placed and compacted structural fill; however, long- term performance will be enhanced if exterior slabs are placed on a layer of clean, durable, well-draining granular material. Page 8 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 Foundation and Site Drainage To reduce the potential for groundwater and surface water to seep into interior spaces we recommend that an exterior footing drain system be constructed around the perimeter of new building foundations as shown in the Typical Footing and Wall Drain Section, Figure 3. The drain should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter perforated pipe, surrounded by a minimum 12 inches of filtering media with the discharge sloped to carry water to a suitable collection system. The filtering media may consist of open- graded drain rock wrapped by a nonwoven geotextile fabric (such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent) or a graded sand and gravel filter. The drainage backfill should be carried up the back of the wall to within approximately 1 foot of the ground surface and contain less than 3 percent by weight passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve (based on a wet sieve analysis of that portion passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 sieve). The invert of the footing drain pipe should be placed at approximately the same elevation as the bottom of the footing or 12 inches below the adjacent floor slab grade, whichever is deeper, so that water will not seep through walls or floor slabs. The footing drain should discharge to an approved drain system and include cleanouts to allow periodic maintenance and inspection. Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to the proposed building to direct surface water away from the foundation and toward suitable discharge facilities. Roof drainage should not be introduced into the perimeter footing drains, but should be separately discharged directly to the stormwater collection system or other appropriate outlet at a suitable distance away from the structure. Pavement and sidewalk areas should be sloped and drainage gradients should be maintained to carry all surface water away from the building towards the local stormwater collection system. Surface water should not be allowed to pond and soak into the ground surface near buildings or paved areas during or after construction. Construction excavations should be sloped to drain to sumps where water from seepage, rainfall, and runoff can be collected and pumped to a suitable discharge facility. Resistance to Lateral Loads The lateral earth pressures that develop against retaining walls will depend on the method of backfill placement, degree of compaction, slope of backfill, type of backfill material, provisions for drainage, magnitude and location of any adjacent surcharge loads, and the degree to which the wall can yield laterally during or after placement of backfill. If the wall is allowed to rotate or yield so the top of the wall moves an amount equal to or greater than about 0.001 to 0.002 times its height (a yielding wall), the soil pressure exerted will be the active soil pressure. When a wall is restrained against lateral movement or tilting (a nonyielding wall), the soil pressure exerted is the at-rest soil pressure. Wall restraint may develop if a rigid structural network is constructed prior to backfilling or if the wall is inherently stiff. We recommend that yielding walls under drained conditions be designed for an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic ft (pcf) for structural fill in active soil conditions. Nonyielding walls under drained conditions should be designed for an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf for structural fill in at-rest conditions. Design of walls should include appropriate lateral pressures caused by surcharge loads located within a horizontal distance equal to or less than the height of the wall. For uniform surcharge pressures, a uniformly distributed lateral pressure equal to 35 percent and 50 percent of Page 9 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 the vertical surcharge pressure should be added to the lateral soil pressures for yielding and nonyielding walls, respectively. Passive earth pressures developed against the sides of building foundations, in conjunction with friction developed between the base of the footings and the supporting subgrade, will resist lateral loads transmitted from the structure to its foundation. For design purposes, the passive resistance of well-compacted fill placed against the sides of foundations may be considered equivalent to a fluid with a density of 250 pounds per cubic ft. The recommended value includes a safety factor of about 1.5 and is based on the assumption that the ground surface adjacent to the structure is level in the direction of movement for a distance equal to or greater than twice the embedment depth. The recommended value also assumes drained conditions that will prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure in the compacted fill. Retaining walls should include a drain system constructed in general accordance with the recommendations presented in the Foundation and Site Drainage section of this report. In design computations, the upper 12 inches of passive resistance should be neglected if the soil is not covered by floor slabs or pavement. If future plans call for the removal of the soil providing resistance, the passive resistance should not be considered. An allowable coefficient of base friction of 0.30, applied to vertical dead loads only, may be used between the underlying imported granular structural fill and the base of the footing. If passive and frictional resistance are considered together, one half the recommended passive soil resistance value should be used since larger strains are required to mobilize the passive soil resistance as compared to frictional resistance. A safety factor of about 1.5 is included in the base friction design value. We do not recommend increasing the coefficient of friction to resist seismic or wind loads. Utilities It is important that utility trenches be properly backfilled and compacted to minimize the possibility of cracking or localized loss of foundation, slab, or pavement support. It is anticipated that excavations for new underground utilities will be in medium dense glacial outwash deposits. Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface explorations and is not expected to be encountered in typical utility trenches. Trench backfill should consist of structural fill as defined earlier in this report. Trench backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the report section Compaction of Structural Fill. Temporary excavations in excess of 4 ft should be shored or sloped in accordance with Safety Standards for Construction Work Part N, WAC 296-155-657. Temporary unsupported excavations in the medium dense granular soils generally encountered in our exploration are classified as a Type C soil according to WAC 296-155-657 and may be sloped as steep as 1Â½H:1V. Flatter slopes or temporary shoring may be required in areas where groundwater seepage is present and unstable conditions develop. Surcharge loads on trench support systems due to construction equipment, stockpiled material, and vehicle traffic should be included in the design of any anticipated shoring system. The contractor should implement measures to prevent surface water runoff from entering trenches and excavations. In addition, vibration as a result of construction activities and traffic may cause caving of the trench walls. Page 10 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 Actual trench configurations should be the responsibility of the contractor. All applicable local, state, and federal safety codes shall be followed. All open cuts should be monitored by the contractor during excavation for any evidence of instability. If instability is detected, the contractor should flatten the side slopes or install temporary shoring. If groundwater or groundwater seepage is present, and the trench is not properly dewatered, the soil within the trench zone may be prone to caving, channeling, and running. Trench widths may be substantially wider than under dewatered conditions. Pavement Subgrade Preparation Selection of a pavement section is typically a choice relative to higher initial cost and lower long term maintenance or lower initial cost, with potentially less time before an overlay or other maintenance. For this reason, we recommend that the owner participate in the selection of proposed pavement improvements planned for the site. Site grading plans should include provisions for sloping of the subgrade soils in proposed pavement areas, so that passive drainage of the pavement section(s) can proceed uninterrupted during the life of the project. Structural fill placed to establish subgrade elevation should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D1557. Prior to the placement of base-course and paving materials, the exposed pavement should be proof rolled. Proof rolling should be accomplished with a loaded dump truck, large self-propelled vibrating roller, or equivalent piece of equipment. The purpose of this effort is to identify possible loose or soft soil and recompact disturbed areas of subgrade. Proof rolling should be carefully observed by GeoTest personnel. Areas exhibiting significant deflection, pumping, or over-optimum moisture content soils that cannot be readily compacted should be overexcavated to firm soil. Overexcavated areas should be backfilled with compacted granular fill. During periods of wet weather, proof rolling could damage the exposed subgrade. Under these conditions, GeoTest personnel should observe subgrade conditions to determine if proof rolling is feasible. Prevention of road-base saturation is essential for pavement durability; thus, efforts should be made to limit the amount of water entering the base course. Flexible Pavement Sections â€“ Light Duty We anticipate that asphalt pavement will be used for new access drives and parking areas. We recommend a standard, or â€œlight dutyâ€, pavement section consist of 2.5 inches of Class Â½-inch HMA asphalt above 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course (CSBC) meeting criteria set forth in the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specification 9-03.9[3]. Depending on construction staging and desired performance, CSBC material may be substituted with asphalt treated base (ATB) beneath the final asphalt surfacing. The substitution of ATB should be as follows: 6 inches of crushed rock can be substituted with 4 inches of ATB. ATB should be placed over a subgrade compacted to at least 95 percent of the relative density, and a 1Â½- to 2-inch thickness of crushed rock to act as a working surface. If ATB is used for construction access and staging areas, some rutting and disturbance of the ATB surface should be expected. The general contractor should Page 11 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 remove affected areas and replace them with properly compacted ATB prior to final surfacing. Flexible Pavement Sections â€“ Heavy Duty Areas that will be accessed by large trucks, buses, garbage trucks, or other heavy vehicles will require a thicker asphalt section and should be designed using a paving section consisting 4 inches of Class Â½-inch HMA asphalt surfacing above 8 inches of CSBC meeting criteria set forth in the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specification 9-03.9[3]. As this is a trucking facility and higher loads are anticipated, GTS also recommends that strong woven geotextile fabric (such as Mirafi 500X) or a geogrid (such as Mirafi 2XT) be considered at the existing native soil/CSBC contact. Whereas the geotextile fabric/geogrid is not mandatory, it is our opinion that the fabric/grid will extend the life of the asphalt pavement. Asphalt pavements should be founded above a subgrade compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Depending on construction staging and desired performance, CSBC material may be substituted with ATB beneath the final asphalt surfacing. The substitution of ATB should be as follows: 6 inches of crushed rock can be substituted with 4 inches of ATB. ATB should be placed over a subgrade compacted to at least 95 percent of the relative density, and a 1Â½- to 2-inch thickness of crushed rock to act as a working surface. If ATB is used for construction access and staging areas, some rutting and disturbance of the ATB surface should be expected. The general contractor should remove affected areas and replace them with properly compacted ATB prior to final surfacing. Concrete Pavement Sections Concrete pavements could be used for access and parking areas. The design of concrete drives that will support heavy vehicles should be designed by the structural engineer. Design of concrete pavements is a function of concrete strength, reinforcement steel, and the anticipated loading conditions for the roads. For design purposes, a vertical modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) should be expected for concrete roadways constructed over properly prepared medium dense to dense native soil, or properly placed and compacted structural fill. GTS expects that concrete pavement sections, if utilized, will be at least 6 inches thick and be founded on a minimum of 8 inches of compacted CSBC. It is assumed that pavement and CSBC sections will be placed over a subgrade compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D1557. Concrete Sidewalks and Hardscapes We recommend a concrete sidewalk and hardscape section consisting of at least 4 inches of concrete above a minimum of 4 inches of CSBC. It is assumed that sidewalks and hardscape sections will be placed over a subgrade compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D1557. Page 12 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 TEST PIT GRADATION RESULTS From the explorations excavated in the areas of interest, seven near-surface soil samples were selected and mechanically tested for grain size distribution and interpretation according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil textural classification. Subsurface infiltration rates corresponding to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil textural classification were obtained from the 2005 Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Table 3.7 and are reproduced in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 Test Pit Soil Sample Infiltration Rates Based On The 2005 DOE Stormwater Management Manual Table 3.7 Test Pit Sample Classification Cation Exchange Infiltration Rate Number Depth (ft) USDA Capacity (meg/100 g) (Inches/Hour) TP-02 1.25 Loamy Sand 9.9 0.5 TP-02 3.0 Sand 3.9 2.0 TP-06 1.0 Loamy Sand NT 0.5 TP-06 2.0 Sand NT 2.0 TP-06 5.0 Sand NT 2.0 TP-08 1.0 Sand 6.2 2.0 TP-08 2.5 Sand 2.5 2.0 Note: Listed infiltration rates are long-term (design) rates as stated in Table 3.7. NT: Not Tested Based on the results of our USDA textural analysis and our interpretation of our soil logs, infiltration into the near surface glacial outwash generally correlates to a long-term infiltration rate of about 2 inches per hour. Locally, silty soils may be present at or near the existing ground surface that have the potential to reduce infiltration rates. Therefore, it is recommended that infiltration facilities penetrate into the more granular and free draining glacial outwash if 2 inches per hour is to be used for the purposes of design. GTS recommends that we be allowed to view the bottom of infiltration facilities during construction to confirm that the soil type and consistency is as anticipated. Alternative means of stormwater management utilizing LID (low impact development) systems, such as pervious pavements and/or raingardens, may be feasible at the project site. In order to fully address stormwater management and/or the infiltration of stormwater, additional studies may be required. The placement of infiltration facilities may be different in final design than what was provided to us for our current studies. As such, GTS is available to assist with additional studies should they be required. Page 13 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 Geotechnical Consultation and Construction Monitoring GeoTest Services recommends that a geotechnical engineer familiar with the project design review the earthwork and foundation portions of the design drawings and specifications. The purpose of the review is to verify that the recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and incorporated in the design and specifications. We recommend that geotechnical construction monitoring services be provided. These services should include observation by geotechnical personnel during fill placement/compaction activities and subgrade preparation operations to verify that design subgrade conditions are obtained beneath the proposed building. We also recommend that periodic field density testing be performed to verify that the appropriate degree of compaction is obtained. The purpose of these services would be to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations of this report, and in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated before the start of construction, provide revised recommendations appropriate to the conditions revealed during construction. GeoTest Services would be pleased to provide these services for you. GeoTest Services is also available to provide a full range of materials testing and special inspection during construction as required by the local building department and the International Building Code. This may include specific construction inspections on materials such as reinforced concrete, reinforced masonry, structural steel and other inspections. These services are supported by our fully accredited materials testing laboratory. USE OF THIS REPORT GeoTest Services has prepared this report for the exclusive use of Smokey Point Distributing , Inc. and their design consultants for specific application to the design of the proposed Smokey Point Distributing Expansion. Use of this report by others or for another project is at the userâ€™s sole risk. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been conducted in accordance with generally accepted practices of the geotechnical engineering profession; no other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. Our site explorations indicate subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated. It is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions to the limited depth of our explorations at the time of our exploration program, a brief geological reconnaissance of the area, and review of published geological information for the site. We assume that the explorations are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site during the preparation of our recommendations. If variations in subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, we should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the start of construction, or if conditions change due to construction operations at or adjacent to the project site, we recommend that we review this report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. Page 14 of 15 Project Location NORTH Map from ACME Mapper 2.1 Date: 3-17-14 By: JB Scale: none Project GEOTEST SERVICES, INC. SITE VICINITY MAP 14-0086 741 Marine Drive Bellingham, WA 98225 SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING Figure phone: (360)733-7318 63RD AVENUE AND 192ND STREET NE fax: (360)733-7418 A RLINGTON, WASHINGTON 1 TP-03 TP-04 TP-09 B-3 B-1 TP-10 TP-02 B-2 TP-08 B-4 TP-05 TP-07 TP-06 TP-01 3-17-14 JB AsShown Project B- # = Boring Exploration Location GEOTEST SERVICES, INC. 14-0086 NORTH 741 Marine Drive SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN TP- # = Test Pit Exploration Location Bellingham, WA 98225 SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING FIGURE phone: (360)733-7318 63 RD AVENUE AND 192ND STREET NE fax: (360)733-7418 A 2 RLINGTON, WASHINGTON SHALLOW FOOTINGS WITH INTERIOR SLAB-ON-GRADE Notes: Footings Should be properlyburied for frost protection in accordance with International Building Code or local building codes (Typically18 inches below exterior finished grades) Date: 3-17-13 By: JB Scale: None Project GEOTEST SERVICES, INC. TYPICAL FOOTING & WALL DRAIN SECTION 14-0086 741MarineDrive Bellingham,WA 98225 SMOKEYPOINTDISTRIBUTING Figure phone: (360)733-7318 63RDAVENUEAND192NDSTREETNE fax: (360)733-7418 A 3 RLINGTON,WASHINGTON Soil Classification System USCS MAJOR GRAPHIC LETTER TYPICAL DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL DESCRIPTIONS(1)(2) CLEAN GRAVEL GW Well-graded gravel; gravel/sand mixture(s); little or no fines GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOIL (Little or no fines) GP Poorly graded gravel; gravel/sand mixture(s); little or no fines (More than 50% of GRAVEL WITH FINES GM Silty gravel; gravel/sand/silt mixture(s) coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve) (Appreciable amount of fines) GC Clayey gravel; gravel/sand/clay mixture(s) CLEAN SAND SW Well-graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines SAND AND SANDY SOIL (Little or no fines) SP Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines COARSE-GRAINED SOIL(More than 50% of material islarger than No. 200 sieve size)(More than 50% of SM Silty sand; sand/silt mixture(s) coarse fraction passed SAND WITH FINES through No. 4 sieve) (Appreciable amount of fines) SC Clayey sand; sand/clay mixture(s) ML Inorganic silt and very fine sand; rock flour; silty or clayey fine SILT AND CLAY sand or clayey silt with slight plasticity CL Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy (Liquid limit less than 50) clay; silty clay; lean clay OL Organic silt; organic, silty clay of low plasticity size) MH Inorganic silt; micaceous or diatomaceous fine sand SILT AND CLAY CH Inorganic clay of high plasticity; fat clay (Liquid limit greater than 50) FINE-GRAINED SOIL(More than 50% of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve OH Organic clay of medium to high plasticity; organic silt HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL PT Peat; humus; swamp soil with high organic content GRAPHIC LETTER OTHER MATERIALS SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS PAVEMENT AC or PC Asphalt concrete pavement or Portland cement pavement ROCK RK Rock (See Rock Classification) WOOD WD Wood, lumber, wood chips DEBRIS DB Construction debris, garbage Notes: 1. Soil descriptions are based on the general approach presented in the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), as outlined in ASTM D 2488. Where laboratory index testing has been conducted, soil classifications are based on the Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes, as outlined in ASTM D 2487. 2. Soil description terminology is based on visual estimates (in the absence of laboratory test data) of the percentages of each soil type and is defined as follows: Primary Constituent: > 50% - "GRAVEL," "SAND," "SILT," "CLAY," etc. Secondary Constituents: > 30% and <_ 50% - "very gravelly," "very sandy," "very silty," etc. > 12% and <_ 30% - "gravelly," "sandy," "silty," etc. Additional Constituents: > 5% and <_ 12% - "slightly gravelly," "slightly sandy," "slightly silty," etc. <_ 5% - "trace gravel," "trace sand," "trace silt," etc., or not noted. Drilling and Sampling Key Field and Lab Test Data SAMPLE NUMBER & INTERVAL SAMPLER TYPE Code Description Code Description Sample Identification Number a 3.25-inch O.D., 2.42-inch I.D. Split Spoon PP = 1.0 Pocket Penetrometer, tsf b 2.00-inch O.D., 1.50-inch I.D. Split Spoon TV = 0.5 Torvane, tsf Recovery Depth Interval c Shelby Tube PID = 100 Photoionization Detector VOC screening, ppm d Grab Sample W = 10 Moisture Content, % 1 Sample Depth Interval e Other - See text if applicable D = 120 Dry Density, pcf Portion of Sample Retained 1 300-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop -200 = 60 Material smaller than No. 200 sieve, % for Archive or Analysis 2 140-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop GS Grain Size - See separate figure for data 3 Pushed AL Atterberg Limits - See separate figure for data 4 Other - See text if applicable GT Other Geotechnical Testing Groundwater CA Chemical Analysis Approximate water elevation at time of drilling (ATD) or on date noted. Groundwater ATD levels can fluctuate due to precipitation, seasonal conditions, and other factors. Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Soil Classification System and Key 4 Arlington, Washington B-1 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Drilling Method: Hollow-stem Auger Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Elevation Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeBlows/FootTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 SM Loose, moist, dark brown/black, very silty SAND, trace to slightly gravelly. (TOPSOIL) SP- Groundwater not encountered. S-1 b2 22 Medium dense, orange-tan, gravelly SAND, SM slightly silty. (Weathered Outwash) S-2 b2 42 GP/ Dense to very dense, moist, gray, very SP gravelly SAND (Glacial Outwash) 5 S-3 b2 28 S-4 b2 47 10 W = 7 Slightly gravelly, slightly silty SAND S-5 b2 30 GS 15 Dense, gray, moist, gravelly SAND, slightly S-6 b2 43 silty 20 S-7 b2 48 25 S-8 b2 51 30 W = 8 S-9 b2 31 GS 35 S-10 b2 50/6 Boring Completed 03/19/14 Total Depth of Boring = 36.0 ft. 40 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ SOIL BORING LOG W/ ELEV Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of B-1 5 Arlington, Washington B-2 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Drilling Method: Hollow-stem Auger Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Elevation Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeBlows/FootTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 SM Loose, moist, dark brown/black, very silty GP/ SAND, trace to slightly gravelly. (TOPSOIL) Groundwater not encountered. SP Medium dense to very dense, moist, gray, very gravelly SAND (Glacial Outwash) S-1 b2 29 5 S-2 b2 21 S-3 b2 42 10 S-4 b2 35 15 Very dense, moist, gravelly SAND, trace silt. S-5 b2 79/11 20 S-6 b2 52 Boring Completed 03/19/14 Total Depth of Boring = 21.5 ft. 25 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ SOIL BORING LOG W/ ELEV Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of B-2 6 Arlington, Washington B-3 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Drilling Method: Hollow-stem Auger Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Elevation Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeBlows/FootTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 SM Loose, moist, dark brown/black, very silty SP- SAND, trace to slightly gravelly. (TOPSOIL) Groundwater not encountered. SM Medium dense, orange-tan, gravelly SAND, slightly silty. (Weathered Outwash) S-1 b2 36 GP/ Dense to very dense, moist, gray, very SP gravelly SAND (Glacial Outwash) 5 S-2 b2 46 S-3 b2 44 10 W = 5 S-4 b2 44 GS 15 very dense, gray, moist, gravelly SAND, trace silt S-5 b2 74 20 S-6 b2 75 Boring Completed 03/19/14 Total Depth of Boring = 21.5 ft. 25 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ SOIL BORING LOG W/ ELEV Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of B-3 7 Arlington, Washington B-4 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Drilling Method: Hollow-stem Auger Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Elevation Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeBlows/FootTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 SM Loose, moist, dark brown/black, very silty SAND, trace to slightly gravelly. (TOPSOIL) SP- Groundwater not encountered. Medium dense, orange-tan, gravelly SAND, SM slightly silty. (Weathered Outwash) S-1 b2 41 5 GP/ Dense to very dense, moist, gray, very S-2 b2 43 SP gravelly SAND (Glacial Outwash) S-3 b2 50/5 10 S-4 b2 26 15 S-5 b2 46 20 W = 14 Very dense, gray, moist, silty SAND, trace S-6 b2 50/6 GS gravel 25 scattered, thin lenses of silt S-7 b2 89 30 S-8 b2 59 35 S-9 b2 55 Boring Completed 03/19/14 Total Depth of Boring = 36.5 ft. 40 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ SOIL BORING LOG W/ ELEV Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of B-4 8 Arlington, Washington TP-1 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 1 d OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very 2 d SM sandy, SILT (Topsoil) Groundwater not encountered. Medium dense, orange tan, moist, silty, SAND GP/ (Weathered Outwash) with scattered roots 3 d SP Medium dense to dense, tan grey, damp, very sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND 5 4 d (Glacial Outwash) with trace roots and slight caving to 5 feet BGS Becoming moist to wet below 9 feet BGS 10 5 d 15 Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 Total Depth of Test Pit = 13.5 ft. TP-2 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very W = 18 SM sandy, SILT (Topsoil) 6 d Groundwater not encountered. GS Medium dense, orange tan, moist, silty, SAND GP/ W = 5 SP (Weathered Outwash) with scattered roots 7 d GS Medium dense to dense, tan grey, damp, very sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND 5 (Glacial Outwash) with trace roots and slight caving to 5 feet BGS 8 d Becoming moist to wet at 8 feet BGS 10 Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 Total Depth of Test Pit = 9.0 ft. 15 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ TEST PIT LOG Smokey Point Distributing Figure 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of Test Pits Arlington, Washington 9 (1 of 5) TP-3 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very SM sandy, SILT (Topsoil) 9 d Groundwater not encountered. Medium dense, orange tan, moist, slightly silty SP to silty, SAND (Weathered Outwash) with 10 d scattered roots Medium dense to dense, tan grey, damp, 5 slightly gravelly to gravelly, SAND (Glacial Outwash) with trace roots and moderate caving GP/ 11 d SP Medium dense to dense, tan grey, damp, very sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 (Glacial Outwash) 10 Total Depth of Test Pit = 8.0 ft. 15 TP-4 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very SM sandy, SILT (Topsoil) Groundwater not encountered. 12 d GP/ Medium dense, orange tan, moist, slightly silty SP to silty, SAND (Weathered Outwash) with scattered roots Medium dense to dense, grey, damp, 5 alternating approximately 1 foot layers of SAND and very sandy, GRAVEL (Glacial Outwash) 13 d 10 Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 Total Depth of Test Pit = 9.0 ft. 15 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ TEST PIT LOG Smokey Point Distributing Figure 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of Test Pits Arlington, Washington 10 (2 of 5) TP-5 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very SM sandy, SILT (Topsoil) Groundwater not encountered. GP/ Loose to medium dense, orange tan, moist, SP slightly silty to silty, SAND (Weathered 14 d Outwash) with scattered roots; extending to as deep as 3 feet BGS in scattered apparent 5 tree-root wells Medium dense to dense, grey, damp, very Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND Total Depth of Test Pit = 5.0 ft. (Glacial Outwash) Test pit halted at 5 feet BGS due to excavator mechanical problems 10 15 TP-6 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 15 d OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very 16 d W = 16 SM sandy, SILT (Topsoil) GS Groundwater not encountered. 17 d W = 7 SP Loose to medium dense, orange tan, moist, GS silty, SAND (Weathered Outwash) with GP/ scattered roots; extending to as deep as 3 feet SP BGS in scattered apparent tree-root wells 5 18 d W = 5 Medium dense to dense, tan grey, damp, GS slightly gravelly to gravelly, SAND (Glacial Outwash) with trace roots and moderate caving Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 Total Depth of Test Pit = 6.5 ft. Medium dense to dense, tan grey, damp, very sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND (Glacial Outwash) 10 15 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ TEST PIT LOG Smokey Point Distributing Figure 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of Test Pits Arlington, Washington 11 (3 of 5) TP-7 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very SM sandy, SILT (Topsoil) 19 d Groundwater not encountered. Medium dense, orange tan, moist, slightly GP/ gravelly, silty, SAND (Weathered Outwash) SP with scattered roots 20 d Medium dense to dense, grey, damp, 5 alternating layers of slightly gravelly, SAND and very sandy, GRAVEL (Glacial Outwash) 10 Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 Total Depth of Test Pit = 9.0 ft. 15 TP-8 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very 21 d W = 10 SP- sandy, SILT (Topsoil) GS Groundwater not encountered. SM Medium dense, orange tan, moist, slightly W = 4 22 d GP/ silty, very gravelly, fine to coarse SAND GS SP (Weathered Outwash) with scattered roots Medium dense to dense, grey, damp, very 5 23 d sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND (Glacial Outwash) Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 Total Depth of Test Pit = 7.5 ft. 10 15 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ TEST PIT LOG Smokey Point Distributing Figure 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of Test Pits Arlington, Washington 12 (4 of 5) TP-9 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very SP- sandy, SILT (Topsoil) 24 d SM Groundwater not encountered. Medium dense, orange tan, moist, slightly GP/ silty, very gravelly, SAND (Weathered 25 d SP Outwash) with scattered roots Medium dense to dense, tan, damp, very 5 sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND (Glacial Outwash) Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 10 Total Depth of Test Pit = 8.0 ft. 15 TP-10 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very SP- sandy, SILT (Topsoil) Groundwater not encountered. SM Loose to medium dense, orange tan, moist, GP/ slightly silty, very gravelly, SAND (Weathered SP Outwash) with scattered roots; extending to as deep as 3 feet BGS in scattered apparent 5 Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 tree-root wells Total Depth of Test Pit = 3.5 ft. Medium dense to dense, tan, damp, very sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND (Glacial Outwash) 10 15 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ TEST PIT LOG Smokey Point Distributing Figure 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of Test Pits Arlington, Washington 13 (5 of 5) U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200 6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140 100 90 80 70 60 50 Percent Finer by Weight40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Gravel Sand Cobbles Silt or Clay coarse fine coarse medium fine Point Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu B-1 10.0 Gravelly SAND, slightly silty (SM) 1.31 19.72 B-1 30.0 Slightly gravelly, slightly silty SAND (SM) 2.18 7.33 B-3 10.0 Very gravely SAND, slightly silty (SM) 0.91 30.17 B-4 20.0 Silty SAND, trace gravel. (SM) %Coarse % Fine % Coarse % Medium % Fine Point Depth D100 D60 D50 D30 D10 Gravel Gravel Sand Sand Sand % Fines B-1 10.0 25 2.452 1.554 0.632 0.124 3.4 23.3 17.4 33.8 15.0 7.1 B-1 30.0 19 0.467 0.378 0.255 0.064 0.0 4.1 3.3 36.8 45.1 10.8 B-3 10.0 37.5 3.59 2.166 0.624 0.119 5.5 29.0 17.1 24.7 16.1 7.6 B-4 20.0 9.5 0.179 0.153 0.113 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.5 79.8 17.2 C = D 2/(D * D ) To be well graded: 1 < C < 3 and c 30 60 10 c Cu = D60/D10 Cu > 4 for GW or Cu > 6 for SW 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ GRAIN SIZE W/STATS Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Grain Size Test Data 14 Arlington, Washington U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200 6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140 100 90 80 70 60 50 Percent Finer by Weight40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Gravel Sand Cobbles Silt or Clay coarse fine coarse medium fine Point Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu TP-2 1.3 Silty, fine to medium SAND (SM) TP-2 3.0 Very sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL (SP) 0.87 29.07 TP-6 1.0 Silty, fine to coarse SAND (SM) TP-6 2.0 Fine to medium SAND (SP) 0.96 1.84 TP-6 5.0 Very gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (SP) 0.69 12.43 %Coarse % Fine % Coarse % Medium % Fine Point Depth D100 D60 D50 D30 D10 Gravel Gravel Sand Sand Sand % Fines TP-2 1.3 19 0.52 0.403 0.254 0.0 2.0 2.6 43.1 38.7 13.6 TP-2 3.0 37.5 9.201 5.884 1.588 0.316 19.3 35.5 12.4 19.6 10.3 2.8 TP-6 1.0 19 0.488 0.375 0.213 0.0 3.3 5.3 35.9 38.2 17.3 TP-6 2.0 9.5 0.425 0.381 0.307 0.23 0.0 0.8 2.0 37.1 59.3 0.8 TP-6 5.0 25 5.062 3.387 1.191 0.407 3.4 38.8 20.0 27.3 9.4 1.1 C = D 2/(D * D ) To be well graded: 1 < C < 3 and c 30 60 10 c Cu = D60/D10 Cu > 4 for GW or Cu > 6 for SW 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ GRAIN SIZE W/STATS Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Grain Size Test Data 15 Arlington, Washington U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200 6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140 100 90 80 70 60 50 Percent Finer by Weight40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Gravel Sand Cobbles Silt or Clay coarse fine coarse medium fine Point Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu TP-8 1.0 Slightly silty, very gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) 0.73 23.52 TP-8 2.5 Very gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (SP) 0.74 14.59 %Coarse % Fine % Coarse % Medium % Fine Point Depth D100 D60 D50 D30 D10 Gravel Gravel Sand Sand Sand % Fines TP-8 1.0 37.5 3.81 1.937 0.672 0.162 9.9 26.8 12.7 30.9 14.6 5.1 TP-8 2.5 37.5 7.357 4.549 1.656 0.504 18.3 30.9 16.9 25.9 7.3 0.6 C = D 2/(D * D ) To be well graded: 1 < C < 3 and c 30 60 10 c Cu = D60/D10 Cu > 4 for GW or Cu > 6 for SW 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ GRAIN SIZE W/STATS Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Grain Size Test Data 16 Arlington, Washington APPENDIX F NRCS Soil Survey United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for States Department of Agriculture and other Snohomish County Federal agencies, State Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment Area, Washington Conservation Stations, and local Service participants February 6, 2014 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http:// offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2 for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................7 Soil Map................................................................................................................8 Legend..................................................................................................................9 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................10 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................10 Snohomish County Area, Washington............................................................12 17â€”Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes.............................12 30â€”Lynnwood loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes......................................12 References............................................................................................................14 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the 5 Custom Soil Resource Report individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil- landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 6 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 7 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 122Â° 8' 53'' W 122Â° 8' 19'' W 563360 563430 563500 563570 563640 563710 563780 563850 563920 563990 48Â° 10' 20'' N 48Â° 10' 20'' N 5335790 5335790 5335720 5335720 5335650 5335650 5335580 5335580 5335510 5335510 5335440 5335440 5335370 5335370 48Â° 10' 5'' N 48Â° 10' 5'' N 563360 563430 563500 563570 563640 563710 563780 563850 563920 563990 Map Scale: 1:3,170 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters 122Â° 8' 53'' WN 0 45 90 180 270 122Â° 8' 19'' W Feet 0 150 300 600 900 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 8 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Area of Interest (AOI) Stony Spot Soils Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Very Stony Spot Soil Map Unit Polygons Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Soil Map Unit Lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line Other Soil Map Unit Points placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting Special Line Features soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Special Point Features Water Features Blowout Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Borrow Pit measurements. Transportation Clay Spot Rails Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Closed Depression Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Interstate Highways Gravel Pit Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) US Routes Gravelly Spot Major Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Landfill projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts Local Roads distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Lava Flow Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate Background Marsh or swamp Aerial Photography calculations of distance or area are required. Mine or Quarry This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of Miscellaneous Water the version date(s) listed below. Perennial Water Soil Survey Area: Snohomish County Area, Washington Rock Outcrop Survey Area Data: Version 8, Dec 10, 2013 Saline Spot Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 Sandy Spot or larger. Severely Eroded Spot Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 9, 2010â€”Sep 29, Sinkhole 2011 Slide or Slip The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Sodic Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Snohomish County Area, Washington (WA661) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 17 Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 46.2 97.0% 8 percent slopes 30 Lynnwood loamy sand, 0 to 3 1.4 3.0% percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 47.6 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If 10 Custom Soil Resource Report intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha- Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 11 Custom Soil Resource Report Snohomish County Area, Washington 17â€”Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation: 30 to 45 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 180 days Map Unit Composition Everett and similar soils: 100 percent Description of Everett Setting Landform: Terraces, plains Parent material: Glacial outwash Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 14 to 20 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.1 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Land capability (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Other vegetative classification: Unnamed (G002XN402WA) Typical profile 0 to 6 inches: Gravelly ashy sandy loam 6 to 18 inches: Very gravelly ashy sandy loam 18 to 60 inches: Extremely gravelly sand 30â€”Lynnwood loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 50 to 600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 65 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 180 to 200 days Map Unit Composition Lynnwood and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 3 percent 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Lynnwood Setting Landform: Terraces, outwash plains Parent material: Glacial outwash Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Low (about 4.8 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Land capability (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Other vegetative classification: Unnamed (G002XN402WA) Typical profile 0 to 1 inches: Loamy sand 1 to 29 inches: Loamy sand 29 to 60 inches: Sand Minor Components Custer Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Depressions 13 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/ landuse/forestry/pub/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 14 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf 15 APPENDIX G Operations & Maintenance Manual No. 2 â€“ Infiltration Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Results Expected When Component Needed Maintenance Is Performed General Trash & Debris See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). Poisonous/Noxious See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" Vegetation (No. 1). Contaminants and See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" Pollution (No. 1). Rodent Holes See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1) Storage Area Sediment Water ponding in infiltration pond after Sediment is removed rainfall ceases and appropriate time and/or facility is cleaned allowed for infiltration. so that infiltration system works according to (A percolation test pit or test of facility design. indicates facility is only working at 90% of its designed capabilities. If two inches or more sediment is present, remove). Filter Bags (if Filled with Sediment and debris fill bag more than 1/2 Filter bag is replaced or applicable) Sediment and full. system is redesigned. Debris Rock Filters Sediment and By visual inspection, little or no water flows Gravel in rock filter is Debris through filter during heavy rain storms. replaced. Side Slopes of Erosion See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" Pond (No. 1). Emergency Tree Growth See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" Overflow Spillway (No. 1). and Berms over 4 feet in height. Piping See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). Emergency Rock Missing See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" Overflow Spillway (No. 1). Erosion See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). Pre-settling Facility or sump 6" or designed sediment trap depth of Sediment is removed. Ponds and Vaults filled with Sediment sediment. and/or debris February 2005 Volume V â€“ Runoff Treatment BMPs 4-33 No. 4 â€“ Control Structure/Flow Restrictor Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected Component When Maintenance is Performed General Trash and Debris Material exceeds 25% of sump depth or 1 Control structure (Includes Sediment) foot below orifice plate. orifice is not blocked. All trash and debris removed. Structural Damage Structure is not securely attached to Structure securely manhole wall. attached to wall and outlet pipe. Structure is not in upright position (allow up Structure in correct to 10% from plumb). position. Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight Connections to outlet and show signs of rust. pipe are water tight; structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. Any holes--other than designed holes--in the Structure has no structure. holes other than designed holes. Cleanout Gate Damaged or Missing Cleanout gate is not watertight or is missing. Gate is watertight and works as designed. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one Gate moves up and maintenance person. down easily and is watertight. Chain/rod leading to gate is missing or Chain is in place and damaged. works as designed. Gate is rusted over 50% of its surface area. Gate is repaired or replaced to meet design standards. Orifice Plate Damaged or Missing Control device is not working properly due to Plate is in place and missing, out of place, or bent orifice plate. works as designed. Obstructions Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation Plate is free of all blocking the plate. obstructions and works as designed. Overflow Pipe Obstructions Any trash or debris blocking (or having the Pipe is free of all potential of blocking) the overflow pipe. obstructions and works as designed. Manhole See â€œClosed See â€œClosed Detention Systemsâ€ (No. 3). See â€œClosed Detention Systemsâ€ Detention Systemsâ€ (No. 3). (No. 3). Catch Basin See â€œCatch Basinsâ€ See â€œCatch Basinsâ€ (No. 5). See â€œCatch Basinsâ€ (No. 5). (No. 5). February 2005 Volume V â€“ Runoff Treatment BMPs 4-35 No. 5 â€“ Catch Basins Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is performed General Trash & Trash or debris which is located immediately No Trash or debris located Debris in front of the catch basin opening or is immediately in front of blocking inletting capacity of the basin by catch basin or on grate more than 10%. opening. Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 60 No trash or debris in the percent of the sump depth as measured from catch basin. the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case less than a minimum of six inches clearance from the debris surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe Inlet and outlet pipes free blocking more than 1/3 of its height. of trash or debris. Dead animals or vegetation that could No dead animals or generate odors that could cause complaints vegetation present within or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). the catch basin. Sediment Sediment (in the basin) that exceeds 60 No sediment in the catch percent of the sump depth as measured from basin the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case less than a minimum of 6 inches clearance from the sediment surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. Structure Top slab has holes larger than 2 square Top slab is free of holes Damage to inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch and cracks. Frame and/or Top Slab (Intent is to make sure no material is running into basin). Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame the riser rings or top slab from the top slab. Frame not securely and firmly attached. attached Fractures or Maintenance person judges that structure is Basin replaced or repaired Cracks in unsound. to design standards. Basin Walls/ Bottom Grout fillet has separated or cracked wider Pipe is regrouted and than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the secure at basin wall. joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Settlement/ If failure of basin has created a safety, Basin replaced or repaired Misalignment function, or design problem. to design standards. Vegetation Vegetation growing across and blocking more No vegetation blocking than 10% of the basin opening. opening to basin. Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints No vegetation or root that is more than six inches tall and less than growth present. six inches apart. 4-36 Volume V â€“ Runoff Treatment BMPs February 2005 No. 5 â€“ Catch Basins Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is performed Contamination See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). No pollution present. and Pollution Catch Basin Cover Not in Cover is missing or only partially in place. Catch basin cover is Cover Place Any open catch basin requires maintenance. closed Locking Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with Mechanism maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts proper tools. Not Working into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread. Cover Difficult One maintenance person cannot remove lid Cover can be removed by to Remove after applying normal lifting pressure. one maintenance person. (Intent is keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance.) Ladder Ladder Rungs Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, not Ladder meets design Unsafe securely attached to basin wall, standards and allows misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges. maintenance person safe access. Metal Grates Grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets (If Applicable) Unsafe design standards. Trash and Trash and debris that is blocking more than Grate free of trash and Debris 20% of grate surface inletting capacity. debris. Damaged or Grate missing or broken member(s) of the Grate is in place and Missing. grate. meets design standards. No. 6 â€“ Debris Barriers (e.g., Trash Racks) Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Results Expected When Components Needed Maintenance is Performed General Trash and Trash or debris that is plugging more Barrier cleared to design flow Debris than 20% of the openings in the barrier. capacity. Metal Damaged/ Bars are bent out of shape more than 3 Bars in place with no bends more Missing inches. than 3/4 inch. Bars. Bars are missing or entire barrier Bars in place according to design. missing. Bars are loose and rust is causing 50% Barrier replaced or repaired to deterioration to any part of barrier. design standards. Inlet/Outlet Debris barrier missing or not attached to Barrier firmly attached to pipe Pipe pipe February 2005 Volume V â€“ Runoff Treatment BMPs 4-37 No. 7 â€“ Energy Dissipaters Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Results Expected When Components Needed Maintenance is Performed External: Rock Pad Missing or Only one layer of rock exists above Rock pad replaced to design Moved Rock native soil in area five square feet or standards. larger, or any exposure of native soil. Erosion Soil erosion in or adjacent to rock pad. Rock pad replaced to design standards. Dispersion Trench Pipe Accumulated sediment that exceeds Pipe cleaned/flushed so that it Plugged with 20% of the design depth. matches design. Sediment Not Visual evidence of water discharging at Trench redesigned or rebuilt to Discharging concentrated points along trench (normal standards. Water condition is a â€œsheet flowâ€ of water along Properly trench). Intent is to prevent erosion damage. Perforations Over 1/2 of perforations in pipe are Perforated pipe cleaned or Plugged. plugged with debris and sediment. replaced. Water Flows Maintenance person observes or Facility rebuilt or redesigned to Out Top of receives credible report of water flowing standards. â€œDistributorâ€ out during any storm less than the design Catch Basin. storm or its causing or appears likely to cause damage. Receiving Water in receiving area is causing or has No danger of landslides. Area Over- potential of causing landslide problems. Saturated Internal: Manhole/Chamber Worn or Structure dissipating flow deteriorates to Structure replaced to design Damaged 1/2 of original size or any concentrated standards. Post, worn spot exceeding one square foot Baffles, Side which would make structure unsound. of Chamber Other See â€œCatch Basinsâ€ (No. 5). See â€œCatch Basinsâ€ (No. 5). Defects 4-38 Volume V â€“ Runoff Treatment BMPs February 2005 No. 10 â€“ Filter Strips Maintenance Defect or Condition When Recommended Maintenance to Correct Component Problem Maintenance is Needed Problem General Sediment Sediment depth exceeds 2 Remove sediment deposits, re-level so Accumulation on inches. slope is even and flows pass evenly through Grass strip. Vegetation When the grass becomes Mow grass, control nuisance vegetation, excessively tall (greater such that flow not impeded. Grass should be than 10-inches); when mowed to a height between 3-4 inches. nuisance weeds and other vegetation starts to take over. Trash and Debris Trash and debris Remove trash and Debris from filter. Accumulation accumulated on the filter strip. Erosion/Scouring Eroded or scoured areas For ruts or bare areas less than 12 inches due to flow channelization, wide, repair the damaged area by filling with or higher flows. crushed gravel. The grass will creep in over the rock in time. If bare areas are large, generally greater than 12 inches wide, the filter strip should be re-graded and re- seeded. For smaller bare areas, overseed when bare spots are evident. Flow spreader Flow spreader uneven or Level the spreader and clean so that flows clogged so that flows are are spread evenly over entire filter width. not uniformly distributed through entire filter width. February 2005 Volume V â€“ Runoff Treatment BMPs 4-41 OPERTATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CONTACT: CONTACT: Chris Tauzin ADDRESS: 17305 59th Ave NE Arlington, WA 98223 PHONE: 425.508.3959 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. If ponding lasts more than 24 hours in the infiltration facilities after a storm event the facility must be maintained as outlined in the Operations and Maintenance guidelines attached. Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Minimum Requirement #1 Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans ............................................................... 7 Minimum Requirement #2 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention ................................................ 7 The 12 BMP Elements ............................................................................................................................... 7 Element #1 â€“ Mark Clearing Limits ....................................................................................................... 7 Element #2 â€“ Establish Construction Access ........................................................................................ 7 Element #3 â€“ Control Flow Rates .......................................................................................................... 7 Element #4 â€“ Install Sediment Controls ................................................................................................ 8 Element #5 â€“ Stabilize Soils................................................................................................................... 8 Element #6 â€“ Protect Slopes ................................................................................................................. 8 Element #7 â€“ Protect Drain Inlets ......................................................................................................... 8 Element #8 â€“ Stabilize Channels and Outlets ....................................................................................... 8 Element #9 â€“ Control Pollutants ........................................................................................................... 8 Element #10 â€“ Control Dewatering ...................................................................................................... 9 Element #11 â€“ Maintain BMPs.............................................................................................................. 9 Element #12 â€“ Manage the Project ...................................................................................................... 9 Minimum Requirement #3 Source Control of Pollution ............................................................................. 12 Minimum Requirement #4 Preservation of Natural Drainage System and Outfalls .................................. 13 Existing Drainage ................................................................................................................................. 13 Soil ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 Downstream Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 13 Minimum Requirement #5 On-Site Stormwater Management .................................................................. 13 Minimum Requirement #6 Runoff Treatment ............................................................................................ 13 Minimum Requirement #7 Flow Control .................................................................................................... 14 Temporary Drainage Calculations ....................................................................................................... 15 Minimum Requirement #8 â€“ Wetlands Protection .................................................................................... 15 Minimum Requirement #9 â€“ Basin Watershed Planning............................................................................ 15 Minimum Requirement #10 â€“ Operations and Maintenance .................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A DRAINAGE PLAN APPENDIX B FLOW CONTROL CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C WATER QUAILITY QUAILTY CALCULATIONS & INFORMATION APPENDIX D SWPPP PLAN APPENDIX E GEO-TECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX F NRCS SOIL SURVEY APPENDIX G OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE MANUAL Introduction The project is generally located in the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 31 North, Range 05 East of the Willamette Meridian. More specifically the site is located North of 188th Street on 63rd Ave NE. The parcel numbers for the site are 31051500400300, 31051500400400, and 31051500401500. The current use of the site is 910 Undeveloped (Vacant) Land and is 15.97 acres and contains 100% of low growing vegetation. The site is generally flat with less than 3% slope and consists of loamy sand type soils. There are no known wetlands on-site or in the adjacent areas. The proposed project mainly consists of slight grading and vegetation removal and the construction of a new 58,656 sf. building, parking lots, access roads, permeable gravel parking/storage areas, and associated utilities. Note that the proposed building will have a roof area of 63,968 sf. The new asphalt entrance along the west side of the site will provide access to the east side of 63rd Ave NE. Water is to be provided by a new water main bisecting the property from 63rd Ave NE to 66th Ave NE. Sewer is to be provided by a new stub-out extending from the existing main located along the east side of 63rd Ave NE. All stormwater runoff is to be treated prior to flow control through either a WSDOT Media Filter, 5 BayFilters, or 18â€ of loamy sand that meets treatment specifications. Flow control facilities consist of large infiltration trenches. Refer to Minimum Requirements #6-7 for further drainage information. Note that the building is permitted per Land Used Code, Table of Permissible Uses Section 10.400 General Industrial. Page | 4 Page | 5 Minimum Requirement #1 Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans Stormwater Site Plans are being prepared in accordance with Volume I of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington as part of this project. The plans are prepared as part of the Land Use Permit submittal for the City of Arlington. Minimum Requirement #2 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan has been created for this project. This project does not meet the requirements that warrant an NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit because it does not discharge to waters of the state. All of the stormwater generated by the construction site will be infiltrated on the site. The 12 BMP Elements have been addressed in this report and in the SWPP plan. The 12 BMP Elements Element #1 â€“ 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. Trees that are to be preserved, as well as all sensitive areas and their buffers, shall be clearly delineated, both in the field and on the plans. In general, natural vegetation and native topsoil shall be retained in an undisturbed state to the maximum extent possible. The BMPs relevant to marking the clearing limits that will be applied for this project include: BMP C103: High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence: The clearing limits will be marked only by property boundary stakes. If entrances other than the construction entrance are used and need to be limited, high visibility or construction fencing will be used. Element #2 â€“ 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 wheel washing, 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: BMP C105: Stabilize Construction Entrance Element #3 â€“ Control Flow Rates Flow control will be achieved by infiltrating all stormwater on the site. There will be no runoff leaving the site during storm events. Page | 7 Element #4 â€“ Install Sediment Controls Stormwater runoff is not anticipated to leave the site. Sediment controls will be installed on the site to protect the existing and proposed infiltration facilities. All stormwater runoff from disturbed areas shall pass through an appropriate sediment removal BMP before leaving the construction site or prior to being discharged to an infiltration facility. The specific BMPs to be used for controlling sediment on this project include: BMP C220: Storm Drain Inlet Protection BMP C233: Silt Fence Element #5 â€“ 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: BMP C120: Temporary and Permanent Seeding BMP C121: Mulching Element #6 â€“ Protect Slopes All cut and fill slopes will be designed, constructed, and protected in a manner than minimizes erosion. The slopes on the site in the existing and proposed condition are minimal therefore BMPs for slope protection are not necessary. Element #7 â€“ Protect Drain Inlets All storm drain inlets and culverts made operable during construction shall be protected to prevent unfiltered or untreated water from entering the drainage conveyance system. However, the first priority is to keep all access roads clean of sediment and keep street wash water separate from entering storm drains until treatment can be provided. Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220) will be implemented for all drainage inlets and culverts that could potentially be impacted by sediment-laden runoff on and near the project site. The following inlet protection measures will be applied on this project: BMP C201: Grass-Lined Channels BMP C220: Storm Drain Inlet Protection Element #8 â€“ Stabilize Channels and Outlets The site will not produce runoff that will be conveyed in channels, or discharged to a stream or some other natural drainage point. Element #9 â€“ 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 Page | 8 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. The facility does not require a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan under the Federal regulations of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Element #10 â€“ Control Dewatering There will be no dewatering as part of this construction project. Element #11 â€“ 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. Element #12 â€“ Manage the Project Erosion and sediment control BMPs for this project have been designed based on the following principles: ï‚§ The site has been designed so that the project fits the existing topography, soils, and drainage patterns. ï‚§ Erosion control is emphasized rather than sediment control. ï‚§ The project is being phased in order to minimize the extent and duration of the area exposed. ï‚§ Runoff velocities are kept low due to the slope of the site. No runoff will leave the site. ï‚§ Sediment will be retained on site. ï‚§ ESC measures will be thoroughly monitored throughout the duration of the project. ï‚§ Most of the earthwork will be scheduled during the dry season however due to the low erosive nature of the soils winter grading is not expected to create an additional erosion problem. In addition, project management will incorporate the key components listed below: Page | 9 As this project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest, the project will be managed according to the following key project components: Phasing of Construction ï‚§ 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. ï‚§ Re-vegetation 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 ï‚§ Since the site is expected to have 100 percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities. It is not necessary to limit the work to a seasonal window. Coordination with Utilities and Other Jurisdictions ï‚§ 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 ï‚§ 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: â€¢ Assess the site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater, and â€¢ Assess the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges. ï‚§ A Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall be on-site or on-call at all times. ï‚§ 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 ï‚§ This SWPPP shall be retained on-site or within reasonable access to the site. Page | 10 ï‚§ 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. ï‚§ 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 identified. Revisions to the SWPPP shall be completed within seven (7) days following the inspection. Page | 11 Minimum Requirement #3 Source Control of Pollution All known, available and reasonable source control BMPs shall be applied to this project. BMPs will be used to prevent stormwater from coming into contract with pollutants. Owner will assign one individuals to be responsible for stormwater pollution control. Hold regular meetings to review the overall operation of the BMPs. The owner will establish responsibilities for inspections, operation and maintenance, and availability for emergency situations. Owner agrees to train all team members in the operation, maintenance and inspections of BMPs, and reporting procedures. Owner agrees to promptly contain and clean up solid and liquid pollutant leaks and spills including oils, solvents, fuels, and dust from manufacturing operations on any exposed soil, vegetation, or paved area. Owner agrees to sweep paved material handling and storage areas regularly as needed, for the collection and disposal of dust and debris that could contaminate stormwater. Owner agrees to not hose down pollutants from any area to the ground, storm drain, conveyance ditch, or receiving water unless necessary for dust control purposes to meet air quality regulations and unless the pollutants are conveyed to a treatment system approved by the local jurisdiction. Owner agrees to clean oils, debris, sludge, etc. from all BMP systems regularly, including catch basins, settling/detention basins, oil/water separators, boomed areas, and conveyance systems, to prevent the contamination of stormwater. If hazardous waste is ever encountered on the site it will be handled in accordance with Chapter 173-303 WAC. Owner agrees to promptly repair or replace all substantially cracked or otherwise damaged paved secondary containment, high-intensity parking and any other drainage areas, which are subjected to pollutant material leaks or spills. Owner agrees to promptly repair or replace all leaking connections, pipes, hoses, valves, etc. which can contaminate stormwater. Page | 12 Minimum Requirement #4 Preservation of Natural Drainage System and Outfalls The proposed grading project will not alter the existing drainage system or outfalls. Existing Drainage The existing 15.97 acre site is undeveloped and is covered mostly in low growing vegetation. All of the existing drainage infiltrates onsite and does not discharge to waters of the state. This project will preserve the natural drainage system and outfalls by using infiltration for stormwater management. Soil The existing soils consist of Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam 0-8 percent slopes per the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Snohomish County, see Appendix F. The physical and chemical properties of the soil are listed in the Soil Report in Appendix F. Additionally, a geo-technical report has been completed by Geotest, Inc., which correlates with NRCS and provides further insight to the type of soils at deeper depths and the location of the water table. Per geo-technical report the sub-surface soils generally consist of 6 to 9 inches of topsoil over 1 to 3 feet of orange tan weathered glacial outwash over native sand and gravel outwash. Note that per geo-technical report groundwater was not encounter. For further soil descriptions and information refer to the geo-technical report in Appendix E. Downstream Analysis The existing site infiltrates onsite therefore a downstream analysis was not conducted for the project. Minimum Requirement #5 On-Site Stormwater Management Infiltration will be used on the proposed project site for flow control. In general, the runoff from the proposed parking and building will flow to infiltration trenches. Runoff from the permeable gravel parking and access road will flow into the permeable gravel and infiltrate into the sub-grade below. Minimum Requirement #6 Runoff Treatment Runoff treatment for the northwest pavement area is provided by a Type 1 WSDOT Media Filter (RT.07) along the northern boundary of the site. The WSDOT Media Filter is a linear flow- through stormwater runoff treatment device that is typically used along highway side slopes, Page | 13 medians, burrow ditches, and along other linear depressions. The media filter treats total suspended solids (TSS â€“ Basic), phosphorus, and dissolved metals (Enhanced Treatment).The west and southwest pavement areas are to be treated by 5 BayFilterâ€™s (TSS â€“Basic) that are inâ€ line with the stormwater conveyance system. All remaining pollution generating impervious surfaces are to sheet flow into the permeable gravel and infiltrate through a minimum of 18â€ inches of loamy sand soil that meets the treatment requirements set forth in Section 3.3.7 of Volume III of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Note all proposed roofs are to consist of coated metal material and are considered nonâ€pollution generating surfaces per section 4.1.3 of Volume V from the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington For further product and design information refer to Appendix C. Note all water quality facilities were modeled using WWHM12 with 15â€minute time steps as outlined in Appendix III of Volume III from the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Minimum Requirement #7 Flow Control All of the stormwater generated on the project site will be infiltrated onâ€site creating no downstream runoff. GeoTest Inc. estimated that the long term infiltration rate of the outwash soils and loamy sand are 12 & 0.5 in/hr. respectively, refer to geoâ€technical report in Appendix E. Flow control facilities for this site are separated into three parts, the north infiltration trench, the south infiltration trench, and the gravel parking/storage permeable ballast area. The north infiltration trench will control runoff from the pavement and landscape areas located in the northwest portion of the site and the northern half of the roof. The trench is located along the northern edge of the site is to be 548â€™ long, 6.5â€™ wide, and 3â€™ deep. The bottom of the infiltration trench is approximately 7â€™ below grade and was sized with an infiltration rate of 12 in/hr. The south infiltration trench will control runoff from the south and southwest parking lots and landscaping, in addition to the remaining half of the roof runoff. The trench is located under the southwest parking lot and is to be 138â€™ long, 40â€™ wide, and 3â€™ deep. The bottom of the infiltration trench is approximately 11â€™ below grade and was sized with an infiltration rate of 12 in/hr. All remaining runoff is to sheet flow into the permeable gravel parking/storage area and infiltrate into the native soils. Note that the gravel is to have a storage depth of approximately 4â€ and the subâ€grade is to have an infiltration rate of 0.5 in/hr. Additionally, the subâ€grade is to consist of 18â€inches of loamy sand for water quality. Page | 14 Note all flow control facilities were modeled using WWHM12 with 1â€hour time steps as outlined in Appendix III of Volume III from the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Existing Site Conditions Site contains 100% of shrub vegetation and grasses (15.97 Ac.) Proposed Site Conditions Impervious Surfaces *Pavement (Concrete/Asphalt) 5.316 Ac. Roof Area 1.469 Ac. Total 6.785 Ac. *Note that pavement includes 0.011 Ac. of offsite pavement. Pervious Surfaces Landscape Areas 0.522 Ac. Permeable Gravel 8.674 Ac. Total 9.196 Ac. Drainage Calculations All calculations and assumptions were based on the requirements outlined in the 2005 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and are included in Appendix B (Flow Control) and Appendix C (Water Quality) of this report. Minimum Requirement #8 â€“ Wetlands Protection This requirement does not apply because this project does not discharge stormwater into a wetland. Minimum Requirement #9 â€“ Basin Watershed Planning This site is not located in a Basin Watershed Protection Area. Minimum Requirement #10 â€“ Operations and Maintenance An Operations and Maintenance Manual, consistent with the provisions of Volume V of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington is included in Appendix G of this report. Page | 15 Page | 16 APPENDIX A DRAINAGE PLAN APPENDIX B FLOW CONTROL CALCULATIONS North Infiltration Trench Notes The surfaces being infiltrated by the north trench are listed below. Surface Type Total Area Pavement (Flat) 1.038 Ac. Roof Area 0.710 Ac. Landscape 0.235 Ac. Total 1.983 Ac. South Infiltration Trench Notes The surfaces being infiltrated by the south trench are listed below. Surface Type Total Area Pavement (Flat) 2.516 Ac. Roof Area 0.759 Ac. Landscape 0.287 Ac. Total 3.562 Ac. Gravel Parking/Storage Permeable Ballast WSDOT 9-03.9(2) Notes The surfaces being infiltrated by the permeable ballast are listed below. Surface Type Total Area *Parking/Storage Area (Flat) 8.674 Ac. Pavement (Flat) 1.762 Ac. Total 10.436 Ac. *The gravel parking/storage permeable ballast WSDOT 9-03.9(2) areas were modeled as 100% impervious The adjusted modeled areas are shown below. Surface Type Total Area Pavement (Flat) 10.436 Ac. Total 10.436 Ac. *Note that the adjusted areas are infiltrating through 8.674 Ac. of permeable ballast. Also storage depth was modeled at 2-inches not the full 4-inches being provided. WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ Project Name: SPD North Trench Site Name: SPD - Trucking Co. Site Address: 63rd Ave NE City : Arlington Report Date: 1/13/2015 Gage : Everett Data Start : 1948/10/01 Data End : 2009/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.20 Version : 2014/10/28 ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Acres C, Forest, Flat 1.983 Pervious Total 1.983 Impervious Land Use Acres Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 1.983 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Lawn, Flat .235 Pervious Total 0.235 Impervious Land Use Acres ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.71 PARKING FLAT 1.038 Impervious Total 1.748 Basin Total 1.983 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Gravel Trench Bed 1 Gravel Trench Bed 1 ___________________________________________________________________ Name : Gravel Trench Bed 1 Bottom Length: 548.00 ft. Bottom Width: 6.50 ft. Trench bottom slope 1: 0.00000001 To 1 Trench Left side slope 0: 0 To 1 Trench right side slope 2: 0 To 1 Material thickness of first layer: 3 Pour Space of material for first layer: 0.33 Material thickness of second layer: 0 Pour Space of material for second layer: 0 Material thickness of third layer: 0 Pour Space of material for third layer: 0 Infiltration On Infiltration rate: 12 Infiltration safety factor: 1 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft): 378.227 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft): 0.014 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft): 378.241 Percent Infiltrated: 100 Total Precip Applied to Facility: 16.106 Total Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 3 ft. Riser Diameter: 24 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 ___________________________________________________________________ Gravel Trench Bed Hydraulic Table Stage(ft) Area(ac) Volume(ac-ft) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.081 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0333 0.081 0.000 0.000 0.989 WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ Project Name: SPD South Trench Site Name: SPD - Trucking Co. Site Address: 63rd Ave N.E. City : Arlington Report Date: 1/15/2015 Gage : Everett Data Start : 1948/10/01 Data End : 2009/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.20 Version : 2014/10/28 ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Acres C, Forest, Flat 3.562 Pervious Total 3.562 Impervious Land Use Acres Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 3.562 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Lawn, Flat .287 Pervious Total 0.287 Impervious Land Use Acres ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.759 PARKING FLAT 2.516 Impervious Total 3.275 Basin Total 3.562 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Gravel Trench Bed 1 Gravel Trench Bed 1 ___________________________________________________________________ Name : Gravel Trench Bed 1 Bottom Length: 138.00 ft. Bottom Width: 40.00 ft. Trench bottom slope 1: 0.00000001 To 1 Trench Left side slope 0: 0 To 1 Trench right side slope 2: 0 To 1 Material thickness of first layer: 3 Pour Space of material for first layer: 0.33 Material thickness of second layer: 0 Pour Space of material for second layer: 0 Material thickness of third layer: 0 Pour Space of material for third layer: 0 Infiltration On Infiltration rate: 12 Infiltration safety factor: 1 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft): 664.609 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft): 0.033 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft): 664.642 Percent Infiltrated: 100 Total Precip Applied to Facility: 0 Total Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 3 ft. Riser Diameter: 24 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 ___________________________________________________________________ Gravel Trench Bed Hydraulic Table Stage(ft) Area(ac) Volume(ac-ft) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.126 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0333 0.126 0.001 0.000 1.533 WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ Project Name: SPD Gravel Parking Areas Site Name: SPD - Trucking Co. Site Address: 63rd Ave NE City : Arlington Report Date: 1/13/2015 Gage : Everett Data Start : 1948/10/01 Data End : 2009/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.20 Version : 2014/10/28 ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Acres C, Forest, Flat 10.436 Pervious Total 10.436 Impervious Land Use Acres Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 10.436 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use Acres PARKING FLAT 10.436 Impervious Total 10.436 Basin Total 10.436 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Gravel Trench Bed 1 Gravel Trench Bed 1 ___________________________________________________________________ Name : Gravel Trench Bed 1 Bottom Length: 614.00 ft. Bottom Width: 614.00 ft. Trench bottom slope 1: 0.00000001 To 1 Trench Left side slope 0: 0 To 1 Trench right side slope 2: 0 To 1 Material thickness of first layer: 0.1665 Pour Space of material for first layer: 0.33 Material thickness of second layer: 0 Pour Space of material for second layer: 0 Material thickness of third layer: 0 Pour Space of material for third layer: 0 Infiltration On Infiltration rate: 2 Infiltration safety factor: 0.25 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft): 2021.558 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft): 0 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft): 2021.558 Percent Infiltrated: 100 Total Precip Applied to Facility: 0 Total Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 0.1665 ft. Riser Diameter: 24 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 ___________________________________________________________________ Gravel Trench Bed Hydraulic Table Stage(ft) Area(ac) Volume(ac-ft) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 8.654 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0019 8.654 0.005 0.000 4.363 0.0037 8.654 0.010 0.000 4.363 0.0056 8.654 0.015 0.000 4.363 APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS & INFORMATION WSDOT MEDIA FILTER Q = Water Quality Design Flow Rate (WWHM2012), cfs = 0.1974 C = Conversion Factor of 43,200 ((in/hr)(ft/sec)) SF = Safety Factor = 1 L = Length of media filter drain (perpendicular to flow), ft = 548 LTIR = Long term infiltration rate of media filter, in/hr = 10 ð‘–ð‘› ð‘“ð‘¡ 0.1974 ð‘ð‘“ð‘ .âˆ—43,200 ( )( )âˆ—1 ð‘„âˆ—ð¶âˆ—ð‘†ð¹ â„Žð‘Ÿ sec. ð‘Šð‘–ð‘‘ð‘¡â„Ž = â†’ =1.62 ð‘“ð‘’ð‘’ð‘¡ (ð¶ð‘œð‘šð‘ð‘Žð‘Ÿð‘’ ð‘¡ð‘œ ð¹ð‘–ð‘”ð‘¢ð‘Ÿð‘’ ðµð‘’ð‘™ð‘œð‘¤) ð¿ð‘‡ð¼ð‘…âˆ—ð¿ ð‘–ð‘› 10 ( )âˆ—528 ð‘“ð‘¡ â„Žð‘Ÿ Due to flow path being greater than 35-feet the minimum media filter drain width is 4-feet. BAYFILTER CALCULATIONS Q = Water Quality Design Flow Rate (WWHM2012), cfs = 0.4808 QB = Water Treatment Rate = 45 gpm ð‘”ð‘ð‘š ð‘”ð‘ð‘š ð‘„(ð‘ð‘“ð‘ )âˆ—448.8 0.4808 ð‘ð‘“ð‘ .âˆ—448.8 ð‘ð‘“ð‘ ð‘ð‘“ð‘ . # ð¶ð‘Žð‘Ÿð‘¡ð‘–ð‘‘ð‘”ð‘’ð‘ = â†’ =4.79 (5 ð‘ð‘Ÿð‘œð‘ð‘œð‘ ð‘’ð‘‘) ð‘„ðµ 45 ð‘”ð‘ð‘š North Trench Water Quality Flow Rate South Trench Water Quality Flow Rate Functional Description The MFD removes suspended solids, phosphorus (MFD without 3-inch medium compost blanket), and metals from highway runoff through physical straining, ion exchange, carbonate precipitation, and biofiltration. Stormwater runoff is conveyed to the MFD via sheet flow or is redispersed to a vegetation-free gravel zone (MFD Type 1 â€“ Type 5) to ensure dispersion and provide some pollutant trapping. Next, a grass strip provides pretreatment, further enhancing filtration and extending the life of the system. The runoff is then filtered through a bed of porous, alkalinity-generating granular mediumâ€”the media filter drain mix. Treated water drains away from the MFD mix bed into a downstream conveyance system. Geotextile lines the underside of the MFD mix bed and the underdrain pipe and trench (if applicable). The underdrain trench is an option for hydraulic conveyance of treated stormwater to a desired location, such as a downstream flow control facility or stormwater outfall. The trenchâ€™s perforated underdrain pipe is a protective measure to ensure free flow through the MFD mix. It may be possible to omit the underdrain pipe if it can be demonstrated that the pipe is not necessary to maintain free flow through the MFD mix and underdrain trench. It is critical to note that water should sheet flow across or be redispersed to the MFD. To ensure sediment accumulation does not restrict sheet flow, edge of pavement installations should include a 1-inch drop between the pavement surface and nonvegetation zone where there is no guardrail or include a 1-inch drop where there is guardrail. Note that MFD Types 4 through Type 7 include a 3-inch drop between the flow spreader and the MFD mix bed to ensure sheet flow continues over time. Applications, Limitations, and LID Feasibility Applications Provides basic, phosphorus (MFD without 3-inch medium compost blanket on MFD mix area), and enhanced water quality treatment. MFD Type 1 and Type 3 â€“ Ideal along highway side slopes, when adjacent to wetlands, and in narrow right of way locations. Dual MFD for Highway Medians (MFD Type 2) â€“ Prime locations for the MFD Type 2 are in highway medians, roadside drainage or borrow ditches, or other linear depressions. It is especially critical for water to sheet flow across the MFD Type 2. Channelized flows or ditch flows running down the middle of the MFD Type 2 (continuous off-site inflow) should be minimized. MFD Type 4 and Type 5 â€“ Ideal where stormwater needs to be or already is captured and conveyed to a discharge location that can accommodate this BMP. These options provide maximum flexibility for placement where sheet flow off the edge of pavement is not feasible. Catch basins and pipes are used to convey stormwater to the MFD Type 4 and Type 5. BAYSAVE R TECHNOLOGI ES, I N C. Chapter 1 Introduction Founded in 1997, BaySaver Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of stormwater treatment technologies. BayFilterâ„¢ (1) is a stormwater filtration device designed to remove fine sediments, heavy metals, and phosphorus from stormwater runoff. BayFilterâ„¢ relies on a spiral wound media filter cartridge with approximately 43 square feet of active filtration area. The filter cartridges are housed in a concrete structure that evenly distributes the flow between cartridges. System design is offline with an external bypass that routes high intensity storms away from the system to prevent sediment resuspension. Flow through the filter cartridges is gravity driven and self-regulating, which makes the BayFilterâ„¢ system a low maintenance, high performance stormwater treatment technology. The BayFilterâ„¢ system has been extensively tested, and has consistently shown more than 80% removal of suspended sediment from influent water. The system also demonstrated the capability to remove more than 50% of the total phosphorus influent load, including a portion of the dissolved phosphorus. This manual provides detailed technical information on the BayFilterâ„¢ system including its capabilities and limitations. The manual describes the steps involved in designing a BayFilterâ„¢ system as well as the installation and maintenance requirements of the system. BaySaver Technologies is a complete stormwater solutions provider. We are always willing to assist design professionals to achieve the most efficient, economical systems for their clients and projects. Please call the BaySaver Technologies Inc. Engineering Department at 1.800.229.7283 for assistance. (1) The BayFilterâ„¢ stormwater filtration system is protected by U.S. Patent #6869528, in addition to several pending patents. 1 APPENDIX D SWPPP PLAN APPENDIX E GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 741 Marine Drive PHONE Bellingham, WA 98225 360 733_7318 20611-67th Avenue NE FAX TOLL FREE 360 733_7418 Arlington, WA 98223 888 251_5276 April 10, 2014 Job No. 14-0086 Smokey Point Distributing, Inc. 17305 59th Avenue NE Arlington, WA 98223 Attn: Ms. Chris Tauzin Re: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Smokey Point Distributing Facility East of 63rd Avenue NE and 192nd Street NE Arlington, Washington Dear Ms. Tauzin: As requested, GeoTest Services, Inc. is pleased to submit this geotechnical engineering report summarizing the results of our subsurface evaluation for the proposed Smokey Point Distributing Facility to be located east of the intersection of 63rd Avenue NE and 192nd Street NE in Arlington, Washington. The subject property consists of three separate parcels (tax parcel numbers 31051500400400, 310515004001500 and 31051500400300) with a total area of approximately 16 acres. The purpose of this evaluation was to establish general subsurface conditions beneath the site from which conclusions and recommendations for foundation design could be formulated. Specifically, our scope of services included the following tasks: â€¢ Exploration of soil and groundwater conditions underlying the site by advancing four boring explorations with a subcontracted drill rig to depths ranging from approximately 21.5 to 36.5 feet below ground surface (BGS) and 10 test pit explorations dug by an excavator subcontracted by Smokey Point Distributing to depths ranging from approximately 3.5 to 13.5 feet BGS. â€¢ Laboratory testing on representative samples in order to classify and evaluate the engineering characteristics of the soils encountered. â€¢ Provide this written report containing a description of subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, exploratory boring and test pit logs, findings and recommendations pertaining to site preparation and earthwork, fill and compaction, wet weather earthwork, seismic design considerations, foundation support, slab-on-grade construction, foundation and site drainage, utilities, stormwater infiltration and geotechnical consultation and construction monitoring. PROJECT DESCRIPTION GTS understands that an approximately 58,000 square foot building will be constructed in the northwestern portion of the property referenced above. The building will be a large office/shop/warehouse facility. New building construction is anticipated to consist of a steel framed structure with shallow conventional concrete foundations, slab-on- Page 1 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 grade floors and a metal-sheet exterior. Foundation loads are anticipated to be relatively light. Asphalt and concrete drive paths and parking facilities are proposed around the perimeter of the new building. Pervious gravel parking and surfacing is proposed throughout the eastern and southern portions of the property. The site is flat with less than a few feet of elevation differential across the property. Tree cover has been completely removed from the site. GTS anticipates that some grading is likely to occur, but that changes to site grades will be minimal. SITE CONDITIONS This section discusses the general surface and subsurface conditions observed at the project site at the time of our field investigation. Interpretations of site conditions are based on the results of our review of available information, site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, and laboratory testing. General Geologic Conditions Geologic information for the project site was obtained from the Geologic Map of the Arlington West Quadrangle (Minard, 1985), published by the U.S. Geological Survey. According to the referenced map, near surface soils in the vicinity of the project site consist of Marysville Sand Member recessional glacial outwash (Qvrm) and Advance Outwash (Qva). According to Minard, Marysville Sand recessional glacial outwash generally consists of well-drained, stratified to massive, outwash sand with some pebble gravel with localized areas of silt and clay. Advance Outwash was described as clean, gray, pebbly sand with increasing amounts of gravel higher in the soil unit. Advance Outwash was deposited by meltwater flowing from the advancing front of the glacier and then overridden. Native soils encountered during our subsurface exploration were generally consistent with the mapped glacial outwash deposits. Surface Conditions The subject property is currently an undeveloped property located directly east of the intersection of 63rd Avenue NE and 192nd St NE, extending from 63rd Avenue NE to 66th Avenue NE. The property is flat, with less than a few feet of elevation differential across the building footprint. Native tree cover has been removed from the site, leaving only short brush and overgrowth from the initial clearing of the property. Several brush, log and woodchip stockpiles were present across the site. Surface water was not observed within the proposed development area at the time of our field investigation. Subsurface Soil Conditions Subsurface conditions were explored by advancing 10 test pit explorations TP-01 through TP-10) on March 11, 2014 with an excavator contracted by the client and 4 exploration borings (B-1 through B-4) on March 19, 2014 using a subcontracted drill rig. Test pit exploration were advanced to depths between 3.5 and 13.5 feet below ground surface (BGS) while boring explorations were advanced to depths of between 21 and 36.5 feet BGS. Page 2 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 Representative samples were obtained during drilling by using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedure in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM D1586 during the explorations. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard 2-inch, outside-diameter, split-barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is recorded and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the Standard Penetration Resistance (â€œNâ€) or blow count. If a total of 50 is recorded within one 6-inch interval, the blow count is recorded as the number of blows for the corresponding number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils; these values are reported on the attached boring logs. The on-site subsurface soils generally consisted of approximately 6 to 9 inches of topsoil over 1 to 3 feet of orange tan weathered glacial outwash over native sand and gravel outwash to the base of all explorations. Blow counts from SPT sampling generally indicated medium dense soils within the weathered outwash. The thickness of the orange tan weathered glacial outwash varied significantly between explorations and occasionally within an exploration. We anticipate the thicker portions of the weathered glacial outwash are related to the locations of removed tree root balls. Native glacial outwash within the upper approximately 20 feet of soil consisted of very gravelly sand to very sandy gravel. Blow counts from SPT sampling generally indicated dense to very dense soils at depth. In several of the test pit explorations, surficial outwash appeared to consist of alternating sand and gravel layers. Glacial outwash below approximately 20 feet BGS became significantly less gravelly. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. Please refer to the attached logs at the end of this report for more detail at specific locations. Groundwater At the time of our subsurface investigation in March of 2014, no groundwater seepage was encountered within our explorations. A thin red mottled horizon, potentially indicative of a high groundwater elevation, was noted at a depth of 35.5 feet BGS in exploration B-4. Our explorations occurred in late winter and are likely at or near seasonal groundwater elevations. The groundwater conditions reported on the exploration logs are for the specific locations and dates indicated, and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other locations and/or times. Groundwater levels are not static and it is anticipated that groundwater conditions will vary depending on local subsurface conditions, season, precipitation, changes in land use both on and off site, and other factors. Liquefaction Hazard Potential Based on the online interactive Geologic Map of Washington State, published by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, the subject site is rated as a low to moderate liquefaction susceptibility area. However, this map only provides an estimate Page 3 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 of the likelihood that soil will liquefy as a result of earthquake shaking and is meant as a general guide to delineate areas prone to liquefaction. Based on our field exploration, the subject site has a low liquefaction susceptibility during an earthquake under developed conditions due to the relative density and the depth to groundwater. Near-surface conditions at the site typically consists of medium dense to dense glacial outwash deposits (generally gravelly sand with relatively low amounts of silt). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the subsurface soil conditions observed at the site, it is our opinion that subsurface conditions at the site are suitable for the proposed construction, provided the recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the project design. Soil conditions observed in the explorations located within the areas of proposed improvements consist of medium dense to very dense glacial outwash deposits with variable, but generally low, silt contents. For the proposed structure, foundation support may be provided by continuous or isolated spread footings founded on firm native soil or properly prepared and compacted structural fill placed directly over undisturbed native soil to promote uniform support of foundation elements. Site Preparation and Earthwork The portions of the site to be occupied by foundations, slabs-on-grade floors, pavement, or sidewalks should be prepared by removing any existing topsoil, debris, significant accumulations of organics, or loose native soil from the area to be developed. Prior to placement of any structural fill, the exposed subgrade under all areas to be occupied by soil-supported foundations, floor slabs, or pavements should be recompacted to a firm and unyielding condition and proof rolled with a loaded dump truck, large self-propelled vibrating roller, or equivalent piece of equipment applicable to the size of the excavation. The purpose of this effort is to identify possible loose or soft soil deposits and recompact the soil exposed during site preparation and excavation activities. Proof rolling should be carefully observed by qualified geotechnical personnel. Areas exhibiting significant deflection, pumping, or are over optimum moisture contents cannot be readily compacted should be overexcavated to firm soil. Overexcavated areas should be backfilled with compacted granular material placed in accordance with subsequent recommendations for structural fill. During periods of wet weather, proof rolling could damage the exposed subgrade. Under these conditions, qualified geotechnical personnel should observe subgrade conditions to determine if proof rolling is feasible. Fill and Compaction Structural fill used to obtain final elevations for foundations must be properly placed and compacted. In general, any suitable, non-organic, predominantly granular soil may be used for fill material provided the material is properly moisture conditioned prior to placement and compaction, and the specified degree of compaction is obtained. Page 4 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 Reuse of Onsite Soil Native site soils in the upper 2 to 4 feet have somewhat variable, but slightly elevated, â€œfinesâ€ contents (percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve). Soils 2 to 4 feet below existing site grades, however, generally had low fines contents. Soils containing more than approximately 5 percent â€œfinesâ€ are considered moisture sensitive, and are very difficult to compact to a firm and unyielding condition when over the optimum moisture content by more than approximately 2 percent. The optimum moisture content is that which allows the greatest dry density to be achieved at a given level of compactive effort. It is our opinion that the near-surface native soil is suitable for re-use as structural fill when placed at or near optimum moisture contents as determined by ASTM D1557 and if allowed for in the project plans and specifications. It should be noted that organic topsoils were encountered in our explorations and that materials with elevated levels of organics cannot be reused as structural fill and should be segregated from mineral soils. Imported Structural Fill We recommend that imported structural fill consist of clean, well-graded sandy gravel, gravelly sand, or other approved naturally occurring granular material (pit run) with at least 30 percent retained on the No. 4 sieve, or a well-graded crushed rock. Structural fill for dry weather construction may contain on the order of 10% fines (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) based on the portion passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve. Soil containing more than about 5 percent fines cannot consistently be compacted to a dense, non-yielding condition when the water content is greater than optimum. Accordingly, we recommend that imported structural fill with less than 5% fines be used during wet weather conditions. Due to wet weather or wet site conditions, soil moisture contents could be high enough that it may be very difficult to compact even â€œcleanâ€ imported select granular fill to a firm and unyielding condition. Soils with over-optimum moisture contents should be either scarified and dried back to more suitable moisture contents during periods of dry weather or removed and replaced with fill soils at a more suitable range of moisture contents. Compaction of Structural Fill Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts 8 to 10 inches in loose thickness and thoroughly compacted. All structural fill placed under load bearing areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D1557. The top of the compacted structural fill should extend outside all foundations and other structural improvements a minimum distance equal to the thickness of the fill. We recommend that compaction be tested periodically throughout the fill placement. Wet Weather Earthwork It is our experience that the near-surface native soil is more susceptible to degradation during wet weather. As a result, it may be difficult to control the moisture content of the site soils during the wet season. If construction is accomplished during wet weather, we recommend that structural fill consist of imported, clean, well-graded sand or sand and Page 5 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 gravel as described above. If fill is to be placed or earthwork is to be performed in wet weather or under wet conditions, the contractor may reduce soil disturbance by: â€¢ Limiting the size of areas that are stripped of topsoil and left exposed â€¢ Accomplishing earthwork in small sections â€¢ Limiting construction traffic over unprotected soil â€¢ Sloping excavated surfaces to promote runoff â€¢ Limiting the size and type of construction equipment used â€¢ Providing gravel "working matsâ€ over areas of prepared subgrade â€¢ Removing wet surficial soil prior to commencing fill placement each day â€¢ Sealing the exposed ground surface by rolling with a smooth drum compactor or rubber-tired roller at the end of each working day â€¢ Providing upgradient perimeter ditches or low earthen berms and using temporary sumps to collect runoff and prevent water from ponding and damaging exposed subgrades. Seismic Design Considerations The Pacific Northwest is seismically active and the site could be subject to ground shaking from a moderate to major earthquake. Consequently, moderate levels of earthquake shaking should be anticipated during the design life of the project, and the proposed structure should be designed to resist earthquake loading using appropriate design methodology. Site Class Definition For structures designed using the seismic design provisions of the 2012 International Building Code, the underlying alluvial soils interpreted to underlie the site within the upper 100 feet classifies as Site Class D according to 2010 ASCE -7 Standard â€“ Table 20.3-1, Site Class Definitions. The corresponding values for calculating a design response spectrum for the assumed soil profile type is considered appropriate for the site. Please use the following values for seismic structural design purposes: Conterminous 48 States â€“ 2012 International Building Code Zip Code 98223 Central Latitude = 48.170171, Central Longitude = -122.143292 Short Period (0.2 sec) Spectral Acceleration Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Value of Ss = 1.066 (g) Site Response Coefficient, Fa = 1.074 (Site Class D) Adjusted spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SMS = Ss x Fa = 1.144 (g) Design spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SDS = 2/3 x SMs = 0.763 (g) Page 6 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 One Second Period (1 sec) Spectral Acceleration Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Value of S1 = 0.415 (g) Site Response Coefficient, Fv = 1.585 (Site Class D) Adjusted spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SM1 = S1 x Fv = 0.658 (g) Design spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SD1 = 2/3 x SM1 = 0.438 (g) Foundation Support and Settlement Foundation support for the proposed improvements may be provided by continuous or isolated spread footings founded on proof-rolled, undisturbed, medium dense to dense native soils or on properly compacted structural fill placed directly over undisturbed native soil. We recommend that qualified geotechnical personnel confirm that suitable bearing conditions have been reached prior to placement of structural fill or foundation formwork. To provide proper foundation support, we recommend that existing topsoil, existing fill, and/or loose upper portions of the native soil be removed from beneath the building foundation area(s) or replaced with properly compacted structural fill as described elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, localized overexcavation could be backfilled to the design footing elevation with lean concrete or foundations may be extended to bear on undisturbed native soil. In areas requiring overexcavation to competent native soil, the limits of the overexcavation should extend laterally beyond the edge of each side of the footing a distance equal to the depth of the excavation below the base of the footing. If lean concrete is used to backfill the overexcavation, the limits of the overexcavation need only extend a nominal distance beyond the width of the footing. In addition, we recommend that foundation elements for the proposed structure(s) bear entirely on similar soil conditions to help prevent differential settlement from occurring. Continuous and isolated spread footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade for freeze/thaw protection. Perimeter footings should be at least 14 inches wide and sized in accordance with the structural engineerâ€™s prescribed design criteria and seismic considerations. Allowable Bearing Capacity Assuming the above foundation support criteria are satisfied, continuous or isolated spread footings founded directly on medium dense to dense native soils or on compacted structural fill placed directly over undisturbed native soils may be proportioned using a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The term "net allowable bearing pressure" refers to the pressure that can be imposed on the soil at foundation level resulting from the total of all dead plus live loads, exclusive of the weight of the footing or any backfill placed above the footing. The net allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient wind or seismic loads. Page 7 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 Foundation Settlements Settlement of shallow foundations depends on foundation size and bearing pressure, as well as the strength and compressibility characteristics of the underlying soil. Assuming construction is accomplished as previously recommended and foundations donâ€™t exceed the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure recommended above, we estimate the total settlement of building foundations under static conditions should be less than about one inch and differential settlement between two adjacent load-bearing components supported on competent soil should be less than about one half the total settlement. Floor Support Conventional slab-on-grade floor construction is considered feasible for the planned site improvements. Floor slabs may be supported on properly prepared native subgrade or on structural fill placed over properly prepared native soil. New floor slabs should not be founded on existing pavement sections, topsoil, existing fill, or loose native soils. Prior to placement of the structural fill, the native soil should be proof-rolled as recommended in the Site Preparation and Earthwork section of this report. For design purposes, a vertical modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) should be expected for slab-on-grade floors constructed over properly prepared medium dense to dense native soils or structural fill placed over native soil. The planned use of the building will likely require large open sections of concrete that will be more susceptible to differential settlements and cracking than shorter, more conventional sections of concrete. As such, GTS recommends that the structural engineer review the design and determine if additional precautions are warranted to prevent excessive cracking of floor slabs by placing grade beams, extra reinforcement, or similar mitigation techniques. We recommend that interior concrete slab-on-grade floors be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of compacted, clean, free-draining gravel with less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve (based on a wet sieve analysis of that portion passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 sieve). The purpose of this layer is to provide uniform support for the slab, provide a capillary break, and act as a drainage layer. To help reduce the potential for water vapor migration through floor slabs, at a minimum a continuous impermeable membrane of 6- to 10-mil polyethylene sheeting with tape-sealed joints should be installed below the slab. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines suggest that the slab may either be poured directly on the vapor retarding membrane or on a granular curing layer placed over the vapor retarding membrane depending on conditions anticipated during construction. We recommend that the architect or structural engineer specify if a curing layer should be used. If moisture control within the building is critical, we recommend an inspection of the vapor retarding membrane to verify that all openings have been properly sealed. Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade, such as sidewalks, may be supported directly on undisturbed native or on properly placed and compacted structural fill; however, long- term performance will be enhanced if exterior slabs are placed on a layer of clean, durable, well-draining granular material. Page 8 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 Foundation and Site Drainage To reduce the potential for groundwater and surface water to seep into interior spaces we recommend that an exterior footing drain system be constructed around the perimeter of new building foundations as shown in the Typical Footing and Wall Drain Section, Figure 3. The drain should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter perforated pipe, surrounded by a minimum 12 inches of filtering media with the discharge sloped to carry water to a suitable collection system. The filtering media may consist of open- graded drain rock wrapped by a nonwoven geotextile fabric (such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent) or a graded sand and gravel filter. The drainage backfill should be carried up the back of the wall to within approximately 1 foot of the ground surface and contain less than 3 percent by weight passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve (based on a wet sieve analysis of that portion passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 sieve). The invert of the footing drain pipe should be placed at approximately the same elevation as the bottom of the footing or 12 inches below the adjacent floor slab grade, whichever is deeper, so that water will not seep through walls or floor slabs. The footing drain should discharge to an approved drain system and include cleanouts to allow periodic maintenance and inspection. Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to the proposed building to direct surface water away from the foundation and toward suitable discharge facilities. Roof drainage should not be introduced into the perimeter footing drains, but should be separately discharged directly to the stormwater collection system or other appropriate outlet at a suitable distance away from the structure. Pavement and sidewalk areas should be sloped and drainage gradients should be maintained to carry all surface water away from the building towards the local stormwater collection system. Surface water should not be allowed to pond and soak into the ground surface near buildings or paved areas during or after construction. Construction excavations should be sloped to drain to sumps where water from seepage, rainfall, and runoff can be collected and pumped to a suitable discharge facility. Resistance to Lateral Loads The lateral earth pressures that develop against retaining walls will depend on the method of backfill placement, degree of compaction, slope of backfill, type of backfill material, provisions for drainage, magnitude and location of any adjacent surcharge loads, and the degree to which the wall can yield laterally during or after placement of backfill. If the wall is allowed to rotate or yield so the top of the wall moves an amount equal to or greater than about 0.001 to 0.002 times its height (a yielding wall), the soil pressure exerted will be the active soil pressure. When a wall is restrained against lateral movement or tilting (a nonyielding wall), the soil pressure exerted is the at-rest soil pressure. Wall restraint may develop if a rigid structural network is constructed prior to backfilling or if the wall is inherently stiff. We recommend that yielding walls under drained conditions be designed for an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic ft (pcf) for structural fill in active soil conditions. Nonyielding walls under drained conditions should be designed for an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf for structural fill in at-rest conditions. Design of walls should include appropriate lateral pressures caused by surcharge loads located within a horizontal distance equal to or less than the height of the wall. For uniform surcharge pressures, a uniformly distributed lateral pressure equal to 35 percent and 50 percent of Page 9 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 the vertical surcharge pressure should be added to the lateral soil pressures for yielding and nonyielding walls, respectively. Passive earth pressures developed against the sides of building foundations, in conjunction with friction developed between the base of the footings and the supporting subgrade, will resist lateral loads transmitted from the structure to its foundation. For design purposes, the passive resistance of well-compacted fill placed against the sides of foundations may be considered equivalent to a fluid with a density of 250 pounds per cubic ft. The recommended value includes a safety factor of about 1.5 and is based on the assumption that the ground surface adjacent to the structure is level in the direction of movement for a distance equal to or greater than twice the embedment depth. The recommended value also assumes drained conditions that will prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure in the compacted fill. Retaining walls should include a drain system constructed in general accordance with the recommendations presented in the Foundation and Site Drainage section of this report. In design computations, the upper 12 inches of passive resistance should be neglected if the soil is not covered by floor slabs or pavement. If future plans call for the removal of the soil providing resistance, the passive resistance should not be considered. An allowable coefficient of base friction of 0.30, applied to vertical dead loads only, may be used between the underlying imported granular structural fill and the base of the footing. If passive and frictional resistance are considered together, one half the recommended passive soil resistance value should be used since larger strains are required to mobilize the passive soil resistance as compared to frictional resistance. A safety factor of about 1.5 is included in the base friction design value. We do not recommend increasing the coefficient of friction to resist seismic or wind loads. Utilities It is important that utility trenches be properly backfilled and compacted to minimize the possibility of cracking or localized loss of foundation, slab, or pavement support. It is anticipated that excavations for new underground utilities will be in medium dense glacial outwash deposits. Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface explorations and is not expected to be encountered in typical utility trenches. Trench backfill should consist of structural fill as defined earlier in this report. Trench backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the report section Compaction of Structural Fill. Temporary excavations in excess of 4 ft should be shored or sloped in accordance with Safety Standards for Construction Work Part N, WAC 296-155-657. Temporary unsupported excavations in the medium dense granular soils generally encountered in our exploration are classified as a Type C soil according to WAC 296-155-657 and may be sloped as steep as 1Â½H:1V. Flatter slopes or temporary shoring may be required in areas where groundwater seepage is present and unstable conditions develop. Surcharge loads on trench support systems due to construction equipment, stockpiled material, and vehicle traffic should be included in the design of any anticipated shoring system. The contractor should implement measures to prevent surface water runoff from entering trenches and excavations. In addition, vibration as a result of construction activities and traffic may cause caving of the trench walls. Page 10 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 Actual trench configurations should be the responsibility of the contractor. All applicable local, state, and federal safety codes shall be followed. All open cuts should be monitored by the contractor during excavation for any evidence of instability. If instability is detected, the contractor should flatten the side slopes or install temporary shoring. If groundwater or groundwater seepage is present, and the trench is not properly dewatered, the soil within the trench zone may be prone to caving, channeling, and running. Trench widths may be substantially wider than under dewatered conditions. Pavement Subgrade Preparation Selection of a pavement section is typically a choice relative to higher initial cost and lower long term maintenance or lower initial cost, with potentially less time before an overlay or other maintenance. For this reason, we recommend that the owner participate in the selection of proposed pavement improvements planned for the site. Site grading plans should include provisions for sloping of the subgrade soils in proposed pavement areas, so that passive drainage of the pavement section(s) can proceed uninterrupted during the life of the project. Structural fill placed to establish subgrade elevation should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D1557. Prior to the placement of base-course and paving materials, the exposed pavement should be proof rolled. Proof rolling should be accomplished with a loaded dump truck, large self-propelled vibrating roller, or equivalent piece of equipment. The purpose of this effort is to identify possible loose or soft soil and recompact disturbed areas of subgrade. Proof rolling should be carefully observed by GeoTest personnel. Areas exhibiting significant deflection, pumping, or over-optimum moisture content soils that cannot be readily compacted should be overexcavated to firm soil. Overexcavated areas should be backfilled with compacted granular fill. During periods of wet weather, proof rolling could damage the exposed subgrade. Under these conditions, GeoTest personnel should observe subgrade conditions to determine if proof rolling is feasible. Prevention of road-base saturation is essential for pavement durability; thus, efforts should be made to limit the amount of water entering the base course. Flexible Pavement Sections â€“ Light Duty We anticipate that asphalt pavement will be used for new access drives and parking areas. We recommend a standard, or â€œlight dutyâ€, pavement section consist of 2.5 inches of Class Â½-inch HMA asphalt above 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course (CSBC) meeting criteria set forth in the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specification 9-03.9[3]. Depending on construction staging and desired performance, CSBC material may be substituted with asphalt treated base (ATB) beneath the final asphalt surfacing. The substitution of ATB should be as follows: 6 inches of crushed rock can be substituted with 4 inches of ATB. ATB should be placed over a subgrade compacted to at least 95 percent of the relative density, and a 1Â½- to 2-inch thickness of crushed rock to act as a working surface. If ATB is used for construction access and staging areas, some rutting and disturbance of the ATB surface should be expected. The general contractor should Page 11 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 remove affected areas and replace them with properly compacted ATB prior to final surfacing. Flexible Pavement Sections â€“ Heavy Duty Areas that will be accessed by large trucks, buses, garbage trucks, or other heavy vehicles will require a thicker asphalt section and should be designed using a paving section consisting 4 inches of Class Â½-inch HMA asphalt surfacing above 8 inches of CSBC meeting criteria set forth in the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specification 9-03.9[3]. As this is a trucking facility and higher loads are anticipated, GTS also recommends that strong woven geotextile fabric (such as Mirafi 500X) or a geogrid (such as Mirafi 2XT) be considered at the existing native soil/CSBC contact. Whereas the geotextile fabric/geogrid is not mandatory, it is our opinion that the fabric/grid will extend the life of the asphalt pavement. Asphalt pavements should be founded above a subgrade compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Depending on construction staging and desired performance, CSBC material may be substituted with ATB beneath the final asphalt surfacing. The substitution of ATB should be as follows: 6 inches of crushed rock can be substituted with 4 inches of ATB. ATB should be placed over a subgrade compacted to at least 95 percent of the relative density, and a 1Â½- to 2-inch thickness of crushed rock to act as a working surface. If ATB is used for construction access and staging areas, some rutting and disturbance of the ATB surface should be expected. The general contractor should remove affected areas and replace them with properly compacted ATB prior to final surfacing. Concrete Pavement Sections Concrete pavements could be used for access and parking areas. The design of concrete drives that will support heavy vehicles should be designed by the structural engineer. Design of concrete pavements is a function of concrete strength, reinforcement steel, and the anticipated loading conditions for the roads. For design purposes, a vertical modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) should be expected for concrete roadways constructed over properly prepared medium dense to dense native soil, or properly placed and compacted structural fill. GTS expects that concrete pavement sections, if utilized, will be at least 6 inches thick and be founded on a minimum of 8 inches of compacted CSBC. It is assumed that pavement and CSBC sections will be placed over a subgrade compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D1557. Concrete Sidewalks and Hardscapes We recommend a concrete sidewalk and hardscape section consisting of at least 4 inches of concrete above a minimum of 4 inches of CSBC. It is assumed that sidewalks and hardscape sections will be placed over a subgrade compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D1557. Page 12 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 TEST PIT GRADATION RESULTS From the explorations excavated in the areas of interest, seven near-surface soil samples were selected and mechanically tested for grain size distribution and interpretation according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil textural classification. Subsurface infiltration rates corresponding to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil textural classification were obtained from the 2005 Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Table 3.7 and are reproduced in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 Test Pit Soil Sample Infiltration Rates Based On The 2005 DOE Stormwater Management Manual Table 3.7 Test Pit Sample Classification Cation Exchange Infiltration Rate Number Depth (ft) USDA Capacity (meg/100 g) (Inches/Hour) TP-02 1.25 Loamy Sand 9.9 0.5 TP-02 3.0 Sand 3.9 2.0 TP-06 1.0 Loamy Sand NT 0.5 TP-06 2.0 Sand NT 2.0 TP-06 5.0 Sand NT 2.0 TP-08 1.0 Sand 6.2 2.0 TP-08 2.5 Sand 2.5 2.0 Note: Listed infiltration rates are long-term (design) rates as stated in Table 3.7. NT: Not Tested Based on the results of our USDA textural analysis and our interpretation of our soil logs, infiltration into the near surface glacial outwash generally correlates to a long-term infiltration rate of about 2 inches per hour. Locally, silty soils may be present at or near the existing ground surface that have the potential to reduce infiltration rates. Therefore, it is recommended that infiltration facilities penetrate into the more granular and free draining glacial outwash if 2 inches per hour is to be used for the purposes of design. GTS recommends that we be allowed to view the bottom of infiltration facilities during construction to confirm that the soil type and consistency is as anticipated. Alternative means of stormwater management utilizing LID (low impact development) systems, such as pervious pavements and/or raingardens, may be feasible at the project site. In order to fully address stormwater management and/or the infiltration of stormwater, additional studies may be required. The placement of infiltration facilities may be different in final design than what was provided to us for our current studies. As such, GTS is available to assist with additional studies should they be required. Page 13 of 15 GeoTest Services, Inc. April 10, 2014 Smokey Point Distributing, Arlington, WA Job No. 14-0086 Geotechnical Consultation and Construction Monitoring GeoTest Services recommends that a geotechnical engineer familiar with the project design review the earthwork and foundation portions of the design drawings and specifications. The purpose of the review is to verify that the recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and incorporated in the design and specifications. We recommend that geotechnical construction monitoring services be provided. These services should include observation by geotechnical personnel during fill placement/compaction activities and subgrade preparation operations to verify that design subgrade conditions are obtained beneath the proposed building. We also recommend that periodic field density testing be performed to verify that the appropriate degree of compaction is obtained. The purpose of these services would be to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations of this report, and in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated before the start of construction, provide revised recommendations appropriate to the conditions revealed during construction. GeoTest Services would be pleased to provide these services for you. GeoTest Services is also available to provide a full range of materials testing and special inspection during construction as required by the local building department and the International Building Code. This may include specific construction inspections on materials such as reinforced concrete, reinforced masonry, structural steel and other inspections. These services are supported by our fully accredited materials testing laboratory. USE OF THIS REPORT GeoTest Services has prepared this report for the exclusive use of Smokey Point Distributing , Inc. and their design consultants for specific application to the design of the proposed Smokey Point Distributing Expansion. Use of this report by others or for another project is at the userâ€™s sole risk. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been conducted in accordance with generally accepted practices of the geotechnical engineering profession; no other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. Our site explorations indicate subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated. It is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions to the limited depth of our explorations at the time of our exploration program, a brief geological reconnaissance of the area, and review of published geological information for the site. We assume that the explorations are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site during the preparation of our recommendations. If variations in subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, we should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the start of construction, or if conditions change due to construction operations at or adjacent to the project site, we recommend that we review this report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. Page 14 of 15 Project Location NORTH Map from ACME Mapper 2.1 Date: 3-17-14 By: JB Scale: none Project GEOTEST SERVICES, INC. SITE VICINITY MAP 14-0086 741 Marine Drive Bellingham, WA 98225 SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING Figure phone: (360)733-7318 63RD AVENUE AND 192ND STREET NE fax: (360)733-7418 A RLINGTON, WASHINGTON 1 TP-03 TP-04 TP-09 B-3 B-1 TP-10 TP-02 B-2 TP-08 B-4 TP-05 TP-07 TP-06 TP-01 3-17-14 JB AsShown Project B- # = Boring Exploration Location GEOTEST SERVICES, INC. 14-0086 NORTH 741 Marine Drive SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN TP- # = Test Pit Exploration Location Bellingham, WA 98225 SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING FIGURE phone: (360)733-7318 63 RD AVENUE AND 192ND STREET NE fax: (360)733-7418 A 2 RLINGTON, WASHINGTON SHALLOW FOOTINGS WITH INTERIOR SLAB-ON-GRADE Notes: Footings Should be properlyburied for frost protection in accordance with International Building Code or local building codes (Typically18 inches below exterior finished grades) Date: 3-17-13 By: JB Scale: None Project GEOTEST SERVICES, INC. TYPICAL FOOTING & WALL DRAIN SECTION 14-0086 741MarineDrive Bellingham,WA 98225 SMOKEYPOINTDISTRIBUTING Figure phone: (360)733-7318 63RDAVENUEAND192NDSTREETNE fax: (360)733-7418 A 3 RLINGTON,WASHINGTON Soil Classification System USCS MAJOR GRAPHIC LETTER TYPICAL DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL DESCRIPTIONS(1)(2) CLEAN GRAVEL GW Well-graded gravel; gravel/sand mixture(s); little or no fines GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOIL (Little or no fines) GP Poorly graded gravel; gravel/sand mixture(s); little or no fines (More than 50% of GRAVEL WITH FINES GM Silty gravel; gravel/sand/silt mixture(s) coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve) (Appreciable amount of fines) GC Clayey gravel; gravel/sand/clay mixture(s) CLEAN SAND SW Well-graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines SAND AND SANDY SOIL (Little or no fines) SP Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines COARSE-GRAINED SOIL(More than 50% of material islarger than No. 200 sieve size)(More than 50% of SM Silty sand; sand/silt mixture(s) coarse fraction passed SAND WITH FINES through No. 4 sieve) (Appreciable amount of fines) SC Clayey sand; sand/clay mixture(s) ML Inorganic silt and very fine sand; rock flour; silty or clayey fine SILT AND CLAY sand or clayey silt with slight plasticity CL Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy (Liquid limit less than 50) clay; silty clay; lean clay OL Organic silt; organic, silty clay of low plasticity size) MH Inorganic silt; micaceous or diatomaceous fine sand SILT AND CLAY CH Inorganic clay of high plasticity; fat clay (Liquid limit greater than 50) FINE-GRAINED SOIL(More than 50% of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve OH Organic clay of medium to high plasticity; organic silt HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL PT Peat; humus; swamp soil with high organic content GRAPHIC LETTER OTHER MATERIALS SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS PAVEMENT AC or PC Asphalt concrete pavement or Portland cement pavement ROCK RK Rock (See Rock Classification) WOOD WD Wood, lumber, wood chips DEBRIS DB Construction debris, garbage Notes: 1. Soil descriptions are based on the general approach presented in the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), as outlined in ASTM D 2488. Where laboratory index testing has been conducted, soil classifications are based on the Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes, as outlined in ASTM D 2487. 2. Soil description terminology is based on visual estimates (in the absence of laboratory test data) of the percentages of each soil type and is defined as follows: Primary Constituent: > 50% - "GRAVEL," "SAND," "SILT," "CLAY," etc. Secondary Constituents: > 30% and <_ 50% - "very gravelly," "very sandy," "very silty," etc. > 12% and <_ 30% - "gravelly," "sandy," "silty," etc. Additional Constituents: > 5% and <_ 12% - "slightly gravelly," "slightly sandy," "slightly silty," etc. <_ 5% - "trace gravel," "trace sand," "trace silt," etc., or not noted. Drilling and Sampling Key Field and Lab Test Data SAMPLE NUMBER & INTERVAL SAMPLER TYPE Code Description Code Description Sample Identification Number a 3.25-inch O.D., 2.42-inch I.D. Split Spoon PP = 1.0 Pocket Penetrometer, tsf b 2.00-inch O.D., 1.50-inch I.D. Split Spoon TV = 0.5 Torvane, tsf Recovery Depth Interval c Shelby Tube PID = 100 Photoionization Detector VOC screening, ppm d Grab Sample W = 10 Moisture Content, % 1 Sample Depth Interval e Other - See text if applicable D = 120 Dry Density, pcf Portion of Sample Retained 1 300-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop -200 = 60 Material smaller than No. 200 sieve, % for Archive or Analysis 2 140-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop GS Grain Size - See separate figure for data 3 Pushed AL Atterberg Limits - See separate figure for data 4 Other - See text if applicable GT Other Geotechnical Testing Groundwater CA Chemical Analysis Approximate water elevation at time of drilling (ATD) or on date noted. Groundwater ATD levels can fluctuate due to precipitation, seasonal conditions, and other factors. Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Soil Classification System and Key 4 Arlington, Washington B-1 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Drilling Method: Hollow-stem Auger Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Elevation Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeBlows/FootTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 SM Loose, moist, dark brown/black, very silty SAND, trace to slightly gravelly. (TOPSOIL) SP- Groundwater not encountered. S-1 b2 22 Medium dense, orange-tan, gravelly SAND, SM slightly silty. (Weathered Outwash) S-2 b2 42 GP/ Dense to very dense, moist, gray, very SP gravelly SAND (Glacial Outwash) 5 S-3 b2 28 S-4 b2 47 10 W = 7 Slightly gravelly, slightly silty SAND S-5 b2 30 GS 15 Dense, gray, moist, gravelly SAND, slightly S-6 b2 43 silty 20 S-7 b2 48 25 S-8 b2 51 30 W = 8 S-9 b2 31 GS 35 S-10 b2 50/6 Boring Completed 03/19/14 Total Depth of Boring = 36.0 ft. 40 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ SOIL BORING LOG W/ ELEV Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of B-1 5 Arlington, Washington B-2 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Drilling Method: Hollow-stem Auger Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Elevation Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeBlows/FootTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 SM Loose, moist, dark brown/black, very silty GP/ SAND, trace to slightly gravelly. (TOPSOIL) Groundwater not encountered. SP Medium dense to very dense, moist, gray, very gravelly SAND (Glacial Outwash) S-1 b2 29 5 S-2 b2 21 S-3 b2 42 10 S-4 b2 35 15 Very dense, moist, gravelly SAND, trace silt. S-5 b2 79/11 20 S-6 b2 52 Boring Completed 03/19/14 Total Depth of Boring = 21.5 ft. 25 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ SOIL BORING LOG W/ ELEV Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of B-2 6 Arlington, Washington B-3 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Drilling Method: Hollow-stem Auger Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Elevation Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeBlows/FootTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 SM Loose, moist, dark brown/black, very silty SP- SAND, trace to slightly gravelly. (TOPSOIL) Groundwater not encountered. SM Medium dense, orange-tan, gravelly SAND, slightly silty. (Weathered Outwash) S-1 b2 36 GP/ Dense to very dense, moist, gray, very SP gravelly SAND (Glacial Outwash) 5 S-2 b2 46 S-3 b2 44 10 W = 5 S-4 b2 44 GS 15 very dense, gray, moist, gravelly SAND, trace silt S-5 b2 74 20 S-6 b2 75 Boring Completed 03/19/14 Total Depth of Boring = 21.5 ft. 25 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ SOIL BORING LOG W/ ELEV Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of B-3 7 Arlington, Washington B-4 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Drilling Method: Hollow-stem Auger Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Elevation Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeBlows/FootTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 SM Loose, moist, dark brown/black, very silty SAND, trace to slightly gravelly. (TOPSOIL) SP- Groundwater not encountered. Medium dense, orange-tan, gravelly SAND, SM slightly silty. (Weathered Outwash) S-1 b2 41 5 GP/ Dense to very dense, moist, gray, very S-2 b2 43 SP gravelly SAND (Glacial Outwash) S-3 b2 50/5 10 S-4 b2 26 15 S-5 b2 46 20 W = 14 Very dense, gray, moist, silty SAND, trace S-6 b2 50/6 GS gravel 25 scattered, thin lenses of silt S-7 b2 89 30 S-8 b2 59 35 S-9 b2 55 Boring Completed 03/19/14 Total Depth of Boring = 36.5 ft. 40 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ SOIL BORING LOG W/ ELEV Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of B-4 8 Arlington, Washington TP-1 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 1 d OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very 2 d SM sandy, SILT (Topsoil) Groundwater not encountered. Medium dense, orange tan, moist, silty, SAND GP/ (Weathered Outwash) with scattered roots 3 d SP Medium dense to dense, tan grey, damp, very sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND 5 4 d (Glacial Outwash) with trace roots and slight caving to 5 feet BGS Becoming moist to wet below 9 feet BGS 10 5 d 15 Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 Total Depth of Test Pit = 13.5 ft. TP-2 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very W = 18 SM sandy, SILT (Topsoil) 6 d Groundwater not encountered. GS Medium dense, orange tan, moist, silty, SAND GP/ W = 5 SP (Weathered Outwash) with scattered roots 7 d GS Medium dense to dense, tan grey, damp, very sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND 5 (Glacial Outwash) with trace roots and slight caving to 5 feet BGS 8 d Becoming moist to wet at 8 feet BGS 10 Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 Total Depth of Test Pit = 9.0 ft. 15 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ TEST PIT LOG Smokey Point Distributing Figure 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of Test Pits Arlington, Washington 9 (1 of 5) TP-3 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very SM sandy, SILT (Topsoil) 9 d Groundwater not encountered. Medium dense, orange tan, moist, slightly silty SP to silty, SAND (Weathered Outwash) with 10 d scattered roots Medium dense to dense, tan grey, damp, 5 slightly gravelly to gravelly, SAND (Glacial Outwash) with trace roots and moderate caving GP/ 11 d SP Medium dense to dense, tan grey, damp, very sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 (Glacial Outwash) 10 Total Depth of Test Pit = 8.0 ft. 15 TP-4 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very SM sandy, SILT (Topsoil) Groundwater not encountered. 12 d GP/ Medium dense, orange tan, moist, slightly silty SP to silty, SAND (Weathered Outwash) with scattered roots Medium dense to dense, grey, damp, 5 alternating approximately 1 foot layers of SAND and very sandy, GRAVEL (Glacial Outwash) 13 d 10 Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 Total Depth of Test Pit = 9.0 ft. 15 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ TEST PIT LOG Smokey Point Distributing Figure 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of Test Pits Arlington, Washington 10 (2 of 5) TP-5 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very SM sandy, SILT (Topsoil) Groundwater not encountered. GP/ Loose to medium dense, orange tan, moist, SP slightly silty to silty, SAND (Weathered 14 d Outwash) with scattered roots; extending to as deep as 3 feet BGS in scattered apparent 5 tree-root wells Medium dense to dense, grey, damp, very Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND Total Depth of Test Pit = 5.0 ft. (Glacial Outwash) Test pit halted at 5 feet BGS due to excavator mechanical problems 10 15 TP-6 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 15 d OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very 16 d W = 16 SM sandy, SILT (Topsoil) GS Groundwater not encountered. 17 d W = 7 SP Loose to medium dense, orange tan, moist, GS silty, SAND (Weathered Outwash) with GP/ scattered roots; extending to as deep as 3 feet SP BGS in scattered apparent tree-root wells 5 18 d W = 5 Medium dense to dense, tan grey, damp, GS slightly gravelly to gravelly, SAND (Glacial Outwash) with trace roots and moderate caving Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 Total Depth of Test Pit = 6.5 ft. Medium dense to dense, tan grey, damp, very sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND (Glacial Outwash) 10 15 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ TEST PIT LOG Smokey Point Distributing Figure 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of Test Pits Arlington, Washington 11 (3 of 5) TP-7 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very SM sandy, SILT (Topsoil) 19 d Groundwater not encountered. Medium dense, orange tan, moist, slightly GP/ gravelly, silty, SAND (Weathered Outwash) SP with scattered roots 20 d Medium dense to dense, grey, damp, 5 alternating layers of slightly gravelly, SAND and very sandy, GRAVEL (Glacial Outwash) 10 Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 Total Depth of Test Pit = 9.0 ft. 15 TP-8 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very 21 d W = 10 SP- sandy, SILT (Topsoil) GS Groundwater not encountered. SM Medium dense, orange tan, moist, slightly W = 4 22 d GP/ silty, very gravelly, fine to coarse SAND GS SP (Weathered Outwash) with scattered roots Medium dense to dense, grey, damp, very 5 23 d sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND (Glacial Outwash) Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 Total Depth of Test Pit = 7.5 ft. 10 15 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ TEST PIT LOG Smokey Point Distributing Figure 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of Test Pits Arlington, Washington 12 (4 of 5) TP-9 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very SP- sandy, SILT (Topsoil) 24 d SM Groundwater not encountered. Medium dense, orange tan, moist, slightly GP/ silty, very gravelly, SAND (Weathered 25 d SP Outwash) with scattered roots Medium dense to dense, tan, damp, very 5 sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND (Glacial Outwash) Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 10 Total Depth of Test Pit = 8.0 ft. 15 TP-10 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Depth (ft)Sample Number& IntervalSampler TypeTest DataGraphic SymbolUSCS Symbol 0 OL Soft, dark brown, moist, very organic, very SP- sandy, SILT (Topsoil) Groundwater not encountered. SM Loose to medium dense, orange tan, moist, GP/ slightly silty, very gravelly, SAND (Weathered SP Outwash) with scattered roots; extending to as deep as 3 feet BGS in scattered apparent 5 Test Pit Completed 03/12/14 tree-root wells Total Depth of Test Pit = 3.5 ft. Medium dense to dense, tan, damp, very sandy, GRAVEL to very gravelly, SAND (Glacial Outwash) 10 15 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ TEST PIT LOG Smokey Point Distributing Figure 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Log of Test Pits Arlington, Washington 13 (5 of 5) U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200 6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140 100 90 80 70 60 50 Percent Finer by Weight40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Gravel Sand Cobbles Silt or Clay coarse fine coarse medium fine Point Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu B-1 10.0 Gravelly SAND, slightly silty (SM) 1.31 19.72 B-1 30.0 Slightly gravelly, slightly silty SAND (SM) 2.18 7.33 B-3 10.0 Very gravely SAND, slightly silty (SM) 0.91 30.17 B-4 20.0 Silty SAND, trace gravel. (SM) %Coarse % Fine % Coarse % Medium % Fine Point Depth D100 D60 D50 D30 D10 Gravel Gravel Sand Sand Sand % Fines B-1 10.0 25 2.452 1.554 0.632 0.124 3.4 23.3 17.4 33.8 15.0 7.1 B-1 30.0 19 0.467 0.378 0.255 0.064 0.0 4.1 3.3 36.8 45.1 10.8 B-3 10.0 37.5 3.59 2.166 0.624 0.119 5.5 29.0 17.1 24.7 16.1 7.6 B-4 20.0 9.5 0.179 0.153 0.113 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.5 79.8 17.2 C = D 2/(D * D ) To be well graded: 1 < C < 3 and c 30 60 10 c Cu = D60/D10 Cu > 4 for GW or Cu > 6 for SW 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ GRAIN SIZE W/STATS Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Grain Size Test Data 14 Arlington, Washington U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200 6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140 100 90 80 70 60 50 Percent Finer by Weight40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Gravel Sand Cobbles Silt or Clay coarse fine coarse medium fine Point Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu TP-2 1.3 Silty, fine to medium SAND (SM) TP-2 3.0 Very sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL (SP) 0.87 29.07 TP-6 1.0 Silty, fine to coarse SAND (SM) TP-6 2.0 Fine to medium SAND (SP) 0.96 1.84 TP-6 5.0 Very gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (SP) 0.69 12.43 %Coarse % Fine % Coarse % Medium % Fine Point Depth D100 D60 D50 D30 D10 Gravel Gravel Sand Sand Sand % Fines TP-2 1.3 19 0.52 0.403 0.254 0.0 2.0 2.6 43.1 38.7 13.6 TP-2 3.0 37.5 9.201 5.884 1.588 0.316 19.3 35.5 12.4 19.6 10.3 2.8 TP-6 1.0 19 0.488 0.375 0.213 0.0 3.3 5.3 35.9 38.2 17.3 TP-6 2.0 9.5 0.425 0.381 0.307 0.23 0.0 0.8 2.0 37.1 59.3 0.8 TP-6 5.0 25 5.062 3.387 1.191 0.407 3.4 38.8 20.0 27.3 9.4 1.1 C = D 2/(D * D ) To be well graded: 1 < C < 3 and c 30 60 10 c Cu = D60/D10 Cu > 4 for GW or Cu > 6 for SW 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ GRAIN SIZE W/STATS Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Grain Size Test Data 15 Arlington, Washington U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200 6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140 100 90 80 70 60 50 Percent Finer by Weight40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Gravel Sand Cobbles Silt or Clay coarse fine coarse medium fine Point Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu TP-8 1.0 Slightly silty, very gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) 0.73 23.52 TP-8 2.5 Very gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (SP) 0.74 14.59 %Coarse % Fine % Coarse % Medium % Fine Point Depth D100 D60 D50 D30 D10 Gravel Gravel Sand Sand Sand % Fines TP-8 1.0 37.5 3.81 1.937 0.672 0.162 9.9 26.8 12.7 30.9 14.6 5.1 TP-8 2.5 37.5 7.357 4.549 1.656 0.504 18.3 30.9 16.9 25.9 7.3 0.6 C = D 2/(D * D ) To be well graded: 1 < C < 3 and c 30 60 10 c Cu = D60/D10 Cu > 4 for GW or Cu > 6 for SW 14-0086 3/31/14 X:\0-PROJECTS GEO\00000-PROJECTS 2014-GEO\FULL GEO EVALUATIONS\SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING - 14-0086 - PROPOSED SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING BUILDING\GINT\14-0086 - SMOKEY POINT DISTRIBUTING.GPJ GRAIN SIZE W/STATS Figure Smokey Point Distributing 63rd Ave and 192nd St NE Grain Size Test Data 16 Arlington, Washington APPENDIX F NRCS Soil Survey United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for States Department of Agriculture and other Snohomish County Federal agencies, State Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment Area, Washington Conservation Stations, and local Service participants February 6, 2014 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http:// offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2 for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................7 Soil Map................................................................................................................8 Legend..................................................................................................................9 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................10 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................10 Snohomish County Area, Washington............................................................12 17â€”Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes.............................12 30â€”Lynnwood loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes......................................12 References............................................................................................................14 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the 5 Custom Soil Resource Report individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil- landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 6 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 7 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 122Â° 8' 53'' W 122Â° 8' 19'' W 563360 563430 563500 563570 563640 563710 563780 563850 563920 563990 48Â° 10' 20'' N 48Â° 10' 20'' N 5335790 5335790 5335720 5335720 5335650 5335650 5335580 5335580 5335510 5335510 5335440 5335440 5335370 5335370 48Â° 10' 5'' N 48Â° 10' 5'' N 563360 563430 563500 563570 563640 563710 563780 563850 563920 563990 Map Scale: 1:3,170 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters 122Â° 8' 53'' WN 0 45 90 180 270 122Â° 8' 19'' W Feet 0 150 300 600 900 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 8 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Area of Interest (AOI) Stony Spot Soils Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Very Stony Spot Soil Map Unit Polygons Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Soil Map Unit Lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line Other Soil Map Unit Points placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting Special Line Features soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Special Point Features Water Features Blowout Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Borrow Pit measurements. Transportation Clay Spot Rails Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Closed Depression Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Interstate Highways Gravel Pit Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) US Routes Gravelly Spot Major Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Landfill projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts Local Roads distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Lava Flow Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate Background Marsh or swamp Aerial Photography calculations of distance or area are required. Mine or Quarry This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of Miscellaneous Water the version date(s) listed below. Perennial Water Soil Survey Area: Snohomish County Area, Washington Rock Outcrop Survey Area Data: Version 8, Dec 10, 2013 Saline Spot Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 Sandy Spot or larger. Severely Eroded Spot Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 9, 2010â€”Sep 29, Sinkhole 2011 Slide or Slip The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Sodic Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Snohomish County Area, Washington (WA661) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 17 Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 46.2 97.0% 8 percent slopes 30 Lynnwood loamy sand, 0 to 3 1.4 3.0% percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 47.6 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If 10 Custom Soil Resource Report intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha- Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 11 Custom Soil Resource Report Snohomish County Area, Washington 17â€”Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation: 30 to 45 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 180 days Map Unit Composition Everett and similar soils: 100 percent Description of Everett Setting Landform: Terraces, plains Parent material: Glacial outwash Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 14 to 20 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.1 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Land capability (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Other vegetative classification: Unnamed (G002XN402WA) Typical profile 0 to 6 inches: Gravelly ashy sandy loam 6 to 18 inches: Very gravelly ashy sandy loam 18 to 60 inches: Extremely gravelly sand 30â€”Lynnwood loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 50 to 600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 65 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 180 to 200 days Map Unit Composition Lynnwood and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 3 percent 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Lynnwood Setting Landform: Terraces, outwash plains Parent material: Glacial outwash Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Low (about 4.8 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Land capability (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Other vegetative classification: Unnamed (G002XN402WA) Typical profile 0 to 1 inches: Loamy sand 1 to 29 inches: Loamy sand 29 to 60 inches: Sand Minor Components Custer Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Depressions 13 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/ landuse/forestry/pub/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 14 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf 15 APPENDIX G Operations & Maintenance Manual OPERTATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CONTACT: CONTACT: Chris Tauzin ADDRESS: 17305 59th Ave NE Arlington, WA 98223 PHONE: 425.508.3959 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. If ponding lasts more than 24 hours in the infiltration facilities after a storm event the facility must be maintained as outlined in the Operations and Maintenance guidelines attached. 2. The permeable ballast is to have a depth of at least 4â€inches. If the depth becomes less than 4â€inches additional ballast should be added until 4â€inches of ballast is reached. Additionally, a loamy sand depth check should be as well. The loamy sand is to have a minimum depth of 18â€inches. If the loamy sand depth is less than 18â€inches it should be amended prior to placement of additional ballast. No. 2 â€“ Infiltration Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Results Expected When Component Needed Maintenance Is Performed General Trash & Debris See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). Poisonous/Noxious See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" Vegetation (No. 1). Contaminants and See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" Pollution (No. 1). Rodent Holes See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1) Storage Area Sediment Water ponding in infiltration pond after Sediment is removed rainfall ceases and appropriate time and/or facility is cleaned allowed for infiltration. so that infiltration system works according to (A percolation test pit or test of facility design. indicates facility is only working at 90% of its designed capabilities. If two inches or more sediment is present, remove). Filter Bags (if Filled with Sediment and debris fill bag more than 1/2 Filter bag is replaced or applicable) Sediment and full. system is redesigned. Debris Rock Filters Sediment and By visual inspection, little or no water flows Gravel in rock filter is Debris through filter during heavy rain storms. replaced. Side Slopes of Erosion See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" Pond (No. 1). Emergency Tree Growth See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" Overflow Spillway (No. 1). and Berms over 4 feet in height. Piping See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). Emergency Rock Missing See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" Overflow Spillway (No. 1). Erosion See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). Pre-settling Facility or sump 6" or designed sediment trap depth of Sediment is removed. Ponds and Vaults filled with Sediment sediment. and/or debris February 2005 Volume V â€“ Runoff Treatment BMPs 4-33 No. 4 â€“ Control Structure/Flow Restrictor Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected Component When Maintenance is Performed General Trash and Debris Material exceeds 25% of sump depth or 1 Control structure (Includes Sediment) foot below orifice plate. orifice is not blocked. All trash and debris removed. Structural Damage Structure is not securely attached to Structure securely manhole wall. attached to wall and outlet pipe. Structure is not in upright position (allow up Structure in correct to 10% from plumb). position. Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight Connections to outlet and show signs of rust. pipe are water tight; structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. Any holes--other than designed holes--in the Structure has no structure. holes other than designed holes. Cleanout Gate Damaged or Missing Cleanout gate is not watertight or is missing. Gate is watertight and works as designed. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one Gate moves up and maintenance person. down easily and is watertight. Chain/rod leading to gate is missing or Chain is in place and damaged. works as designed. Gate is rusted over 50% of its surface area. Gate is repaired or replaced to meet design standards. Orifice Plate Damaged or Missing Control device is not working properly due to Plate is in place and missing, out of place, or bent orifice plate. works as designed. Obstructions Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation Plate is free of all blocking the plate. obstructions and works as designed. Overflow Pipe Obstructions Any trash or debris blocking (or having the Pipe is free of all potential of blocking) the overflow pipe. obstructions and works as designed. Manhole See â€œClosed See â€œClosed Detention Systemsâ€ (No. 3). See â€œClosed Detention Systemsâ€ Detention Systemsâ€ (No. 3). (No. 3). Catch Basin See â€œCatch Basinsâ€ See â€œCatch Basinsâ€ (No. 5). See â€œCatch Basinsâ€ (No. 5). (No. 5). February 2005 Volume V â€“ Runoff Treatment BMPs 4-35 No. 5 â€“ Catch Basins Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is performed General Trash & Trash or debris which is located immediately No Trash or debris located Debris in front of the catch basin opening or is immediately in front of blocking inletting capacity of the basin by catch basin or on grate more than 10%. opening. Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 60 No trash or debris in the percent of the sump depth as measured from catch basin. the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case less than a minimum of six inches clearance from the debris surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe Inlet and outlet pipes free blocking more than 1/3 of its height. of trash or debris. Dead animals or vegetation that could No dead animals or generate odors that could cause complaints vegetation present within or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). the catch basin. Sediment Sediment (in the basin) that exceeds 60 No sediment in the catch percent of the sump depth as measured from basin the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case less than a minimum of 6 inches clearance from the sediment surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. Structure Top slab has holes larger than 2 square Top slab is free of holes Damage to inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch and cracks. Frame and/or Top Slab (Intent is to make sure no material is running into basin). Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame the riser rings or top slab from the top slab. Frame not securely and firmly attached. attached Fractures or Maintenance person judges that structure is Basin replaced or repaired Cracks in unsound. to design standards. Basin Walls/ Bottom Grout fillet has separated or cracked wider Pipe is regrouted and than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the secure at basin wall. joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Settlement/ If failure of basin has created a safety, Basin replaced or repaired Misalignment function, or design problem. to design standards. Vegetation Vegetation growing across and blocking more No vegetation blocking than 10% of the basin opening. opening to basin. Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints No vegetation or root that is more than six inches tall and less than growth present. six inches apart. 4-36 Volume V â€“ Runoff Treatment BMPs February 2005 No. 5 â€“ Catch Basins Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is performed Contamination See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). No pollution present. and Pollution Catch Basin Cover Not in Cover is missing or only partially in place. Catch basin cover is Cover Place Any open catch basin requires maintenance. closed Locking Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with Mechanism maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts proper tools. Not Working into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread. Cover Difficult One maintenance person cannot remove lid Cover can be removed by to Remove after applying normal lifting pressure. one maintenance person. (Intent is keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance.) Ladder Ladder Rungs Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, not Ladder meets design Unsafe securely attached to basin wall, standards and allows misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges. maintenance person safe access. Metal Grates Grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets (If Applicable) Unsafe design standards. Trash and Trash and debris that is blocking more than Grate free of trash and Debris 20% of grate surface inletting capacity. debris. Damaged or Grate missing or broken member(s) of the Grate is in place and Missing. grate. meets design standards. No. 6 â€“ Debris Barriers (e.g., Trash Racks) Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Results Expected When Components Needed Maintenance is Performed General Trash and Trash or debris that is plugging more Barrier cleared to design flow Debris than 20% of the openings in the barrier. capacity. Metal Damaged/ Bars are bent out of shape more than 3 Bars in place with no bends more Missing inches. than 3/4 inch. Bars. Bars are missing or entire barrier Bars in place according to design. missing. Bars are loose and rust is causing 50% Barrier replaced or repaired to deterioration to any part of barrier. design standards. Inlet/Outlet Debris barrier missing or not attached to Barrier firmly attached to pipe Pipe pipe February 2005 Volume V â€“ Runoff Treatment BMPs 4-37 No. 7 â€“ Energy Dissipaters Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Results Expected When Components Needed Maintenance is Performed External: Rock Pad Missing or Only one layer of rock exists above Rock pad replaced to design Moved Rock native soil in area five square feet or standards. larger, or any exposure of native soil. Erosion Soil erosion in or adjacent to rock pad. Rock pad replaced to design standards. Dispersion Trench Pipe Accumulated sediment that exceeds Pipe cleaned/flushed so that it Plugged with 20% of the design depth. matches design. Sediment Not Visual evidence of water discharging at Trench redesigned or rebuilt to Discharging concentrated points along trench (normal standards. Water condition is a â€œsheet flowâ€ of water along Properly trench). Intent is to prevent erosion damage. Perforations Over 1/2 of perforations in pipe are Perforated pipe cleaned or Plugged. plugged with debris and sediment. replaced. Water Flows Maintenance person observes or Facility rebuilt or redesigned to Out Top of receives credible report of water flowing standards. â€œDistributorâ€ out during any storm less than the design Catch Basin. storm or its causing or appears likely to cause damage. Receiving Water in receiving area is causing or has No danger of landslides. Area Over- potential of causing landslide problems. Saturated Internal: Manhole/Chamber Worn or Structure dissipating flow deteriorates to Structure replaced to design Damaged 1/2 of original size or any concentrated standards. Post, worn spot exceeding one square foot Baffles, Side which would make structure unsound. of Chamber Other See â€œCatch Basinsâ€ (No. 5). See â€œCatch Basinsâ€ (No. 5). Defects 4-38 Volume V â€“ Runoff Treatment BMPs February 2005 No. 10 â€“ Filter Strips Maintenance Defect or Condition When Recommended Maintenance to Correct Component Problem Maintenance is Needed Problem General Sediment Sediment depth exceeds 2 Remove sediment deposits, re-level so Accumulation on inches. slope is even and flows pass evenly through Grass strip. Vegetation When the grass becomes Mow grass, control nuisance vegetation, excessively tall (greater such that flow not impeded. Grass should be than 10-inches); when mowed to a height between 3-4 inches. nuisance weeds and other vegetation starts to take over. Trash and Debris Trash and debris Remove trash and Debris from filter. Accumulation accumulated on the filter strip. Erosion/Scouring Eroded or scoured areas For ruts or bare areas less than 12 inches due to flow channelization, wide, repair the damaged area by filling with or higher flows. crushed gravel. The grass will creep in over the rock in time. If bare areas are large, generally greater than 12 inches wide, the filter strip should be re-graded and re- seeded. For smaller bare areas, overseed when bare spots are evident. Flow spreader Flow spreader uneven or Level the spreader and clean so that flows clogged so that flows are are spread evenly over entire filter width. not uniformly distributed through entire filter width. February 2005 Volume V â€“ Runoff Treatment BMPs 4-41 REVIEW COMMENT SUMMARY AND RESOLUTION SHEET Submittal: Smokey Point Distribution Center CODE A. Incorporated B. Open/Under Review Agency/Company/Reviewer C. Evaluated/Not Incorporated D. Beyond Scope/Not Evaluated Robert O'Brien E. Clarify or discuss Submittal Date: 12/15/2004 X. Comment closed Comment Final Dwg No. Specification Correction Disposition Item No. Reviewer or Reference Review Comment Response Verification Page No. Chapter/Section Code (initials) 1 O'Brien DOE SSC-4 SSC-4 requires that the short-term infiltration rate be less than 2.4 This has been amended in the 2012 Manual, which Vol. 3 Page 3-83 inches/hour for a minimum depth of 6 feet below infiltration facility. states that for water quality 18" inches of treatment From review of soil samples TP-02 through TP-05 it appears that the soil is to be provided with a long term infiltration rate glacial outwash soils are within 3 feet BGS and therefore would not be of 3 in/hr or less and 5' of separation between the infiltration trench and the seasonal high-water mark meeting this requirement. Please provide geotechnical or bedrock. The proposed design is to have 18- documentation that would support SSC-4. inches minimum of loamy sand with a corresponding long-term infiltration rate of 0.5 in/hr provided water quality. The water table and bedrock on-site are over 30' deep from the surface satisfying the 5' separation requirement. 2 O'Brien DOE SSC-6 It appears this site may not be able to meet the treatment criteria for Additional CEC tests have been done and the results Vol. 3 Page 3-84 cation exchange capacity. It is required to be greater than 5 are provided in the attached geo-technical meq/100g for at least 18 inches. Although it is expected that Loamy documents. During construction the permeable Sand have a greater than 5 meq/100 g value, the values shown in ballast areas are to have soil depth checks to insure 18-inches of loamy sand is provided. If less than 18- Table 1 of the geotechnical report show values lower than this at 2.5 inches is provided the soil is to be amended until 18- BGS. How will construction ensure at least 18 inches minimum of inches is provided. Loamy Sand for entire project limits with grading activities? 3 O'Brien Drainage Please provide calculations for proposed flow splitter. Provided, see Sheet 6. Plan/Details Flow Splitter 4 O'Brien Appendix B Flow Include precipitation to contribute to the North Trench Facility. Amended, see Drainage Report. Control Calculations North Trench Comment Final Dwg No. Specification Correction Disposition Item No. Reviewer or Reference Review Comment Response Verification Page No. Chapter/Section Code (initials) 5 O'Brien Drainage Plan The drainage plan shows the proposed asphalt driveway draining Amended, see Sheet 5. towards the property line. Slope the asphalt driveway inwards to reduce runoff risks to neighboring properties and keep runoff on-site. 6 O'Brien Drainage Detail WSDOT HRM Page The detail for the MFD being proposed is not the same as a WSDOT Amended, see Sheet 6 5-75 Type 1 facility. I recommend using a Type 3 facility with the MFD drain at a 4:1 slope. The free draining material below the MFD would then drain into the flow control facility. I would remove all reference in calling the gravel parking as "PERMEABLE GRAVEL PARKING" re-named to "permeable" gravel parking. I believe this will set a bad precedence "PROPOSED GRAVEL PARKING/STORAGE PERM. for future gravel parking lots, as this is not typically defined this way by BALLAST WSDOT 9-03.9(2)". The gravel parking 7 O'Brien Drainage Detail DOE. In addition please provide documentation for concurrence of areas were re-modeled as 100% impervious. use of 50% grass and 50% impervious for the gravel parking Refer to drainage report. modeling. Refer to attached Geo-tech document pertaining to the geotextile fabric and ballast depth. Note Provide a construction geotextile under ballast to ensure fines do not that the ballast areas were re-modeled as 100% clog your infiltration system. I would recommend a deeper ballast impervious and with 2" of storage and continued Gravel Parking 8 O'Brien section as using only 4-inches seems susceptible to rutting and to infiltrate at 100%. The proposed design for the Detail displacement, and 4-inches of storage was used in your modeling. ballast areas is 4" of storage, of which the owner Making the ballast section deeper would also account for some is to maintain. Additionally, a 1' deep 4' wide freeboard, which would be typically 1 foot for infiltration facilities with trench is to surround the ballast areas in the case of overflow. no overflow path. Typically infiltration test pits are required one for every 5,000 sf of Two PIT tests were done for the north and south infiltration surface and one text pit for every 50 feet of infiltration infiltration trench, refer to attached geo-technical DOE Volume III, trench. The grain size that is being used for your D10 is from two test document pertaining to infiltration rates. Geo-test 9 O'Brien Infiltration Rates Section 3.3.5, page 3-pit locations that are not at an infiltration facility location. A majority of determined that infiltration rate for the two trenches is 70 the test pits either don't give a D10 particle size or are well below the 12 in/hr. Note that City of Arlington ok conducting one 0.4 size needed to use 9 in/hr. Please justify infiltration rate used for PIT for each trench. this site. REVIEW COMMENT SUMMARY AND RESOLUTION SHEET Submittal: Smokey Point Distribution Center CODE A. Incorporated B. Open/Under Review Agency/Company/Reviewer C. Evaluated/Not Incorporated D. Beyond Scope/Not Evaluated Robert O'Brien E. Clarify or discuss Submittal Date: 12/15/2004 X. Comment closed Comment Final Dwg No. Specification Correction Disposition Item No. Reviewer or Reference Review Comment Response Verification Page No. Chapter/Section Code (initials) 1 O'Brien DOE SSC-4 SSC-4 requires that the short-term infiltration rate be less than 2.4 Vol. 3 Page 3-83 inches/hour for a minimum depth of 6 feet below infiltration facility. From review of soil samples TP-02 through TP-05 it appears that the glacial outwash soils are within 3 feet BGS and therefore would not be meeting this requirement. Please provide geotechnical documentation that would support SSC-4. 2 O'Brien DOE SSC-6 It appears this site may not be able to meet the treatment criteria for Vol. 3 Page 3-84 cation exchange capacity. It is required to be greater than 5 meq/100g for at least 18 inches. Although it is expected that Loamy Sand have a greater than 5 meq/100 g value, the values shown in Table 1 of the geotechnical report show values lower than this at 2.5 BGS. How will construction ensure at least 18 inches minimum of Loamy Sand for entire project limits with grading activities? 3 O'Brien Drainage Please provide calculations for proposed flow splitter. Plan/Details Flow Splitter 4 O'Brien Appendix B Flow Include precipitation to contribute to the North Trench Facility. Control Calculations North Trench 5 O'Brien Drainage Plan The drainage plan shows the proposed asphalt driveway draining towards the property line. Slope the asphalt driveway inwards to reduce runoff risks to neighboring properties and keep runoff on-site. 6 O'Brien Drainage Detail WSDOT HRM Page The detail for the MFD being proposed is not the same as a WSDOT 5-75 Type 1 facility. I recommend using a Type 3 facility with the MFD drain at a 4:1 slope. The free draining material below the MFD would then drain into the flow control facility. I would remove all reference in calling the gravel parking as "permeable" gravel parking. I believe this will set a bad precedence for future gravel parking lots, as this is not typically defined this way by 7 O'Brien Drainage Detail DOE. In addition please provide documentation for concurrence of use of 50% grass and 50% impervious for the gravel parking modeling. Comment Final Dwg No. Specification Correction Disposition Item No. Reviewer or Reference Review Comment Response Verification Page No. Chapter/Section Code (initials) Provide a construction geotextile under ballast to ensure fines do not clog your infiltration system. I would recommend a deeper ballast section as using only 4-inches seems susceptible to rutting and Gravel Parking 8 O'Brien displacement, and 4-inches of storage was used in your modeling. Detail Making the ballast section deeper would also account for some freeboard, which would be typically 1 foot for infiltration facilities with no overflow path. Typically infiltration test pits are required one for every 5,000 sf of infiltration surface and one text pit for every 50 feet of infiltration DOE Volume III, trench. The grain size that is being used for your D10 is from two test 9 O'Brien Infiltration Rates Section 3.3.5, page 3-pit locations that are not at an infiltration facility location. A majority of 70 the test pits either don't give a D10 particle size or are well below the 0.4 size needed to use 9 in/hr. Please justify infiltration rate used for this site. DETAIL "A" DETAIL "B" 96" DIA 96" BAYFILTER 72-3 545 MANHOLE PROJECT SPD TRUCKING CO. BAYFILTER LOCATION ARLINGTON MAX WATER QUALITY FLOW 0.50 CFS WWHM WATER QUALITY FLOW 0.48 CFS CARTRIDGE DESIGN FLOW RATE 45 GPM # BAYFILTER CARTRIDGES 5 TREATED SEDIMENT CAPACITY 1750 LBS 741 Marine Drive PHONE Bellingham, WA 98225 360 733_7318 20611-67th Avenue NE TOLL FREE FAX Arlington, WA 98223 888 251_5276 360 733_7418 February 6, 2015 Job No. 14-0086 Smokey Point Distributing, Inc. 17305 59th Avenue NE Arlington, WA 98223 Attn: Ms. Chris Tauzin Re: Pilot Infiltration Testing Supplement Proposed Smokey Point Distributing Building East of 63rd Avenue NE and 192nd Street NE Arlington, Washington Dear Ms. Tauzin: GeoTest Services, Inc. (GTS) has been requested to provide additional information regarding our recent infiltration testing on the property located at 63rd Avenue NE and 192nd Street NE in Arlington, Washington. The results of the Pilot Infiltration Testing (PIT) can be found in the report titled Pilot Infiltration Testing Investigation, Proposed Smokey Point Distributing Facility, East of 63rd Avenue NE and 192nd Street NE, Arlington, Washington, dated January 14, 2015. Determining Design Infiltration Rates Pilot Infiltration Testing was performed at locations PIT-1 and PIT-2 to determine in-situ long term design infiltration rates at the location and depth of the proposed infiltration systems. Water was discharged into the individual test pit explorations through a diffuser to reduce turbulence and scouring in the bottom of the pit. Water discharge rates were calculated by recording the volume of water passing through a water meter over a recorded time. The rate of water discharge was adjusted such that a minimum of 12 inches of water was maintained in the pit, thus maintaining a â€œconstant headâ€ in the pit. A more comprehensive explanation of the testing procedure, along with a figure showing the approximate location of the tests can be found in the previously referenced report. The short-term, or â€œfieldâ€, infiltration testing results were recorded at the time of the test and are presented below in Table 1. TABLE 1 Summary of Field Infiltration Testing Results Test Number Short-Term Infiltration Rate, inches/hour (Constant Head Test Results) PIT-1 73 PIT-2 183 The test results indicated short-term infiltration rates of 73 and 183 inches per hour. This is representative of instantaneous results without the benefit of correction factors or reductions in rate to account for the long-term performance of the facility. Page 1 of 2 Civil File Checklist Performance Bond Required: ________ Amount: ____________________________________________________________ Describe: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Maintenance Bond Required: ________ Amount: ____________________________________________________________ Describe: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ As-built required: ________ Bill of Sale required: _______ W / S / SS ROW Permit: ________________ ROW Dedication: ______ AFN: ____________________________ Easement: _______ AFN: __________________________ Action Date Comments Sent Notes Intake Submittal 2nd Round Submittal 3rd Round Submittal Performance Bond Request Performance Bond Received Material Submittals Contractor Business License Contractor Proof of Insurance DOE Stormwater Permit CESCL ROW Permit Issued Construction Plans Approved Pre-Construction Meeting No As-built Review Construction Complete Easement/Dedication Required Request CAD File Send PDFâ€™s & CAD to GIS Maintenance Bond Request Maintenance Bond Received Performance Bond Released As-built Review Construction Complete Easement/Dedication Required As-built Review/Bills of Sale Dedications/Easements Draft As-built Resubmittal As-built Plans Signed Request AutoCAD Files Dedications/Easements Recorded Prepare Bills of Sale for Notary Final Bill of Sales to Finance & GIS Send PDFâ€™s & CAD to GIS Maintenance Bond Released Page | 1 7/17REV Civil File Checklist Page | 2 7/17REV Water & Sewer Availability Department of Community & Economic Development City of Arlington â€¢ 18204 59th Ave NE â€¢ Arlington, WA 98223 Phone (360) 403-3551 PERMIT TYPE WATER & SEWER Water & Sewer Availability LOCATION INSIDE CITY LIMITS Provide with this application a site plan/sketch of the proposal. Snohomish County Tax 31051500400400, 31051500400300, 31051500401500 Parcel I.D. #: Property Address/ 63rd Ave NE Location: Owner Name: Smokey Point Distributing, Inc. Address: 17305 59th Ave NE City: Arlington State: WA Zip: 98223 Email: ctauzin@spdtrucking.com Phone: 4255083959 Owner Agent Name: Chris Tauzin Address: 17305 59th Ave NE City: Arlington State: WA Zip: 98223 Email: ctauzin@spdtrucking.com Phone: 4255083959 Check all that apply: Land Use Permit Civil Permit Building Permit Check all that apply: City County Residential: # of Units/Lots Commercial: Other # of Units/Lots Total Building Square 58656 # of Phases Footage Is there an existing well? Yes Is there an Onsite Septic Yes System? No No Size of Water Meter Unknown Required? Type of Fire Protection Fire Sprinkler System Required? I, the undersigned, request City of Arlington Utilities Division to certify willingness to provide water and/or sewer as indicated. The above information is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any changes to the above information must be reported immediately to the City of Arlington Utilities Division as a condition of Utility Availability approval. Signature: Chris Tauzin Owner Agent Please Attach Site Plan and Supporting Documents (PDF Only) SPD 63rd Site Plan.pdf By submission of this form, I hereby certify that the above information is correct and that the construction, installation for the above mentioned property will be in accordance with the applicable laws of the City of Arlington and the State of Washington. TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY OF ARLINGTON CITY OF ARLINGTON UTILITY DIVISION - PRELIMINARY CERTIFICATION This non-binding preliminary commitment is only valid for the above referenced property in accordance with the City of Arlington policies and is valid for two (2) years from the date of approval. All approvals are subject to applicable connection fees and charges. Signature: A water main or other capital facility improvement (if is required required, refer to the attached conditions) is not required Water is presently available from the City of Yes Arlington to service the above referenced property No and specified number of connections. A sanitary sewer main or other capital facility is required improvement (if required, refer to the attached is not required conditions) Sanitary Sewer is presently available from the City Yes of Arlington to service the above referenced No property and specified number of connections. Other:________________________________________________________________________ Approved By: Expires two (2) years from date of approval. ! "# $%&' ( )*+,-., /0 ., 1* 02334554673869::3;5<= )-1"&$> ?!? @11(2,0>A!&'$'?# B2 C- D0- 1 E01 F!73GHIJJH4;55974K34LJ4;59L3M45I9;A>>>LM3L4M384;89;<I539;63NL4;8MN;;I;OF FP573G4M3O9I;O59Q3<534:6J34;I;O5735MN6RN;83M64MMI4O3573GHIJJ;3385983<IO;4 69JJ365I9;<G<53:5745:335<573S&?:4;N4J<F FH4<N;4QJ359I83;5IPG4 G34M<59M:9K3MPJ9H<94<<N:383<IO;38P9M4JJH453M<59<54G 9;<I53F>J34<3M3KI3H59:4R3<NM35739N53MLM9L3M5GQ9N;84MG3J3K45I9;<HIJJLM3K3;5MN;9PP PM9:J34KI;O573<I538NMI;O3T5M3:33K3;5<F F:L9M54;559;95IPG573!MIQ3LMI9M59OM48I;O465IKI5G<9573G74K34674;635969::3;54;8 9MQ3LM3<3;5F!7I<J9645I9;I<I;47IO7LMI9MI5GU9;3P9M573!MIQ3F 0 B2V0 02 >4M63JWX Y Y$&Z?[>&\!S!'!\]=\" $&Z?[>&\!S!'!\]=\" ^YY!_#?\? 'S#?\?' \]!&\=A` a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`9! #%E:]=%9 ^ & 9_`9! a((b V":9: b &^":9:&9_ %9`;bc d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`CaB%b [ & bcRb! #%`CaB%b [ & bcRb! N((J d"CbC J &["CbC&bc %bREJe f;494K/!%##C&!C&"!C;>/Q;<]/ !"#$%&"'()*'+),'-.)'(/0(12 34 5 !"#$%&"'()*'+),'-.)'(/0(12 34 536677 8 99:);<$(.$=> 34 5?@?A ?B ,C'(/)"(0D:E @5 75 F;,'+G.H'( I5 99 E :9: J 4 1)G.H'(K+LM),.1#'(/21"! ANOP &,"L$,)%'+G1,"++Q,"!);$($RQ""M-G(#2 S 4T 5 2 : U ,M<$ V @6 F>* V77T6 JW7 A T7 &XYF> 377Z56 G.(GCG1# &G,1$C[MM,$++$/GC*$+1,'L)'"(YR($,=G!$ YR($,&;"($\"('(/ 99 : U X*]>=>^Y_>`&Y= FY^^>XF *X=a0=F >X]F> @5 7 F"(),G1)",&,'!G,%F"()G1)&;"($MM,$++F"(),G1)",%L$'1$(+$'1$(+$[ b^>(/'($$,'(/_$CC'bGC$ U 8U 8=YC%!L'1<$(.$0 >DG+;'(/)"()G)$ 8: [ : F"G+)*$<$C"L!$(),$<",aG+#'( U 8 U E=YC%!L'1<$F"(+),.1)'"(F"(),G1)",FY*F:E^ V5757 *G)$ (+L$1)'"(%L$*$+1,'L)'"(1;$M.C$M*G)$F"!LC$)$M*G)$(+L$1)", )G).+ U: 9 F 2>F *=a U 9 U 9U U 9 U 9U U U U 8 8 :8 8 8 8 :8 8 4 5cde7 *G)$ X$<'$R%L$*$+1,'L)'"(++'/($M"G,/$)*G)$ F]^fYX(MX$<'$R^G,#^1FG-$ U 9 F]^fYX(MX$<'$R^G,1bG%$+ U 9 F]^fYX&$,f'!_2 &D*^=a U 2DG)$,$R$,1"(($1)'"(Q$$+R'CC-$G++$++$MG));$)'!$"Q-.'CM'(/ L$,!')+.-!'))GC2 2D;%G,$);$,$("F')%"Q,C'(/)"(,GQQ'1^')'/G)'"(Q$$+1;G,/$Mg F]^fYX(M,$<'$R("1"!!$()+2hX&D>DX>] U 9 F]^fYX(MX$<'$R&DDX>] U 9 F]^fYX X&YX U F]^fYX U F]^fYX="F'<'CF"!!$()+2h,G(#'$X.1#$, U : F]^fYX$$G))G1;$M1"!!$()+0&DYX^X>] U 8 8="1"!!$()+&D*^=a8 8 8 8="1"!!$()+h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`6$6 Z /## +I M2 .K,`6, )H432# +I /2 I# +I 22 +"3 ! +++]1MM3/%_#6$ +I 25 .",,` K,`6 a$# +I /5 K #^ #.bK,`66 ! +## +I 5 -!-,.".# +I 5 O*` +615532- 52O*` .+#L/ +I 5 !!,H +61 +I cd;8:R'R&S;'( * ) %/ efgghhijklmnojpqrrstnumrvwxyn %/ efgghhzj{j|}j|h~sjÂ€qroÂrmÂ‚wxyn 22 |}efghhj|}eÂƒiiejuÂ„t vÂ†ÂowkqsolqÂ€oqÂ‚Â‡ÂˆvvsÂ‰|gj|Âƒj|Âƒwxyn M52 |e}ÂƒziijÂŠvrrkvÂ‹tÂ„Â„wxyn 52 |gÂƒÂƒ{ÂƒÂƒjÂŠukÂŒÂÂlmnnqÂ‹ÂŽqowÂvÂ‹vqxowxyn /52 {ie|e}jÂlvjÂ‹tÂ‚solÂ€Â‹oqtÂ‚Â„vvoqÂ‚Â‡Â„qÂ‚Â€ovswxyn /52 {ie|ezjuqÂ‡Â‚vyÂÂ‘ssÂ€vyÂvlÂ„qowxyn /52 {ie|eÂƒjuqÂ‡Â‚jÂ‘Â‚ÂlvjÂ’tÂ‚wytÂ‹Â“wxyn //2 {ig{iÂƒjÂpÂ|gfeÂƒzhÂƒfwxyn //2 {igez|jej|{jeg|ÂƒuÂkÂ’tÂ‚solÂ€Â‹oqtÂ‚ÂrmÂ‚swxyn %2 {ffÂƒhfjej|{j|ÂƒÂptÂ‚yqÂ‚Â‡plvm ytÂ”Â‚wxyn 42 {Âƒ|{{ejejfjeg|ÂƒÂ~Â•Â’ÂŒÂŽÂuÂkÂˆqÂ‚mrklmqÂ‚mÂ‡vÂvÂ–qvÂ”wxyn 42 {Âƒ|{{}jejfjeg|ÂƒÂÂ—ÂŽ~ÂklmqÂ‚mÂ‡vkvomqrswxyn 42 {Âƒ|{{zjejfjeg|ÂƒÂÂ—ÂŽ~ÂÂqrtoÂ‘Â‚nqrolmoqtÂ‚ÂvsoqÂ‚Â‡uÂ€xxrvÂ„vÂ‚ogejgfj|Âƒwxyn /2 {}}e|hjÂkjejklmqÂ‚mÂ‡vÂvxtlo|j|fw|ÂƒÂÂmlo}jwxyn /2 {}}|ÂƒÂƒjÂkjejklmqÂ‚mÂ‡vÂvxtlo|j|fw|ÂƒÂÂmlozwxyn