The URL can be used to link to this page

SEE FILL-GRADE BLD2022-1541+Storm_Drainage_Analysis_(Technical_Information_Report)+11.9.2022_11.51.14_AM+3211543vki PRELIMINARY STORMWATER TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT 212TH STREET SITE REDEVELOPMENT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Submitted by: Farallon Consulting, L.L.C. 975 5t' Avenue Northwest Issaquah, Washington 98027 Farallon PN: 416-018 For: Glacier Environmental Services, Inc. 3415 1211t Street Southwest Lynnwood, Washington 98087 W J e 7 2022 Prepared by: Reviewed by: Russell O. Luiten.,*.E. Christopher P. Kovac, P.E., LEED°AP Principal Engineer of WAS& �>.c. \fOIS?6�F� W� �SS�OVAL E*`G`� TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW...................................................................................1-1 1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY ................................................ 1-1 1.2 PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS.......................................................... 1-2 2.0 DETERMINATION OF APPLICABLE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 2.1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 1: PREPARATION OF STORMWAT SITEPLANS..................................................................................... - 2.2 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 2: STORMWATER POLLUTIOn PREVENTION PLAN............................................................................. -1 2.3 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 3: SOURCE CONTR POLLUTION................................................................... . ......... 2-1 2.4 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 4: PRESERVATION OF T L DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AND OUTFALLS.......... ............................ 2-1 2.5 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 5: ON -SITE ST ATER MANAGEMENT.......................................... ........ ........................... 2-1 2.6 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 6: RU-N F E T ENT ................... 2-2 2.7 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 7: FLO CONTRO ............................ 2-2 2.8 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 8: LA1*S PROTECTION ............ 2-2 2.9 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 9:ej R TION AND MAINTENANCE .................. A..................................................... 2-2 3.0 SITE ANALYSIS ................. 3.1 OFF -SITE SUMMAR 3.2 DOWNSTREAM ANj 3.3 UPSTREAM AXALY ...................................................... 3-1 ........................................................ 3-1 ........................................................ 3-1 ........................................................ 3-1 4.0 DEVELOP N OUT............................................................................4-1 4.1 ON T WATER MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW ................. 4-1 4.2 ON- E RMWATER MANAGEMENT ....................................... 4-1 4.3 LO O TROL.................................................................................. 4-1 3.1 sting Site Hydrology............................................................... 4-1 -Site Stormwater Best Management Practices ........................ 4-2 4.3. Proposed Developed Site Hydrology ........................................... 4-3 ATER QUALITY SYSTEM................................................................ 4-4 N YANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ................................ 5-1 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES............................................................ 6-1 1i),00 OTHER PERMITS............................................................................................ 7-1 8.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL ......................................... 8-1 i \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com 9.0 SECURITY DEVICE........................................................................................ 9-1 10.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................10-1 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Existing Conditions Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5A Figure 5B Figure 5C Figure 5D Figure 5E Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Development Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Redevelopment USDA NRCS Soils Map USDA NRCS Soils Map Legend USDA NRCS Soils Map Legend Description USDA NRCS Soils Map Unit Description USDA NRCS Soils Map Unit Description (c u FEMA Flood Hazard Map Downstream Drainage Map Proposed Conditions Site Drainage Areas , A ov Figure 10 Stormwater M Appendix A Site Areas Appendix B Appendix C S NSTA ematic Diagram A PENDICES f hg Investigation Report nt System Modeling Report Appendix Vat lity Facility Sizing Appendix CWey e Capacity Calculations Appe peration and Maintenance Documentation ii \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Farallon Consulting, L.L.C. (Farallon) has prepared this Stormwater Technical Information Report (TIR) for the Glacier Environmental Services, Inc. (Glacier and/or the Client) 212th Street Site Redevelopment project. The project work area consists of a portion of Snohomish County Parcel No. 00566900400600 at 7509 212th Street Southwest in Edmonds, Washington (herein referred to as the Property), an approximately 0.87-acre parcel of land developed with a single-family residence built in 1940 with several smaller outbuildings (Figures 1 and 2). The intent of the proposed redevelopment is to construct a new commercial facility to house Glacier's commercial operations. The Property is within the City of Edmonds limits, and the project will be subject to the jurisdictional requirements of the City of Edmonds and requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology. This TIR has been prepared to fulfill a requirement of the permit application to The City of Edmonds Development Services Department (EDSD) and describes how the proposed project design complies with requirements established by the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), prepared by The City of Edmonds, and the following specific guidance documents: • 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as Amended in December 2014 dated December 2014 (SWMMWW 2014); • Edmonds Community Development Code, Title 18 Public Works Requirements, Chapter 18.30 Stormwater Management, effective January 1, 2017 (ECDC 2017); and • Addendum to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 (Edmonds Stormwater Addendum) dated June 8, 2017 (ESA 2017). Per the ESA 2017, Figure 3.1 (Figure 3) and SWMMWW 2014 (Figure 4), Minimum Requirements 1 through 9 apply to new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation. 1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY The Property is an approximately 0.87-acre single-family residential parcel of land, northeast of the intersection of 2121h Street Southwest and 761h Avenue West. The Property is bordered by 212th Street Southwest to the south and by adjacent private properties to the north, east, and west. Approximately 37,820 square feet of land on the Property and in the adjacent right-of-way is planned to be disturbed and restored with construction of the proposed redevelopment and associated improvements (herein referred to as the Site). Site improvement areas are confined largely within the boundaries of the Property, with limited work to occur within the adjacent 2121h Street Southwest right-of-way. Site areas are tabulated in Appendix A. Existing Site conditions are depicted on Figure 2. Based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey Soil Resource Report (2022), the Site is underlain with Alderwood-Urban land complex with 2 to 8 percent slopes (Figures 5A through 5E). Alderwood-Urban land complex is a dense 1-1 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review soil with a parent material of basal till. A project -specific geotechnical report is provided in Appendix B. The Site is identified on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 5306IC1315F as being in a Zone X area (FEMA 2020). Zone X areas are those areas determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain (Figure 6). 1.2 PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS On- and off -Property improvement areas are estimated to comprise approximately 0.90 acre of the Site. The proposed improvements will follow the requirements of ECDC. The proposed Site improvements are anticipated to include the following: • A new approximately 2,500-square-foot office building and a new approximately 3, 1 00-square-foot warehouse building; • Approximately 18,000 square feet of new concrete and/or asphalt pavement for parking, storage, and vehicle access; • New sidewalks and pedestrian access with an approximate area of 1,800 square feet; • Retaining wall(s); • Stormwater facilities; • Right-of-way restoration related to connection of stormwater facilities to the municipal drainage system in the 2121h Street Southeast right-of-way; • On -Site utility improvements, both wet and dry; and • Landscaping improvements. 1-2 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review 2.0 DETERMINATION OF APPLICABLE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Per ESA Figure 3.1 (Figure 3), Minimum Requirements 1 through 9 apply to new and replaced hard surfaces and all disturbed land. Descriptions of how the project design meets each of the Minimum Requirements are discussed below. 2.1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 1: PREPARATION OF STORMWATER SITE PLANS Prepared in conjunction with this TIR, a preliminary stormwater site plan is provided as part of the project preliminary engineering plans. A final stormwater site plan, consistent with the requirements described in 2014 SWMMWW Volume I, will be prepared and submitted with the project engineering plans for the anticipated Design Review, Conditional Use, Land Use, and Clearing and Grading permit applications. 2.2 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 2: STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared and submitted under separate cover with the anticipated Clearing and Grading permit application. 2.3 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 3: SOURCE CONTROL OF POLLUTION Source control will be provided through the application of source control best management practices (BMPs) during construction, and on the developed Site following construction. BMPs will be appropriate for the proposed construction activities, buildings, facilities, and intended post - development Site uses in accordance with 2014 SWMMWW Volume IV. 2.4 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 4: PRESERVATION OF NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AND OUTFALLS The existing natural location of discharge is the public drainage system in 2121h Street Southwest via sheet flow from the Property and is collected in catch basin(s) located in the 212th Street Southwest right-of-way. The proposed design maintains the existing point of discharge to the 2121h Street Southwest municipal drainage system through a single point discharge. 2.5 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 5: ON -SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT On -Site stormwater management BMPs will be provided in accordance with the requirements of 2014 SWMMWW Volume I, Chapters 2 and 4; Volume III, Chapter 3; Volume V, Chapter 5; and ECDC for Category 2 projects. Low Impact Development BMPs will be used as directed by the EDSD. Because the proposed improvements will include approximately 27,000 square feet of new or replaced impervious area and because of Site limitations rendering most on -Site stormwater BMPs infeasible, stormwater runoff from the Site areas will be managed via an on -Site stormwater detention and media filtration system. BMP infeasibility is discussed in Section 4. 2-1 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review 2.6 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 6: RUNOFF TREATMENT On -Site stormwater treatment facilities were designed to meet or exceed the following water quality treatment requirements: • Oil control requirements specified in 2014 SWMMWW Volume V-3.2, Oil Control Menu. To meet this requirement, the stormwater treatment facilities were designed to achieve a goal of no ongoing or recurring visible sheen, and to have a 24-hour average total petroleum hydrocarbon concentration no greater than 10 milligrams per liter (mg/1) and a maximum of 15 mg/l for a discrete sample. • Phosphorous control requirements specified in 2014 SWMMWW Volume V-3.3, Phosphorous Treatment Menu. To meet this requirement, the stormwater treatment facilities were designed to achieve a goal of 50 percent total phosphorous removal for a range of influent concentrations of 0.1 to 0.5 mg/l total phosphorous. • Enhanced treatment requirements specified in 2014 SWMMWW Volume V-3.4, Enhanced Treatment Menu. To meet this requirement, the stormwater treatment facilities were designed to achieve performance goals of at least 80 percent removal of total suspended solids, at least 30 percent removal of dissolved copper, and at least 60 percent removal of dissolved zinc. Treatment facilities were sized using a multi -decade modeling period using the currently applicable and required software model, Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM), provided in Appendix C. 2.7 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 7: FLOW CONTROL Because the proposed improvements will include new or replaced impervious surface greater than 10,000 square feet and the Site does not discharge to Puget Sound, stormwater runoff will be managed using an on -Site stormwater detention system. Stormwater runoff for the proposed developed Site condition, as calculated using 15-minute time step increase in the 100-year recurrence interval flow using a continuous simulation runoff model, must match that of the predeveloped condition for all flows. The proposed Site stormwater system can be expected to meet this requirement. Modeling of the system using the WWHM verified the anticipated compliance. WWHM modeling reports are provided in Appendix C. 2.8 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 8: WETLANDS PROTECTION An unnamed wetland is within 0.25 mile but is not downstream of the Site. No known wetlands are located downstream of the Site prior to the point of discharge to Halls Creek. 2.9 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 9: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Operation and maintenance of the stormwater management facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant, and that responsibility will be passed to future owners. 2-2 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review 3.0 SITE ANALYSIS 3.1 OFF -SITE SUMMARY A review of downstream flow paths was performed as part of the project design work. Off -Site analyses consisted of inspection field walks of the project Site and downstream areas, review of topographic mapping of the Property and adjacent areas, and review of the City of Edmonds Geographic Information Systems database. 3.2 DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES Stormwater runoff from the Site generally is conveyed southward via sheet flow toward the municipal drainage system in the 212th Street Southwest right-of-way. Stormwater is conveyed eastward via the municipal drainage system along the 212th Street Southwest right-of-way, then southward along the 72nd Avenue West right-of-way, then eastward along 216th Street Southwest right-of-way. Pipe flows in the 2161h Street Southwest right-of-way are conveyed eastward to an eventual point of discharge to Halls Creek, southeast of the intersection of 216th Street Southwest and Pacific Highway (Highway 99). Halls Creek is a tributary of Lake Ballinger. Downstream flow paths are shown on Figure 7. Halls Creek discharges to Lake Ballinger. Lake Ballinger is listed on the Washington State 303(d) list for failing to meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency human health criteria for total phosphorous and has requirements for total maximum daily load for phosphorous. Phosphorous control is included in the proposed stormwater treatment system. 3.3 UPSTREAM ANALYSIS The surrounding area is developed such that limited off -Property stormwater runoff drains onto the Property. The upstream areas that drain onto the Property are minor vegetated areas of the properties along the western boundary of the Property. Stormwater runoff from the west -adjacent properties infiltrates or is conveyed southward across the Property to the 212th Street Southwest right-of-way. The proposed design includes collection structures that will capture the minor runoff from the adjacent properties. The proposed stormwater conveyance system has adequate conveyance capacity for minor runoff addition from the adjacent properties. 3-1 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review 4.0 DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT A depiction of the proposed developed Site condition is provided as Figure 8, including proposed buildings, pavement, stormwater management system, retaining walls, and restoration of anticipated disturbed Site areas. 4.1 ON -SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW A robust stormwater management system is proposed to control runoff from the proposed developed Site condition, and, per applicable requirements, to match the predeveloped condition of the Site. Summary of the proposed stormwater management system is provided in Section 4.3.2, Proposed Developed Site Hydrology and shown on Figures 8 and 10. 4.2 ON -SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT For this project, the following BMPs were considered: • Dispersion; • Afforestation; • Infiltration; • Bioretention; • Pervious pavement; and • Detention. The underlying soils provide limited infiltration; therefore, bioretention and infiltration were considered unfeasible to manage stormwater fully. However, limited infiltration was included in the sizing of the detention system. Because land is not available on the Property, dispersion and afforestation also are not considered feasible. Pervious pavement is being considered for portions of the sidewalk on the Site. The only feasible singular BMP for on -Site stormwater management is detention. 4.3 FLOW CONTROL 4.3.1 Existing Site Hydrology Current Property conditions include a single-family residence built in 1940 with several smaller outbuildings and gravel and asphalt pavement. The Property is vegetated with native trees and other plant species, invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry and English ivy, and planted ornamental species. The Property also has landscaping improvements that include walls and concrete surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the Site is conveyed via sheet flow southward toward 212th Street Southwest. Runoff from the Site is conveyed to existing municipal drainage facilities in the 212th Street Southwest right-of-way. 4-1 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review 4.3.2 On -Site Stormwater Best Management Practices As required by ECDC 2017 and ESA 2017, the following BMPs were considered for on -Site stormwater management. Where a BMP was determined to be infeasible, discussion of infeasibility criteria is provided. 4.3.2.1 Lawn and Landscaped Areas 4.3.2.1.1. Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth This BMP will be applied to all areas of the Site that are disturbed and are proposed to be landscaped after construction. Areas within existing tree root zones will be excluded. 4.3.2.2 Roof Areas 4.3.2.2.1. Full Dispersion This BMP is considered infeasible due to the limited availability of downslope areas and close proximity to property lines. 4.3.2.2.2. Bioretention This BMP is considered infeasible due to the limited availability of downslope areas without existing trees to be retained and close proximity to existing downslope rockeries, proposed buildings, and property lines. 4.3.2.2.3. Downspout Dispersion This BMP is considered infeasible due to the limited availability of suitable downslope areas, and close proximity to existing downslope rockeries, proposed buildings, and property lines. 4.3.2.2.4. Perforated Stub -Out Connections This BMP is considered feasible and is implemented with the proposed arch tank detention facility, which allows for residual infiltration, even in the existing glacial till soils. 4.3.2.2.5. Detention Vaults or Pipes This BMP is considered feasible and is implemented with the proposed arch tank detention facility. 4.3.2.3 Other Hard Surface Areas 4.3.2.3.1. Full Dispersion This BMP is considered infeasible due to the limited availability of downslope areas and close proximity to property lines. 4-2 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review 4.3.2.3.2. Permeable Pavements This BMP is considered infeasible for drivable pavement surfaces because of the anticipated Site use during construction, which is expected to include frequent movement of utility trucks and other large vehicles on the Site. Although infiltration is considered infeasible, the use of permeable pavement as a BMP is a possibility for the limited on -Site sidewalk areas and can be added during the building permit review phase of the permitting process. 4.3.2.3.3. Bioretention This BMP is considered infeasible due to the limited availability of downslope areas without existing trees to be retained and close proximity to existing downslope rockeries, proposed buildings, and property lines. 4.3.2.3.4. Sheet Flow Dispersion This BMP is considered infeasible due to the limited availability of suitable downslope areas and close proximity to existing downslope rockeries, proposed buildings, and property lines. 4.3.2.3.5. Detention Vaults or Pipes This BMP is considered feasible and is implemented with the proposed arch tank detention facility. 4.3.3 Proposed Developed Site Hydrology Site improvement areas are estimated to comprise approximately 37,820 square feet of land. The proposed improvements will follow EDSD requirements. Proposed Site improvements are anticipated to include the following: • Surface collection and conveyance via roof drains, paved surfaces, and paved gutters. • Collection from on -Site pavement surface areas at catch basins. • Oil control, presettling, and wet volume detention in large Type 2 catch basins with floatables and oil control tees on the outlets. • Conveyance via pipes. • Detention and limited infiltration of collected flows in an arch tank facility to be located below the paved portions of the Site. • Attenuation of runoff flows via a flow control "Tee" structure. • Runoff water quality treatment via a proprietary media filter drain. • Discharge via pipe to the existing municipal drainage system in the 212th Street Southwest right-of-way. • The predeveloped Site condition is assumed to be a fully forested condition rather than the existing impacted condition of the Site. The developed Site condition is assumed to be as 4-3 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review depicted on Figure 8. Computer modeling of stormwater runoff for the predeveloped and proposed developed Property conditions was completed to demonstrate compliance with EDSD requirements. • Reporting documents generated from WWHM modeling (Appendix C) demonstrate that the proposed stormwater facilities will meet the Category 2 flow control requirements that estimated mitigated runoff flow rates after development are equal to or less than the estimated predeveloped runoff flow rates for the Property. Because the current conditions are developed, and not in a native forested condition, downstream areas should experience greater attenuation of peak runoff flows as compared to current conditions. 4.4 WATER QUALITY SYSTEM Enhanced treatment, and phosphorus and oil control are required for the Site as summarized in Section 2.0, Determination of Applicable Minimum Requirements. To meet these requirements, a treatment train of presettling and oil control structures and a proprietary media filter vault will be incorporated as part of Site development. Oil control and presettling for runoff from each of the four on -Site subbasins will be provided by Type 2 catch basins designed to meet the requirements of 2014 SWMMWW, as shown on Figure 9. • Stormwater flow from the four collection structures will be conveyed to the detention system and flow control structure. Stormwater will be conveyed through the flow control structure to a proprietary media filter vault to meet the enhanced treatment and phosphorous control requirements. • The preliminary stormwater management system schematic diagram is provided on Figure 10. Water quality facility sizing calculations are provided in Appendix D. 4-4 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The stormwater system elements have been sized to convey the estimated peak stormwater flow adequately. Preliminary conveyance capacity calculations for the proposed stormwater management system are provided in Appendix E. Final conveyance capacity calculations for the proposed stormwater management system will be added to Appendix E of the final issuance of this report, after the Property design has been finalized. 5-1 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Krazan & Associates, Inc. 2022. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Glacier Offices and Warehouse, 7509 212th Street Southwest, Edmonds, Washington 98026. Prepared for Glacier Environmental Services, Inc. February 4. 6-1 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review 7.0 OTHER PERMITS The following permits are anticipated to be required for the proposed Site improvements: • City of Edmonds Design Review; • City of Edmonds Conditional Use Permit; • City of Edmonds Land Use Approval; • City of Edmonds Clearing and Grading; • City of Edmonds Building Permits; • City of Edmonds Right -of -Way Permit; • City of Edmonds Right -of -Way Use Permit; and • Washington State Department of Labor & Industries Electrical Permit. Because the Site is less than I acre of land, a Washington State Department of Ecology Construction Stormwater General Permit is not anticipated to be required. Other required permits may be identified as the permit application and review process progresses. These permits will be added to this list with the final issuance of this TIR. 7-1 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review 8.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL An operation and maintenance manual will be provided in Appendix F of the final permit application submittal of this TIR. 8-1 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review 9.0 SECURITY DEVICE Documentation establishing the appropriate security device(s) and amount(s) will be provided with the final permit application submittal of this TIR. 9-1 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review 10.0 REFERENCES City of Edmonds, Washington. 2014. 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as Amended in December 2014. December. . 2017. Edmonds Community Development Code, Title 18 Public Works Requirements, Chapter 18.30 Stormwater Management. January 1. 2017. Addendum to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. June 8. . 2019. City of Edmonds Geographic Information System Database Search. <hlt 2s://mqps.edmondswa.gov/Html5Viewer/?viewer--Edmonds SSL.HTML > (February 24, 2021.) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2020. Flood Map Service Center. <https://msc.fema.goy/portal/home>. (February 22, 2022.) Krazan & Associates, Inc. 2022. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Glacier Offices and Warehouse, 7509 212th Street Southwest, Edmonds, Washington 98026. Prepared for Glacier Environmental Services, Inc. February 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Web Soil Survey Soil Resource Report Search. <hops://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.goy/App/WebSoilSurvey.apx>. (February 22, 2022.) Washington State Department of Ecology. 1993. Ballinger Lake Total Phosphorus Total Maximum Daily Load. Publication No. 93-10-202. 10-1 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater TIRdocx Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Draft —Issued for Agency Review FIGURES TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT 212' Street Site Redevelopment Edmonds, Washington Farallon PN: 416-018 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater Tndocx REFERENCE: 7.5 MINUTE USGS QUADRANGLE EDMONDS EAST, WASHINGTON. DATED 2020 Washington Issaquah I Bellingham I Seattle c EDMONDS Oregon Portland I Baker City EATTLE /1/ California e/ Y %iARALLON Oakland I Irvine CONSULTING WASHINGTON Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Drawn By: CPK Checked By: ROL FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP 212TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT 7509 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FARALLON PN: 416-018 Date: 2/25/2022 Disk Reference: FIGURE 1 roa� I C 20MeMn I SCALE IN FEET I I FIN-41993 6•pP-410.76• - - - - 424 - - - - N 8921'4Y E 10U0 (1045 PLAT) / 4O' ROOD72Y #31 #30 - - -424- " FIR #33 O 610 ASAP PROP OCR #32 "CH 6% \ \ 8"FlR I / / _ 1 O4 , \ \ O #14 #11 � CLF 1.6V OF UNE #29 / / •FlR / / #16 117 \ 2 422— _ § 0.9S FROM PROP COR 1 / 19•C #24 / / 30"FlR / I e 1 / — — / 6• C #16 4•FlR #13 14• I 0.4*SOF #28 1 45"MAD / 24 / RI �#6 25°MA PROP OCR / / 4 FIR 1 1� 426 - 1 / / O #20 8•MAD ♦ O #5 #22 \ . 1 MAD #21 / / #15 \\ FIR24, MAD 13"M D 14" AD I \ 6CH / �® 17 "FlR Z PpR� pO°�QvG 6-E G p #za / /' A' Oyy6 \apt\ CLF 80P / O,Np-S E pR11 ' / 1 O® I 22°FlR I 15.5—J p � �I WEV ♦♦ pF \ I O #2 0.1'WLINE OF PROP O #34 \ . \ 24•/IR' 2rF1R \ / O� FENCE O 1 , 80'FlR PROP LINE 2" VG - I CUP I 0.5E OF Q 6 EVG PROP LINE ' BLDO HT=9.5 O P g000��p60t!\ ' 16 -! 1 / 'S� 0 PGA I':'.'.' r':':':'.'.':':'::......'.'.'.. 1� 4 O• 2.5' PENCE 0.4E OF iL ........................ ............... &g. PROP LINE \ \ r... 1'.:.: f.':'.'.'.'.'.'.':':':':':'.'.'........... ........................ FE'EL'+421.6'.�. 8% 6•DED I1 6'FlR A......' ................................. 0.1 OF �) ' 4 PROP LINE 1 1 I ..............................' f"� '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'... /.. ..........'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' 17.1 1 ..1.'.'.'........................ .....:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ... ...� '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'..'.' '.'.'.'.'. 1 N 1 1 /...................... ..... .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.' :..:.:.'./ .'.'.'.'..... ...... .............. ............ \.'.'.'.'.'.'.'............ / / O #44 -420 .. ....... .. O tµ2 \.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. 17'FlR 154—T P O F y9 1 # 36 #40 .......' ... O / .......... ...'.. 24"FlR 1 f b. ♦ 1 28"FlR #39 19"FlR ..... .'.'./ QO(L'�' ♦ 5"Fl #41 O 4.a...........'.'./ #45 O 7 26•FlR �" .... � 10"PINK pF / 25•FlR I..... .... ........ .... .. .. ....... ... .... ... ..... ..... .... ... I .................. '.' .... �I/ opy,�gF`� e� v rjL \,4 I� • FM • _ FENCE 0.3'W OF PROP Opt FENCE OAV OF PROP LINE FENCE 0.1'W O PROP LINE Oa0 PO�R��S �G IAG 0 FENCE Oft OF PROP LINE FENCE OAT OF PROP LINE FENCE OAT OF PROP LINE 1 FENCE CDR r� �C t �'1FOUND • Imo' REBAR/CAP 1 FENCE END 0.3'E OF PROP LINE FENCE INTX 0.3E OF PROP LINE PR . ! 1o�,,,0 P ap Efi 010.0 Q�pP NO ON )L�INE 419.1VQ2'E OF PROP UNE ASPHALT �,�► •m u SITE LOW POINT AND ASSUMED EXISTING P INT OF DISCHARGE. 201802170520 ;�� ■ (PARD FENCE,•'m i 0 .1 _ _ ��1.4N OF • �, • �� wA�do®a�1®®. ��1. ��= I• PFXP CDR t� fir' `► � Cis. .� �I!�IiV/�i��n� 1Z � �'' +1�'►► ..•- — - s IF �� • • 416.69, I • : ) = - SD� SID — - (P IC RIGHT OF WAY) SD SD Ss S Ss — In Washington Issaquah I Bellingham I Seattle Oregon Portland I Baker City California FARALLON Oakland I Irvine CONSULTING Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Drawn By: CPK Checked By: ROL FIGURE 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 212TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT 7509 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FARALLON PN: 416-018 Date: 02/25/2022 Disk Reference: FIGURE 2 DRAFT Does the project result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area'? OR Does the land disturbing activity total 7,000 square feet or greater? Yes No Minimum Requirements No. 1 through 5 apply I ltininnrin Requirement No. 2 applies Next Question Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced hard surfaces? OR Convert 0.75 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas? OR Convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? Yes No Is this a road related project? All Minimum Requirements apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. All Minimum Requirements apply to the new hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. Yes No Tog Does the project add 5,000 square feet or No more of new hard surfaces? Yes Do new hard surfaces add 50% or more to the existing hard surfaces within the project limits? No Figure 3.1. Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Development. REFERENCE: CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER AMENDMENT. DATED 2017 Washington Issaquah I Bellingham I Seattle Oregon Portland I Baker City 7� T T California ARALLON Oakland I Irvine CONSULTING Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Drawn By: CPK Checked By: ROL No additional requirements. FIGURE 3 DRAFT FLOW CHART FOR DETERMINING REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT 212TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT 7509 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FARALLON PN: 416-018 Date: 2/25/2022 Disk Reference: FIGURE 3 Does the project result in 2,000 square feet, or more, of new plus replaced hard surface area? OR Does the land disturbing activity total 7,000 square feet or greater? Yes lNo Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 - apply to the new and replaced hard Minimum Requirement #2 applies. surfaces and the land disturbed. Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new hard surfaces? OR Convert %4 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas? OR Convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? 4yesl No All Minimum Requirements apply Next Question Is this a road to the new hard surfaces and the No converted vegetation areas. related project? Yes Does the project add 5.000 square feet or more of new hard surfaces? Yes No Is the total of new plus replaced hard surfaces Do the new hard 5,000 square feet or more, surfaces add 50% or AND NO No additional o more to the existing does the value of the proposed improvements hard surfaces within requirements. - including interior improvements - exceed the project limits? 50% of the assessed value (or replacement value) of the existing site improvements? Yeses ►I All Minimum Requirements apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. ��—�Ves Figure 1-2.4.2 iffil Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Redevelopment DEPARTMENT OF Revised June2015 ECOLOGY Please see http:/Avww.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.himl for copyright notice including permissions. State of Washington limitation of liability, and disclaimer. REFERENCE: DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY STORMWATER MANUAL FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON. DATED 2014 Washington Issaquah I Bellingham I Seattle Oregon Portland I Baker City 7� T T California ARALLON Oakland I Irvine CONSULTING Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Drawn By: CPK Checked By: ROL FIGURE 4 FLOW CHART FOR DETERMINING REQUIREMENTS FOR REDEVELOPMENT 212TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT 7509 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FARALLON PN: 416-018 Date: 2/25/2022 Disk Reference: FIGURE 4 r0S� a R srerro SF 4!r 29' N y d 492rN Soil Map —Snohomish County Area, Washington t-NPow — C- 54978D 549M 54M 548810 519M 541" 5{E1w 54WW 516186C SM36T0 3 z MaoScale: 1:681 E printW an A pwtral2 (85' x I l' feet k N 0 10 20 40 60 Feel 0 37 60 120 180 Map pmiemon: Web Marahx former mordina0es: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zane 10N WGS84 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/22/2022 +6M Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 REFERENCE: US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE WEB SOIL SURVEY. 2022. Washington FIGURE 5A Issaquah I Bellingham I Seattle Oregon USDA NRCS Portland I Baker City SOILS MAP California 212TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT FARALLON Oakland I Irvine 7509 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST CONSULTING EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallommnsulting.com FARALLON PIN: 416-018 Drawn By: CPK Checked By: ROL Date: 2/25/2022 Disk Reference: FIGURE 5 �:: Soil Map —Snohomish County Area, Washington MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (Aoq Spoil Area The sod surveys that comprise your ADI were mapped at Area of Interest IAOIi Stony Spot 1.24.000. Soils Very Stony split Warning; Sod Map may not be valid at this scale. Soil Map Unit Polygons Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause -1 Soil Map Unit lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Otter line placement The maps do not show the small areas of © Soil Map Unit Points Special Line features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed Special Point Features scale. U Blowout Water Features Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Q Borrow Pit measurements. Transportation x. Clay Spot arf Rails Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Closed Depresswri Web Soil Survey URL: Interstate Highways Coordinate System- Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Gravel Pit _ - US Routes Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Gravelly Spot Major Roads projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area, A projection that preserves area. such as the Q Landfill Local Roads Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more ♦ Lava Flow accurate calculations of distance or area are required. rl Background Marsh or swamp . Aerial Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Mine or Quarry Soil Survey Area Snohomish County Area, Washington Q Misceilaneous Water Survey Area Data: Version 23. Aug 31. 2021 O Perennial Water Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales %0 Rock Outcrop 1.50,000 or larger. + Saline Svol Datels) asnal Images were photographed Sep 2, 201"ep 25, 2018 Sandy Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Severely Eroded Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor 0 Sinkhole shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident_ Slide or Slip Sodic Spot I � Natural Resources 'essilit Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey REFERENCE: US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE WEB SOIL SURVEY. 2022. Washington Issaquah I Bellingham I Seattle Oregon Portland I Baker City 7� T T California ARALLON Oakland I Irvine CONSULTING Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallormnsulting.com Drawn By: CPK Checked By: ROL 212212022 Page 2 of 3 FIGURE 5B USDA NRCS SOILS MAP LEGEND 212TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT 7509 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FARALLON PIN: 416-018 Date: 2/25/2022 Disk Reference: FIGURE 5 �:: Soil Map —Snohomish County Area, Washington Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres In A01 Percent of AOI 5 Alderwood-Urban land complex. 2 to 8 percent slopes 09 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 0.9 100.0 USDA Natural Resources 0 Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey REFERENCE: US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE WEB SOIL SURVEY. 2022. Washington Issaquah I Bellingham I Seattle Oregon Portland I Baker City 7� T T California ARALLON Oakland I Irvine CONSULTING Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Drawn By: CPK Checked By: ROL 2122/2022 Page 3 of 3 FIGURE 5C USDA NRCS SOILS MAP LEGEND DESCRIPTION 212TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT 7509 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FARALLON PN: 416-018 Date: 2/25/2022 Disk Reference: FIGURE 5 r0S� Map Unit Description: Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes—Shohomish County Area. Washington Snohomish County Area, Washington 5—Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes iiwNatural Resources Conservation Service Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2hzg Elevation: 50 to 800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 180 to 220 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition A/derwood and similar soils: 60 percent Urban land.: 25 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations. descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Alderwood Setting Landform: Till plains Parent material: Basal till Typical profile H f - 0 to 7 inches: gravelly ashy sandy loam H2 - 7 to 35 inches: very gravelly ashy sandy loam H3 - 35 to 60 inches: gravelly sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to densic material Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches. Low (about 3.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: F002XA004WA - Puget Lowlands Forest Forage suitability group: Limited Depth Soils (G002XN302WA) Other vegetative classification: Limited Depth Soils (G002XN302WA) Hydric soil rating: No Web Sal Survey National Cooperative Sod Survey REFERENCE: US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE WEB SOIL SURVEY. 2022. Washington Issaquah I Bellingham I Seattle Oregon Portland I Baker City 7� T T California ARALLON Oakland I Irvine CONSULTING Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Drawn By: CPK Checked By: ROL 2i22/2022 Page t of 2 FIGURE 5D USDA NRCS SOILS MAP UNIT DESCRIPTION 212TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT 7509 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FARALLON PIN: 416-018 Date: 2/25/2022 Disk Reference: FIGURE 5 Map Unit Description: Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes —Snohomish County Area. Washington Minor Components Norma, undrained Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Other vegetative classification: Wet Soils (G002XN102WA) Hydric soil rating: Yes Mckenna Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Other vegetative classification: Wet Soils (G002XN102WA) Hydric soil rating: Yes Terric medisaprists, undrained Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Other vegetative classification: Wet Soils (G002XN102WA) Hydric soil rating: Yes Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Snohomish County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 23, Aug 31, 2021 USUT Natural Resources 40-0 Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Sod Survey REFERENCE: US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE WEB SOIL SURVEY. 2022. Washington Issaquah I Bellingham I Seattle Oregon Portland I Baker City 7� T T California ARALLON Oakland I Irvine CONSULTING Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Drawn By: CPK Checked By: ROL 2r22/2022 Page 2 of 2 FIGURE 5E DRAFT USDA NRCS SOILS MAP UNIT DESCRIPTION 212TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT 7509 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FARALLON PIN: 416-018 Date: 2/25/2022 Disk Reference: FIGURE 5 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 3 FE NJA Legend IZ—_j - i-4 . _� SITE LOCATION Ir - F 'go 0 250 500 1.0np 1.500 SEE FlS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT MRthoid ease Flood Elevation (BFE) Zane A V. 49e SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE w Depth ram, aF ao <H IF aR HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance Rood with average depth lass than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Future Conditions 1% Annual "• Chance Flood Hazard, ,, , -�: Area With Reduced Flood Risk due to OTHER AREAS OF levee. See Notes.:: , FLOOD HAZARD � i r; Area with Flood Risk due to Levee:— u No SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard . rr Q Effective LOMRs OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard GENERAL ' —" Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES III 1 I 1 I Levee. Dike. or Floollwall a '2 Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17-5 Water Surface Llevation — — — Coastal Transact .al. Base Flood Elevation Une (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary — --- Coastal Transact Baseline OTHER _ Profile Baseline FEATURES Hydrographic Feature Digital Data Available N No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS Unmapped Q The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital Rood maps If It Is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard Infwmatiun Is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 2e 22: 2022 at 6:38 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become coe superseded by new data over time. This map image Is void If the one w more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap Imagery, Rood zone labels, legend, scale bar. map creation date. community Identifiers, FIRM .net number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for -- I .0, V V V unmapped and unmodemized areas cannot be used for 2000,regulatory purposes. Basemap: USGS National Map: Ortholnbagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 Washington Issaquah I Bellingham I Seattle Oregon Portland I Baker City 7� T T California ARALLON Oakland I Irvine CONSULTING Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Drawn By: CPK Checked By: ROL it c AK rP� - 4 FIGURE 6 FEMA FLOOD HAZARD MAP 212TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT 7509 212TH STREET NORTHWEST NORTH BEND, WASHINGTON FARALLON FIN: 416-018 Date: 02/25/2022 Disk Reference: FIGURE 6 DRAFT • .•�. - ► - z � � - '• • 4 • 0, !,[�. f I ' O , ' - � •,r � � s L _ •`tIlJVL"L717 � ' ' 16- - w— —I i - � r+ s�'�i� - (; - -- _ -- I•.. f , I• i/ •� c. 1 I ^•fir. __ �_ 1 1 J • I r' �� lj . — Ijv _ y r�, 46•1=A� ■'yl�l.•D-' O .,.} / •_�i! t •1� l _ I_ ' If am �i • 2MtfV s•. i s!'!` '�! • f 1 ,«_._. I SJI .f/ `• a�': LiIl,ilti V 1 i - I — b ♦ ll D 1 •1 Fro lot jr o "' {,.�,. • - _ r �� ' - ( _ ' I .Z. �•' IV - I �1. � O f � «- __ 1 -- ads 7'• �'i � � �'.J �1 �_ Ito L� � iit - = 1i1 _ I � � h� � �� I 11! � . `� r� • �y 9 - � '�� I) � � t � � �� - 1, I � � V 7 I 14 t• • r ■ r` r-. 1 . L If - .�' � � 1 • , �' _ _ ••tom` ; ! ■ • � / '_ _ y _ _ - ' JL ko of MA MS40 SYTSTEM .4� #'- - 4� - +� A •' �'-% --- - _ ;oom V. '• '�, i i �'i f I1 I Ao NEW lIn • ¢lI i�7 J4 �-7;!7 -� ''� --__ • b ' • / 1 'd,�. 1 , -ii''i 0.--2_�`�- awl . •�.�• '� 'Ar -10 i 1!y r + I 1 s I • I I � +PO � ��!JL`R'V � ~- •' � ? -� _' 8 - . a 'c �• r�' • • - - - 1 ! 1 � � 1 1 - }■ _ ,� - � • � !: i S - • 7' �, 11 � , r i�� - - _ ' • - - � �' _ /� � }■ee ''�� — ■811 _ I ; • .- 1 jT?i i�1.5W l e, ,w • • . ► R • �, - _ r zy � - 6._ t�'rl Il�i� 3 J - - - — a - - - � �.�� : � I _ • t ' �� i'� � �i 4; R • 31- :-- -- �t ! � �� , �, ., � i �{ .— , �' 7 1 � - }, '• I � - is .m,,,l,,,,,,,ra} I � � • u• ' 1 • • ` . � � ' , � ' .. w �I ' - ♦ i.l �� _ — �t _ _ J'r _ 1 ,. II :1.V7•• - Xy' fII II I 1 � 0 Li SIX 40 t� .•. • 1 (UI11 • ti�i r. /, .', *• .Yl �_ , •� _ • l / 1 ■ •■ r �➢ • ""' i ' �s it �. . %C - ` • - ' ' �• - >sr 3w __ �. fi _ • ,�.- TAM mil•' zarv4oi• � IyI -'I � � _• r' ` I _ I � ik • _ - :� ,S. _ l �' - � -= _ - � ak 1 �1{I �,. _ � � _T� Ilt r• 11 1 � •1 • ? � I ^ � � I F r . � c . � � - � -- � .Ir Not di 1V t If I s� rjo O s HALLS CREEK. fl FLOWS TO LAKE _ow • l r� Y 0f I �` ,r 1 0 20 I SCALE IN FEET I I 2 P P'��p>� yG P� PP�O�°kOp�J yG QpFE RDG072Y ••••• ':'�3t'r r. ,.,..• .1�•A 0.1 S OF •F5N• N3 '•• • •.1 PROP CDR . z ctN.e.ctl . '•'• •_ •i :':':''• :'.t.•.-:•'•.. _ :•$ . aF END 1.6'W OF LINE a •'Z'•'- '•:'x$'.0 i�g 7 •• •'�'•-•'•' & 0.9S FROM '-'•• 4.•.-�': .. . :'.-. •. •.'' /.'.• PROP CORNOE j.''- .�.•.•. •.. .i.... ' xr :•. ."!?8•i IOF MAD' i' •'•, •25'M OUR pR•. '•L•,• Bz3 •• •• .MAD•. ->• ... . s•MAD'• dizi . •.� .. '•'• ETD WALL •, ' Q4 •TOIP= _y 424.0E 3- :.•. .�.'.•'• '.C.•.•'- , •• f• TCP=42A02 •. ''b � TCE=421.Sk• ., •, • •'•••'•'•• TDE=421.02 •. •. •'� if4 6"E G © --- CLIF OJV OF PROP LIEF .•.Y.•. •.•.•. •'�iT .f :-•� / • � •2zrTh' 9tICA owl t0v� f:' MF O.,'W OF •:•'• ' • 03-006, T2-7r PROP LINE #34' PRESETRING STRUCTURE ,G".•.-'•. •'-. ••1,3 F PoM=419.102' '•�• IE(S) 61 O BBEE O OM REV=406.00 'QI •••'•'•. •'•''''''' z 2o'pR. X. ME 0.5E OF 18lEVG PROP LINE I I GEC°6°O Q p 9°pEA 16-EYG p0`•'6 Sp sl I \ \ I O.2O% T9tICML , I Lrxat oLEe (ny B•cED � I I I CLF INTX 1 1XW OF I ° OpgEE IM PROP LeE 1 1 , � 1 1 1 I I spb ITT 11 �1 � -•r I I �gS� .a � '-e:•••'':•:•�••..'. WALL TDF�-42 1 � I I a �.. .•t©R".I TOE=420.42 \ 1 WALL / 17 C ORMBERS TOP=12a0E CHAMFER TOP = 417.50 a j e.':'0.�• •. •.•. Tt1E=420.32 / CHAMBER BOTTOM = 41a7s I % •.t0•NIEy.•.•. •. / / I STONE BE) BOTTOM = 411DO CLF / 8 DIE OF �6-LF 6° DIP e PROP UNE / I W2.0% �`i . -.. 1 •: / C3-007, T2-7r / '•,• WALL I i PRESENUNG 'STRUCTURE/ t} -.-'.g-MAD- TOP=42202 PoM=419.602WAf&OLISE BUILDING IES) 6n:•:••'•:•.TOE=4zak FEE=42a50 •. •: s?Z\ I 9 k1 TEE BBO OM DEM=4111.00 SIORM .•''.'.'.''•'- DO 2 417. S CHAMBER T50 CHAMBER BOTTOM = 4,7.aM = 41a75 i I ' ', � :.-...•.-._.•:• S1TNC C4D BO1 TpA = 41a00 Q ..41 ' CUE END -TOE=420.2t ,11 ��• Q,TE OF N I i SSQ7 '®•'' •''•''•'_•-J PROP UNE + I IE=414.00 -.: / BUILDING POINT OF CCNJECTION TO NEW 6' 6 •' u SIDE SEVER LINE PER CITY REQUIREMENTS -4z0 I • S S • • � BUILDING POM OF CONNECTION . . TO NEW 1' WATER SCE UNE BtM L PER CITY REQIIRRf,4TS. WALL TOP=424.0E 1 i + - - - -"�� -`---- _ �_sn • .,A TOE=V2Q5i -14�F 1Y SI) - `�p I a~zox �I 15�f 6" PVC ��Ro NEW 1" WATER gR14CE UNE =1 T I I m 0:15-LF PER CITY REONIRBIENTS. •.•.•. Is I PoE1=419.Si' 3 IE(W) 12'SD=415.W 8•RD=415.50 CB-0051 T2-72• PRESETILNG STRUCTURE PoN7=41&75E' i - IE(SW) 61 - ' I I -2LF 6" DIP \ W/ aD-20% BOTTOM 3 40,.50 �!6 :zoo dNCYJ 1OVdW00 lOVdW00 Ea-004, T2-6o NM=419.St' 9 IE(N,S,W) 24 SD=41a75 i ,¢b •'HAW IE(E) Ev. =410. i ' •• SIpMp F1F/. = 410.00 � ••{� .0 •� WALL 1CP=42202 / i I .T. k19,p.`�--P° `.ESA '•..- ,• J I .. I•••••••• ••� TDE=419.6E 1 6�� i k A �•. END WALL QP�O°kOOF'� I I I w e •a• I p0y6ac^F'� TOP-421.0f i I EA.VLOING POINTcF LYWMECPOIM �• TOE=t20.0i •�:':''' QpR i TO NEW 1' WATER 9 R4CE UNE a I I STORMTECH 3500 PER Ott RETIUIRA4JI5. . 10 CHAMBERS @ . •••"'yyy j 2 wD�as Mai -TANK SYSTDA gIAN�R 1DP = 417.50 EXCAVARON I I CHAMBER BOTTOM = 41a75 •. STONE BED BOTTOM = 41a00 240'L 15.5W ' .'R •r9.�.,•• ::•• .•:• BOTTOM ELEV. = 41100 s' PEe OFFICE @.,LIMING i k10 k°j. FEE = 420.00 •�,. I ssm •i•. IE=411.60 , , •.I N I I I 26" P4C e POINTF EON 0%MIN. TO NEW 6- SIDECgW]R LINE PERQTY , ....••••-. FECUIFEMFNIS 1e Il S�0 ]• .50. ♦ IE=41210 a ♦ S 29-LF 6" PVC .ar i MIN. BUILDING POINT OF CONNECTION r••••'•''''••'_•'• TO NEW 1" WATER SERMCE UNE CB-002 T2-48" PER CITY REQUIIEMENTS i •,• •{ I PoM(N=419.101' �•:•:-••••••-•:•{ C3-OOI T2-60° IE) za"sf�a13.75 i IE(SE) 6•DIP=416.65' EAVE EAVE RIM=419.52' '. . IE(N) 24".=41a75' .•.•.• IE(S) 1r5R413.75' N �77-LF 6" OP � m ' . W/ OCIMIROL STRUCTURE @V✓27" k ..1.. ' ,rrlF 1r ® I c� SSCO I p > 49 BOPCO VAULT I J PoM=4=419.353' IE(N)17SD=41a72' L_ "'- SET PESAR/CAP IE(SE) 1r97=41277 ❑ ______- ..: • q. ..•.. •NEW 1' WATER SFRMCE UPE ••••••••.•-•. I AT PROP CQt i W/ BYPASS•.•.=.' •.'.'.PER CITY TEQNE,MENTS .•••••, •,• -28-LF 6" PVC I C7 A,9 9 0 •••.•• ' OB003,T2- 02%MIN. PRESEIUNG 1' RIM=41&502fi' fah0.4ZE SCO , IE(NW6°OI=0 S'I-RUCTI_ NE_ '.•,•, •,•,•,•'• IE=410.40TEE (PARKED ON).•� SNP REV. 410.50 7-F 6•P 42%MIN. Ff� I APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ENSONG SIDE SEWR. 1 . • . _ . TEL HH ° O CCNNECT N:w i" WATER SERMC£ OJNFlIAI LOCATION, PRIOR TO WEN NO WORK. •� UNE TO ENSTING 3/4° METER • x�C AND OCNOIaCN PRIOR 1D CCMENCING NCI5± SDMH-002- T2-45 -'- •-'-. PER CITY TEQAEMENTS. ,• ESE. IE=41Q25t RM=417.752' I IE(NW) 1r9k4126a DOSPNG 3/4" WATER METER ,••' IE(SE) 1rSL 4tzs3 �'• PIES W AND REUSE kp .. E 104.71 104. PL1 ,d FORM 0.7E OF PROP LINE FENCE 0.4E OF PROP UNE FENCE OSW OF PROP COR FENCE OAV OF PROP LINE FENCE OXW OF PROP UNE 010 QR��,�F,S yG IAGO�� FENCE 0.7E OF PROP UNE FENCE OX E OF PROP UNE FENCE OXE OF PROP UNE - FENCE CDR 0.1'E OF PROP UNE FOUND REBAR/CAP O9N UNE FENCE END OSE OF PROP UNE FENCE MR CIE OF PROP UNE FENCE COR \ ON UNE FENCE COR \ 0.7E OF \ PROP UNE FOUND REBAR/CAP L14 '305BI' \ \ ON UNE a.. f ♦; A'.:: VLF .:n j.' ��k\ P 1 ...Pe ( A • :/ : ql a : : SIDEWALK :'a. A' + I -Ai ' PoM-419.14' - - E(SE) t7Pa FO VLT CURB \ \ \ 418,691 . ACCESS ` W W 1& -W ,' N W W LANESTRIPING W \\\ ° W � � W_W_r CD U 212TH ST SVv SD S - `� (P O SID SD T OF WAY) �\ o hti CD 1 - -M SCION . T2-4e SS S SS SS / / / SS SS In mu=uooi/ � RIM=417.5± W) 1r3k41255 12'COICrH255LANE STRIPING i=NC=1Z5Q .- I �Go1oo'�°�°s yc �GOsL� F1EM NO. 6 - 10' ELECTRICAL EASEMENT PER AFN 201602170520 FDM EN) 1.4M OF PROP OCR P P P P :--p____ P -� -P P P P -SD-SD-SD SSA SS SS - SD SD Ss S� Ss - C, Washington Issaquah I Bellingham I Seattle Oregon Portland I Baker City California FARALLON Oakland I Irvine CONSULTING Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Drawn By: CPK Checked By: ROL FIGURE 8 PROPOSED CONDITIONS 212TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT 7509 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FARALLON PN: 416-018 Date: 02/25/2022 Disk Reference: FIGURE 8 DRAFT I 0 20 I SCALE IN FEET I I I P PLO �tp`G�,G I P� I I I Q� I w —' C CD �\SD SD k� _ — — — 424 — — — — N 89RI'47' E 10140r (1015 FlAn . •'• •i :•:•:•:•:•3:_:....r..........................•.•.-.•.•.•.-.•.•. �..... .........................:.........:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..................... . �.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ti ..... . :M1• •.s. .1 1. ..�. ..�, •a•, :1•: SINBt MM 0" '�• ••.•./•.•.•.•.•.•.. S U B BAS I N N 2 I I 6 834—S F °° ASSUMED 1 IMPERVIOUS =� i ME(" 1 03car AM 121 Xx 1 � � � it ��.a{{ •�:• SUBBASIN N1 e: �42z, ASSUMED IMPERVIOUS (INCL. �3,235—SF ROOF) fir: .......... T I I I SUBBASIN C — q 59182—S F / i I UAW I ASSUMED 0 IMPERVIOUS J � —ww w w U 212TH ST SW'-, I I w w w tiu Su SD - SS SS .'�/ SS P P P P P— —P P —� P P P P O S SD SD SD sS Ss Ss Ss — Z 0 I � I Washington FIGURE 9 I Issaquah I Bellingham I Seattle Oregon SITE DRAINAGE AREAS Portland I Baker City 212TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT California 7509 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST FARALLON Oakland I Irvine EDMONDS, WASHINGTON — sD sD CONSULTING Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Ss S� SS— FARALLON PN: 416-018 Drawn By: CPK Checked By: ROL Date: 02/25/2022 Disk Reference: FIGURE 9 DRAFT BIOPOD WAT VAULT FOR EN AND PHOSPHOROL OUTFALL TC IE=4 Washington Issaquah I Bellingham I Seattle Oregon Portland I Baker City California ARALLON Oakland I Irvine CONSULTING Your Challenges. Our Priority. I farallonconsulting.com Drawn By: CPK Checked By: ROL DEPTH VARY FIGURE 10 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM 212TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT 7509 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FARALLON PN: 416-018 Date: 2/25/2022 Disk Reference: FIGURE 10 DRAFT Draft —Issued for Agency Review APPENDIX A SITE AREAS SUMMARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT 212' Street Site Redevelopment Edmonds, Washington Farallon PN: 416-018 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater Tndocx NEW FARALLON CONSULTING Farallon PN: 416-018 Project Name: Glacier 212th Street Redevelopment Subject: Stormwater Site Area Calculations Prepared By: CPK Date: 2/6/2022 Checked By: ROL Date: 2/28/2022 SITE AREAS SUMMARY References: 1 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Amended in December 2014) 2014-SWMMW W 2 Edmonds Stormwater Addendum (June 8, 2017) 2017 ESA 3 Civil Plans CN.NN 4 Western Washington Hydrology Model 2012 W WHM2012 Total Sub -Basin Areas Total Parcel Area = 37,820 SF or 0.868 Acres Total Pre -Developed Sub -Basin Areas C Forest (flat) = 33,200 SF or 0.762 Acres C Forest (mod) = 4,620 SF or 0.106 Acres C Forest (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres C Pasture (flat) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres C Pasture (mod) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres C Pasture (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Total 37,820 SF or 0.868 Acres check OK Total Existing Sub -Basin Areas C Forest (flat) = 4,248 SF or 0.098 Acres C Forest (mod) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres C Forest (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres C Pasture (flat) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres C Pasture (mod) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres C Pasture (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres C Lawn (flat) = 22,498 SF or 0.516 Acres C Lawn (mod) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres C Lawn (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Roads (flat) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Roads (mod) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Roads (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Roof Tops (flat) = 2,571 SF or 0.059 Acres Driveways (flat) = 8,503 SF or 0.195 Acres Driveways (mod) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Driveways (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Sidewalks (flat) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Sidewalks (mod) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Sidewalks (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Parking (flat) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Parking (mod) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Parking (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Pond = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Porous Pavement = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Total 37,820 SF or 0.868 Acres check OK Total Impervious Area 11,074 SF or 0.254 Acres Percent Impervious = 29.3% Total Proposed Developed Sub -Basin Areas C Forest (flat) = 4,248 SF or 0.098 Acres C Forest (mod) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres C Forest (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres C Pasture (flat) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres C Pasture (mod) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres C Pasture (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres C Lawn (flat) = 6,620 SF or 0.152 Acres C Lawn (mod) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres C Lawn (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Roads (flat) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres 1 of 2 NEW FARALLON C O N S U L T I N G Farallon PN: 416-018 Project Name: Glacier 212th Street Redevelopment Subject: Stormwater Site Area Calculations Prepared By: CPK Date: 2/6/2022 Checked By: ROL Date: References: SITE AREAS SUMMARY 2/28/2022 1 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Amended in December 2014) 2014-SWMMW W 2 Edmonds Stormwater Addendum (June 8, 2017) 2017 ESA 3 Civil Plans CN.NN 4 Western Washington Hydrology Model 2012 W WHM2012 Roads (flat, offsite) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Roads (mod) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Roads (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Roof Tops (flat) = 6,399 SF or 0.147 Acres Driveways (flat) = 20,553 SF or 0.472 Acres Driveways (mod) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Driveway (mod, bypass) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Driveways (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Sidewalks (flat) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Sidewalks (mod) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Sidewalks (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Parking (flat) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Parking (mod) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Parking (steep) = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Pond = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Porous Pavement = 0 SF or 0.000 Acres Total 37,820 SF or 0.868 Acres check OK Total Impervious Area 26,952 SF or 0.619 Acres Percent Impervious = 71.3% 2 of 2 Draft —Issued for Agency Review APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION REPORT TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT 212' Street Site Redevelopment Edmonds, Washington Farallon PN: 416-018 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater Tndocx GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED GLACIER OFFICES AND WAREHOUSE 7509 212TH STREET SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 PROJECT No. 092-22001 FEBRUARY 04, 2022 Prepared for: GLACIER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC ATTN: LAUREN GOLEMBIEWSKI, PRESIDENT 7509 212TH STREET SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 Prepared by: KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION 4303 —198TH STREET SW LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 (425) 485-5519 -Krazan & ASSOCIATES,INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION February 04, 2022 Glacier Environmental Services, Inc. P.O. Box 1097 Mukilteo, WA 98275 Attn: Ms. Lauren Golembiewski, President Email: lmiles@glacierenviro.com Tel: 425-268-9775 RE: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION Proposed Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 212'' Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Dear Ms. Golembiewski, KA Project No. 092-22001 In accordance with your request, we have completed a Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the referenced site. The results of our investigation are presented in the attached report. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Not I I 'W" I H� Michael D. Rundquist, P.E. Senior Project Manager MDR Offices Serving The Western United States 4303 —198t' Street SW • Lynnwood, Washington 98036 • (425) 485-5519 • Fax: (425) 485-6837 -I'('a7_ a1 & ASSOCIATES,INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECTDESCRIPTION........................................................................................................................................ 1 PURPOSEAND SCOPE............................................................................................................................................. 2 SITECONDITIONS................................................................................................................................................... 3 GEOLOGICSETTING.............................................................................................................................................. 3 FIELDINVESTIGATION......................................................................................................................................... 3 SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................................. 4 GROUNDWATER...................................................................................................................................................... 6 GEOLOGICHAZARDS............................................................................................................................................ 6 ErosionConcern/Hazard...................................................................................................................................... SeismicHazard................................................................................................................................................... CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................... 8 General........................................................................................................................................ SitePreparation............................................................................................................................ TemporaryExcavations................................................................................................................ StructuralFill............................................................................................................................... ShallowFoundations.................................................................................................................... Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork................................................................................................ Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls................................................................................. Stormwater Management.............................................................................................................. OrganicContent........................................................................................................................... CationExchange Capacity............................................................................................................ Erosion and Sediment Control...................................................................................................... Groundwater Influence on Structures/ Construction...................................................................... Drainage and Landscaping........................................................................................................... UtilityTrench Backfill................................................................................................................. Testingand Inspection.................................................................................................................. ............................. 8 ............................. 9 ........................... 10 ........................... 11 ........................... 11 ........................... 13 ........................... 13 ........................... 14 ........................... 16 ........................... 16 ........................... 17 ........................... 18 ........................... 18 ........................... 18 ........................... 19 LIMITATIONS......................................................................................................................................................... 20 VICINITYMAP.............................................................................................................................. Figure 1 SITEPLAN...................................................................................................................................... Figure 2 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................ Appendix A EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS........................................................................................ Appendix B PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS............................................................................................ Appendix C Offices Serving The Western United States 4303 — 19811 Street SW 9 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 9 (425) 485-5519 9 Fax: (425) 485-6837 �Irazan & ASSOCIATES,INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION February 04, 2022 KA Project No. 092-22001 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED GLACIER OFFICES AND WAREHOUSE 7509 212TH STREET SW EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation for the commercial project located at 7509 212t" Street SW in Edmonds, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. Discussions regarding site conditions are presented in this report, together with conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site preparation, excavations, structural fill, foundations, drainage and landscaping, and erosion control. We have been requested to conduct a geotechnical investigation regarding foundation support and stormwater infiltration testing to aid in project design. A site plan showing the approximate exploratory test pit and infiltration test locations is presented in Figure 2 following the text of this report. Appendix A includes a description of the field investigation and the soil logs. Appendix B contains a guide to aid in the development of earthwork specifications. Pavement design guidelines are presented in Appendix C. The recommendations in the main text of the report have precedence over the more general specifications in the appendices. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is roughly rectangular in shape and is located on the north side of 212th Street SW, approximately 250 feet east of the intersection with 76th Avenue W. The property covers an area of approximately 0.87 acres. A commercial property borders the site to the west. Residential properties border the site to the north and east. 212th Street SW borders the site to the south. A residence, accessory dwelling units and small storage barn currently occupy the property. Minimal grading is anticipated for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of the new facilities. The proposed development will include design and construction of a new two-story office building and a pre-fab metal warehouse, along with associated utilities, pavement, and landscape areas. A bio-retention swale along the eastern edge of the property is under consideration for this project. Offices Serving The Western United States 4303 — 198"' Street SW 9 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 9 (425) 485-5519 9 Fax: (425) 485-6837 Krazan & Associates, Inc. PURPOSE AND SCOPE KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 2 This investigation was conducted to evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site, to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for use in design of specific construction elements, and to provide criteria for earthwork construction. Our services were performed in general accordance with our proposal for this project, dated January 11, 2022 (Proposal Number G22018WAL) and included the following: • Explore the subsurface soil conditions with test pit excavations in the project area. Soil samples were collected for laboratory testing. • Prepare a site plan showing the test pit locations; • Prepare test pit logs including soil stratification and classification, and groundwater levels where applicable; • Provide recommendations for foundation design including foundation type, allowable foundation bearing pressure, anticipated settlements (both total and differential), coefficient of horizontal friction, and frost penetration depth; • Provide recommendations for retaining wall design including lateral earth pressures (active and passive); • Provide recommendations for seismic design considerations, including site coefficient and ground acceleration based on the 2018 International Building Code (IBC); • Provide soil parameters for the design of slab -on -grade floors including recommendations for placement of capillary break material and vapor barrier below the slabs; • Discuss construction and excavation considerations, topsoil/unsuitable soil stripping depth, identification of potentially problematic soils or groundwater conditions, and depth of over - excavation if required; • Provide opinions on the feasibility of stormwater infiltration on this site, and design infiltration rates where feasible; • Provide recommendations for structural fill materials, placement, and compaction; • Provide recommendations for temporary excavations; • Provide recommendations for site drainage and erosion control; and • Provide recommendations for standard and heavy-duty pavement design. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. SITE CONDITIONS KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 3 The project site is located in a mixed residential and commercial neighborhood about three blocks west of Highway 99. The site slopes gently down to the northwest and to the south from a high point in the central portion of the property. The site is vegetated with trees, bushes and lawn areas. There are asphalt and gravel surfaced driveway and parking areas in the southwest portion of the property. Small rockeries, about two to four feet in height, face the south and west edges of the front yard. GEOLOGIC SETTING We referred to the "Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington," by James P. Minard (1983) during our project research. The geologic map indicates that the site vicinity is underlain by Quaternary Vashon glacial till (Qgt,,). Quaternary Advance outwash (Qva) is also mapped nearby. Glacial till typically consists of a very compact, unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders. Advance outwash generally consists of poorly to moderated sorted, dense to very dense sand and gravel. FIELD INVESTIGATION Four test pit explorations and three infiltration test pits were completed to evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions within the property. The test pits were completed on January 24, 2022. The explorations were conducted using a client -provided excavator. The test pits extended to depths ranging from approximately 4.0 feet to about 11.0 feet below the existing ground surface. A geotechnical representative from Krazan and Associates, Inc. was present during the test pit explorations, examined the soil conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different soil types, and maintained logs of the explorations. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. Representative samples of the subsurface soils encountered in the geotechnical explorations at the project site were collected and sealed in plastic bags for transport to our laboratory for further observation and testing. The soils encountered in the explorations were continuously examined and visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Although our explorations did not encounter obstructions, there is the potential for obstructions such as debris, cobbles or boulders to be encountered during excavation in unexplored areas of the property. For additional information about the soils encountered, please refer to the logs of the explorations in Appendix A. Small -Scale Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT): Three (3) infiltration test pits, designated INF-1, INF-2 and INF-3, were excavated to depths between 6.0 and 11.0 feet below adjacent grade. The locations of the test pits/infiltration tests are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. The PITs were performed in accordance Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 4 with Volume III, Chapter 3 of the Department of Ecology (DOE) 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SMMWW). The PITS were also performed in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum (updated June 2017) Checklist 4: Methods for Determining Infiltration Rates. The infiltration tests were performed at depths of approximately 2.0 and 9.0 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) at the time of the testing, and are noted on the attached test pit logs. The exposed test areas for each of the PITs were approximately 24 square feet for INF-1, 20 square feet for INF-2, and 15 square feet for INF-3. The infiltration tests included a pre-soak period, followed by a steady- state infiltration rate test, and then falling head infiltration rate testing. Following the infiltration tests, the test pits were advanced to depths of 6.0 and 11.0 feet bgs to examine the soil conditions below the level where the test was performed. A field engineer from Krazan and Associates was present during the exploration and testing, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different soil types, documented results of the infiltration testing and maintained logs of the soils exposed in the test pits. Representative samples of the subsurface soils encountered in the test pits were collected and sealed in plastic bags. These samples were transported to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The soils encountered in the exploratory test pits were continuously examined and visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Four test pits and three infiltration test pits were excavated at the property. Brief descriptions of the subsurface conditions exposed in the test pits are included in the paragraphs below. Test Pit 1 (TP-1) was located in the northwest portion of the property. TP-1 exposed a surficial layer of organic topsoil extending to a depth of approximately 0.5 foot. Below the topsoil, the test pit exposed loose to medium dense, brown silty sand with gravel and trace organics to a depth of about 3.0 feet. We interpreted the brown silty sand with gravel and trace organics to be weathered soils. Underlying the weathered soil, TP-1 exposed dense, gray silty sand with gravel to the depth explored of approximately 4.0 feet below grade. We interpreted the gray silty sand with gravel to be native glacial soil. Test Pit 2 (TP-2) was located in the north -central portion of the property. TP-2 exposed a surficial layer of organic topsoil and forest duff extending to a depth of approximately 2.0 feet. Below the topsoil and forest duff, the test pit exposed loose to medium dense, brown silty sand with gravel and trace organics to a depth of about 4.0 feet. We interpreted the brown silty sand with gravel and trace organics to be weathered soils. Underlying the weathered soil, TP-2 exposed dense, gray silty sand with gravel to the depth explored of approximately 4.5 feet below grade. We interpreted the gray silty sand with gravel to be native glacial soil. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 5 Test Pit 3 (TP-3) was located north of the residence, in the east -central portion of the property. TP-3 exposed a surficial layer of organic topsoil extending to a depth of approximately 0.5 foot. Below the topsoil, the test pit exposed loose to medium dense, brown silty sand with gravel and trace organics to a depth of about 3.0 feet. We interpreted the brown silty sand with gravel and trace organics to be weathered soils. Underlying the weathered soil, TP-3 exposed dense, gray silty sand with gravel to the depth explored of approximately 4.0 feet below grade. We interpreted the gray silty sand with gravel to be native glacial soil. Test Pit 4 (TP-4) was located southeast of the residence, in the southeast portion of the property. TP-4 exposed a surficial layer of organic topsoil extending to a depth of approximately 0.5 foot. Below the topsoil, the test pit exposed loose to medium dense, brown silty sand with gravel and trace organics to a depth of about 3.0 feet. We interpreted the brown silty sand with gravel and trace organics to be weathered soils. Underlying the weathered soil, TP-4 exposed dense, gray silty sand with gravel to the depth explored of approximately 4.0 feet below grade. We interpreted the gray silty sand with gravel to be native glacial soil. Infiltration Test Pit 1 (INF-1) was located west of the residence, in the south-central portion of the property. INF-1 exposed a surficial layer of organic topsoil extending to a depth of approximately 0.5 foot. Below the topsoil, the test pit exposed loose gray silty sand with gravel to a depth of about 2.0 feet. We interpreted the gray silty sand with gravel to be undocumented fill. Below the undocumented fill, the test pit exposed loose to medium dense, brown silty sand with gravel and trace organics to a depth of about 4.0 feet. We interpreted the brown silty sand with gravel and trace organics to be weathered soils. Underlying the weathered soil, INF-1 exposed dense, gray silty sand with gravel to the depth explored of approximately 11.0 feet below grade. We interpreted the gray silty sand with gravel to be native glacial soil. Infiltration Test Pit 2 (INF-2) was located east of the western ADU, in the north -central portion of the property. INF-2 exposed a surficial layer of organic topsoil extending to a depth of approximately 0.5 foot. Below the topsoil, the test pit exposed loose to medium dense, brown silty sand with gravel and trace organics to a depth of about 2.5 feet. We interpreted the brown silty sand with gravel and trace organics to be weathered soils. Underlying the weathered soil, INF-2 exposed dense, olive -brown to gray silty sand with gravel to the depth explored of approximately 11.0 feet below grade. We interpreted the gray silty sand with gravel to be native glacial soil. Infiltration Test Pit 3 (INF-3) was located north of the eastern ADU, in the northeast portion of the property. INF-3 exposed a surficial layer of organic topsoil extending to a depth of approximately 0.5 foot. Below the topsoil, the test pit exposed loose to medium dense, dark yellowish -brown sand with silt, gravel and trace organics to a depth of about 3.0 feet. We interpreted the brown silty sand with gravel and trace organics to be weathered soils. Underlying the weathered soil, INF-3 exposed dense, Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 6 gray silty sand with gravel to the depth explored of approximately 6.0 feet below grade. We interpreted the gray silty sand with gravel to be native glacial soil. For additional information about the soils encountered, please refer to the soil logs in Appendix A. GROUNDWATER The test pits were observed for the presence of groundwater during the test pit explorations. Soil conditions were moist. Groundwater seepage was not observed in the test pit explorations at the time of our subsurface investigation. However, it is our opinion that perched groundwater could occur on this property, especially during and after prolonged periods of wet weather. Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates through less dense, more permeable soils and accumulates on top of a relatively low permeability soil layer. Perched water does not represent a regional groundwater "table" within the upper soil horizons. Perched water tends to vary spatially and is dependent upon the amount of rainfall. We would expect the amount of perched water to decrease during drier times of the year and increase during wetter periods. It should be recognized that groundwater elevations may fluctuate with time. The groundwater level will be dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, as well as other factors. Therefore, groundwater levels at the time of the field investigation may be different from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Erosion Concern/Hazard The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) map for Snohomish County includes information regarding the erosion hazard for the site vicinity. The soil in project area is mapped as Alderwood- Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes. These soils are rated as having a moderate hazard for soil erosion when vegetation is removed. It has been our experience that the potential for soil erosion can be minimized through landscaping and surface water runoff control. Typically, erosion of exposed soils will be most noticeable during periods of rainfall and may be controlled by the use of temporary erosion control measures, such as silt fences, hay bales, mulching, control ditches or diversion trenching, and contour furrowing. Erosion control measures should be in place before the onset of wet weather. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. Seismic Hazard KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 7 The 2018 International Building Code (IBC), Section 1613.2.2, refers to Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-16 for Site Class Definitions. It is our opinion that the overall soil profile corresponds to Site Class C defined by Table 20.3-1 "Site Class Definitions," according to the ASCE 7-16 Standard. Site Class C applies to a "very dense soils and soft rock" profile. The seismic site class is based on a soil profile extending to a depth of 100 feet. The soil explorations on this site extended to a maximum depth of approximately 11.0 feet and this seismic site class designation is based on the assumption that dense to very dense conditions continue below the depth explored. We referred to the Applied Technology Council (ATC) website and 2018 IBC to obtain values for Ss, Stirs, SDs, SI, Smi, SDI, F., F,, and T. The ATC website utilizes the most updated published data on seismic conditions from the United States Geological Survey. The seismic design parameters for this site are presented in the following table: Seismic Design Parameters (Reference: 2018 IBC Section 1613.2.2, ASCE7-16, and ATC) Seismic Item Value Site Coefficient Fa 1.200 S, 1.286 SMs 1.543 SDs 1.029 Site Coefficient Fv 1.500 S1 0.453 SMI 0.679 SDI 0.453 Additional seismic considerations include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground motion by soft soil deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand with a high groundwater table. The medium dense to dense native soils interpreted to underlie the site are considered to have a low potential for liquefaction and amplification of ground motion. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 8 It is our opinion from a geotechnical standpoint that the site is compatible with the proposed commercial development, provided that our recommendations are incorporated into project plans and are implemented during construction. Summary of Subsurface Conditions: Our explorations generally encountered a near surface layer of loose organic soil and undocumented fill extending to depths of about 0.5 to 2.0 feet. Beneath the surficial soils, the test pits generally exposed loose to medium dense native weathered soils, consisting of silty sand with gravel, to depths of 2.5 to 4.0 feet. Beneath the weathered horizon, the test pits exposed dense to very dense native glacial till (hardpan) consisting of silty sand with gravel. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of our subsurface investigation. The dense/hard soils are interpreted to be native glacially consolidated deposits, and typically have a relatively high capacity for foundation support. The undocumented fill soils are not considered suitable for foundation support. Groundwater seepage was not encountered during our field investigation. However, perched groundwater could develop on this site during or after periods of wet weather. Care should be taken to protect foundation subgrades from disturbance if groundwater or wet soils are encountered. Difficult Excavation: Dense to very dense glacial soils, which may include cobbles and boulders, are interpreted to underlie the site. We anticipate that future excavations in the glacial soils could be difficult. It might be prudent to provide contingencies in the project schedule and budget in case excavation difficulties arise during earthwork construction. Foundations: The dense glacial soils underlying the site should provide adequate load bearing capacity for the proposed commercial structures. Detailed foundation support recommendations, including a recommended allowable load bearing pressure, are included in the Foundations section of this report. The installation of foundation drains is recommended for this project. Stormwater Infiltration: The dense to very dense glacial till soil (hardpan) encountered in the test pits at this site are not considered suitable for the use of infiltration techniques for stormwater management. There is some potential for slight amounts infiltration as discussed in the Stormwater Management section of this report. Moisture Sensitive Soils: The soils encountered in our explorations on site are considered to be highly moisture -sensitive. Silty soils are typically easily disturbed and are difficult or impossible to compact in wet conditions. It will be necessary to protect exposed subgrade soil with a layer of crushed rock if Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 9 construction occurs during wet weather. The non -organic on -site soils could be used as structural fill material, provided the moisture content is near optimum and the soil could be suitably compacted to project specifications. This will depend on the moisture content of the soils at the time of construction. Krazan and Associates is available on request to evaluate the suitability of the on -site soils for use as structural fill material at the time of construction. Site Preparation General site clearing should include removal of existing structures; vegetation; trees and associated root systems; wood; abandoned structures and utilities; rubble; and rubbish. Site stripping should extend until all organics in excess of 3 percent by volume are removed. These materials will not be suitable for use as structural fill. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and re -used in landscape or non- structural areas. After stripping operations, the construction areas should be inspected to identify any soft/loose areas. Any remaining soft/loose soils should be excavated to expose medium dense or firmer native soils. The resulting excavations should be filled with approved structural fill. Structural fill material should be within f 2 percent of the optimum moisture content, and the soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. During wet weather conditions, subgrade stability problems and grading difficulties may develop due to excess moisture, disturbance of sensitive soils and/or the presence of perched groundwater. Construction during the extended periods of wet weather could result in the need to remove wet disturbed soils if they cannot be suitably compacted due to elevated moisture contents. The on -site soils have significant silt content and are considered to be moisture sensitive, and can be easily disturbed when wet. If overexcavation is necessary to remove wet disturbed soil, it should be confirmed through continuous monitoring and testing by a qualified geotechnical engineer or geologist. Soils that have become unstable may require drying to near their optimal moisture content before compaction is feasible. Selective drying may be accomplished by scarifying or windrowing surficial material during extended periods of dry, warm weather (typically during the summer months). If the soils cannot be dried back to a workable moisture condition, remedial measures may be required. General project site winterization should consist of the placement of aggregate base and the protection of exposed soils during the construction phase. It should be understood that even if Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented and followed for wintertime soil protection there is a significant chance that mitigation of disturbed moisture sensitive soils will still be required. Any buried structures encountered during construction should be properly removed and backfilled. Excavations, depressions, or soft and pliant areas extending below the planned finish subgrade levels Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 10 should be excavated to expose firm undisturbed soil, and backfilled with structural fill. In general, any septic tanks, underground storage tanks, debris pits, cesspools, or similar structures should be completely removed from the area of the planned addition. Concrete footings should be removed to an equivalent depth of at least 3 feet below proposed footing elevations or as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. The resulting excavations should be backfilled with structural fill. A representative of our firm should be present during all site clearing and grading operations to observe, test and evaluate earthwork construction. This testing and observation are integral parts of our service, as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction and stability of the material. The geotechnical engineer may reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability requirements. Further recommendations, contained in this report, are predicated upon the assumption that earthwork construction will conform to the recommendations set forth in this section and in the Structural Fill section. Temporary Excavations The on -site soils may have variable cohesion strengths, therefore the safe angles to which these materials may be cut for temporary excavations is limited, as the soils may be prone to caving and slope failures in temporary excavations. Temporary excavations in the loose to medium dense soils should be no steeper than 1H:1V (Horizontal to Vertical). Depending on the groundwater conditions, flatter inclinations may be necessary. Temporary shoring may also be necessary if excavation to stable inclinations is not feasible due to the proximity to structures or property lines. We should evaluate the excavations at the time of construction. All temporary cuts should be in accordance with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Part N, Excavation, Trenching, and Shoring. The temporary slope cuts should be visually inspected daily by a qualified person during construction work activities and the results of the inspections should be included in daily reports. The contractor is responsible for maintaining the stability of the temporary cut slopes and minimizing slope erosion during construction. The temporary cut slopes should be covered with plastic sheeting to help minimize erosion during wet weather and the slopes should be closely monitored until the permanent retaining systems are complete. Materials should not be stored and equipment operated within 10 feet of the top of any temporary cut slope. A Krazan & Associates geologist or geotechnical engineer should observe, at least periodically, the temporary cut slopes during the excavation work. The reason for this is that all soil conditions may not be fully delineated by the limited sampling of the site from the geotechnical explorations. In the case of temporary slope cuts, the existing soil conditions may not be fully revealed until the excavation work exposes the soil. Typically, as excavation work progresses the maximum inclination of the temporary slope will need to be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer so that supplemental recommendations can Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 11 be made. Soil and groundwater conditions can be highly variable. Scheduling for soil work will need to be adjustable, to deal with unanticipated conditions, so that the project can proceed smoothly and required deadlines can be met. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, Krazan & Associates should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be made. Structural Fill Fill placed beneath foundations, pavement, or other settlement -sensitive structures should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional. Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in -place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The area to receive the fill should be suitably prepared as described in the Site Preparation subsection of this report prior to beginning fill placement. Typically, all weather imported structural fill material should consist of well -graded gravel or sand and gravel mixture with a maximum grain size of 3 inches and less than 5 percent fines (material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve). All structural fill material should be submitted for approval to the geotechnical engineer at least 48 hours prior to delivery to the site. Fill soils should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness prior to compaction, moisture -conditioned as necessary, (moisture content of soil shall not vary by more than f2 percent of optimum moisture) and the material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. In -place density tests should be performed on all structural fill to document proper moisture content and adequate compaction. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the compaction requirements or if soil conditions are not considered stable. Foundations Conventional shallow spread footings supported on dense native glacial soils, or on structural fill extending to the dense native glacial soils, may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads. This value may be increased by one third for short duration loads such as wind or seismic loading. A representative of Krazan and Associates should visit the site during construction to evaluate the foundation bearing soil, evaluate structural fill subgrade preparation, and monitor structural fill placement. If loose soils or undocumented fill are exposed in the foundation subgrade, the removal of undocumented fill and placement of structural fill should extend horizontally beyond the outside edges of the footings by a distance equal to half the thickness of the structural fill layer to be placed beneath Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 12 the footing. Based on our soil explorations, we interpret the dense, native bearing soils at this site to be approximately 2.5 to 4.0 feet below the current grade. However, thicker layers of loose/soft soils, organics, debris, or undocumented fill could be encountered in unexplored areas of the site. Foundations should have a minimum embedment depth of 18 inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent exterior grade, whichever is lower. Footing widths should be based on the anticipated loads and allowable soil bearing pressure. Footings should have a minimum width of at least 12 inches regardless of load. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete. Water should not be allowed to collect in the foundation excavations. All-weather structural fill material should consist of well -graded gravel, or sand and gravel mixture, with a maximum grain size of 3 inches and less than 5 percent fines (material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve). All structural fill material should be submitted for approval to the geotechnical engineer at least 48 hours prior to delivery to the site. Footing excavations should be inspected to verify that the foundations will be supported on suitable soil prior to the construction of footing forms. For foundations constructed as recommended, the total settlement is not expected to exceed one -inch. Differential settlement, along a 20-foot exterior wall footing, or between adjoining column footings should be less than '/2-inch. Most settlement is expected to occur during construction, as the loads are applied. However, additional post -construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated. It should be noted that the risk of liquefaction is considered low, given the composition and density of the native, on site soils. Seasonal rainfall, water run-off, and the normal practice of watering trees and landscaping areas around the proposed structures, should not be permitted to flood and/or saturate foundation subgrade soils. To prevent the buildup of water within the footing areas, continuous footing drains (with cleanouts) should be provided at the bases of the footings. The footing drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter rigid perforated PVC pipe, sloped to drain, with perforations placed near the bottom and enveloped by one -inch sized washed rock in all directions and wrapped with filter fabric to reduce the migration of silt and clay into the drain. Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.40 acting between the bases of foundations and the supporting subgrade. Lateral resistance for footings can also be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces (neglecting the upper 12 inches of soil). The allowable friction factor and allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure values include a factor of safety of 1.5. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. A 1/3 increase in the above values may be used for short duration, wind and seismic loads. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 13 For building floor slab subgrades prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Site Preparation section of this report, floor slabs may be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction value of k = 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for slabs supported on medium dense or firmer native soils or on structural fill extending to medium dense or firmer native soil. In areas where it is desired to reduce floor dampness, such as areas covered with moisture sensitive floor coverings, we recommend that concrete slab -on -grade floors be underlain by a water vapor retarder system. The water vapor retarder should consist of a vapor retarder sheeting underlain by a minimum of 4-inches of compacted clean (less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve), open -graded coarse rock of 3/4-inch maximum size. The vapor retarder sheeting should be protected from puncture damage. It is recommended that the utility trenches within the structures be compacted, as specified in our report, to minimize the transmission of moisture through the utility trench backfill. Special attention to the immediate drainage and irrigation around the buildings is recommended. Positive drainage should be established away from the structures and should be maintained throughout the lives of the structures. Water should not be allowed to collect adjacent to the structures. Over -irrigation within landscaped areas adjacent to the structures should not be performed. In addition, ventilation of the structures may be prudent to reduce the accumulation of interior moisture. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AND RETAINING WALLS We have developed criteria for the design of retaining or below grade walls. Our design parameters are based on retention of the in -place soils or structural fill. The parameters are also based on level, well - drained wall backfill conditions. Walls may be designed as "restrained" retaining walls based on "at - rest" earth pressures, plus any surcharge on top of the walls as described below, if the walls are braced to restrain movement and/or movement is not acceptable. Unrestrained walls may be designed based on "active" earth pressure, if the walls are not part of the buildings and some movement of the retaining walls is acceptable. Acceptable lateral movement equal to at least 0.2 percent of the wall height would warrant the use of "active" earth pressure values for design. The following table, titled Wall Design Criteria, presents the recommended soil related design parameters for retaining walls with well -drained level backfill. Wall Design Criteria "At -rest" Conditions (Lateral Earth Pressure) 55 pcf (Equivalent Fluid Density) (Triangular Distribution) Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 14 "Active" Conditions (Lateral Earth Pressure) 35 pcf (Equivalent Fluid Density) (Triangular Distribution Seismic Increase for "Active" Conditions 7 psf x H (Uniform Distribution) (Lateral Earth Pressure) Where H is the height of the wall in feet Passive Earth Pressure on Low Side of Wall Neglect upper one -foot, then 300 pcf (includes factor of safety of 1.5) (Equivalent Fluid Density) Soil -Footing Coefficient of Sliding Friction 0.4 includes factor of safety of 1.5 The stated lateral earth pressures do not include the effects of hydrostatic pressure generated by water accumulation behind the retaining walls or loads imposed by construction equipment, foundations or roadways adjacent to the wall (surcharge loads). To minimize the lateral earth pressure and prevent the buildup of water pressure against the walls, continuous footing drains (with cleanouts) should be provided at the bases of the walls. The footing drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter rigid PVC perforated pipe, sloped to drain, with perforations placed near the bottom. The drainpipe should be enveloped by 6 inches of washed gravel in all directions wrapped in filter fabric to prevent the migration of silt and clay into the drain. The wall fill material adjacent to and extending a lateral distance of at least 2 feet behind the walls should consist of free -draining granular material. All free -draining backfill should contain less than 3 percent fines (passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve) based upon the fraction passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 Sieve with at least 30 percent of the material being retained on the U.S. Standard No. 4 Sieve. Alternatively, a drainage composite may be used. It should be realized that the primary purpose of the free -draining material is the reduction of hydrostatic pressure. Some potential for the moisture to contact the back face of the wall may exist, even with treatment, which may require that more extensive waterproofing be specified for walls, which require interior moisture sensitive finishes. We recommend that the wall fill be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method. In -place density tests should be performed to verify adequate compaction. Soil compactors place transient surcharges on the backfill. Consequently, only light hand operated equipment is recommended for fill compaction within 3 feet of walls so that excessive stress is not imposed on the walls. Stormwater Management This investigation included an evaluation of the feasibility of stormwater infiltration for this project. The dense to very dense glacial till soil (hardpan) encountered in the test pits at this site are not considered suitable for the use of infiltration techniques for stormwater management. As requested by Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 15 the project civil engineer, three small-scale Pilot Infiltration Tests (PITS) were conducted at the site. The PIT results indicted some potential for slight amounts infiltration may be feasible for use in conjunction with the design of other stormwater management systems. Stormwater Infiltration Rate — Small Scale "PIT" Method: A bio-retention swale was being considered as a part of the stormwater management system for this project. Drainage plans were not available at the time this letter was prepared. The design infiltration rate has been developed based on procedures outlined in the EMC Chapter 18.30 and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum, as well as Volume III of the Washington State Department of Ecology's "Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington," (SMMWW, 2014 & updated 2019). Three small-scale stormwater Pilot Infiltration Tests (PIT) were performed at the property to evaluate the stormwater infiltration rate. The PIT method for evaluating the stormwater infiltration rate of the site soils generally includes an excavation, with an area of at least 12 square feet, in the area of the proposed infiltration system. The PITs were performed between depths of 2.0 and 9.0 feet below the current grade in the areas shown on the site plan in Figure 2. The bottom of the excavations for the small-scale PITs exposed test areas of approximately 15, 20 and 24 square feet. Data analysis included correction factors to determine the long-term or corrected infiltration rate. The applied correction factors were as follows: • Site Variability, CFv = 0.33 • Test Method, CFt = 0.5 • Degree of Influent, CFm = 0.9 In our opinion, a design infiltration rate of 0.2-inch per hour should be appropriate provided that pretreatment measures for control of total suspended solids are adequately maintained. The native sand and gravel materials were exposed between depths of 0.5 and 2.0 feet in the test pits. Changes in soil conditions and the corresponding infiltration rate are possible at different locations and depths. Accordingly, we recommend that the subsurface soils be evaluated during construction by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Construction equipment should not be allowed on the soils at the base of the infiltration areas, as compaction of the soils may reduce their permeability. Bioretention Swale: We understand that a bioretention Swale is being considered for stormwater management for this project. The Swale would be located in an area between the east wall of the planned buildings and the east property line. The City of Edmonds Stormwater Addendum Checklist 10, item 23, indicates that, "If the contributing area is less than 5,000 square feet, the bioretention area Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 16 should be at least 5 feet from a structure without a basement and 10 feet from a structure with a basement." We understand that the proposed buildings will not have basements, and in our opinion, the separation between the high-water elevation of the proposed bioretention swale and the building may be reduced to 3 feet, provided the high-water elevation in the bioretention Swale is at least one -foot below the building's bottom of footing elevation. Organic Content Our laboratory in Lynnwood performed the organic content testing on selected soil samples based on ASTM D-2974. Organic content is one factor used to determine if the soil type has the potential to filter stormwater runoff. According to the SMMWW, the minimum useful organic content for filtrations is 1.0 percent. The test results for the soil samples are presented in Table 1. Table 1: Organic Content Test Pit Number Sample Depth (feet) Soil Classification Organic Content (percent) INF-2 9.0 Gray Silty Sand with Gravel 0.6 INF-3 2.0 Brown Silty Sand with Gravel and Trace Organics 2.4 Cation Exchange Capacity Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) refers to the ability of soil to hold cation nutrients. Different soil types have different CEC values. In general, clay, silt and organic matter tend to have higher CEC values than sand and gravel. CEC is typically measured in millequivalents (meq). Stormwater system designers often use the CEC information to determine if the on -site soils have the potential to filter or clean stormwater runoff. According to the SMMWW, the minimum useful CEC is 5.0 meq/100g dry soil. Soil samples from Infiltration Test Pits INF-2 and INF-3 were processed by KTL (KUO Testing Labs) in Othello, WA for Cation Exchange Capacity determination. The CEC test results are presented below in Table 2. Detailed test results information from KUO Testing Labs is attached to this report. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 17 Table 2: Cation Exchange Capacity Test Pit Number Sample Depth Soil Classification Cation Exchange (feet) Capacity (meq) INF-2 9.0 Gray Silty Sand with 2.2 Gravel INF-3 2.0 Brown Silty Sand with 5.5 Gravel and Trace Organics Erosion and Sediment Control Erosion and sediment control (ESC) is used to minimize the transportation of sediment to wetlands, streams, lakes, drainage systems, and adjacent properties. Erosion and sediment control measures should be taken and these measures should be in general accordance with local regulations. As a minimum, the following basic recommendations should be incorporated into the design of the erosion and sediment control features of the site: 1) Phase the soil, foundation, utility and other work, requiring excavation or the disturbance of the site soils, to take place during the dry season (generally May through September). However, provided precautions are taken using Best Management Practices (BMP's), grading activities can be undertaken during the wet season (generally October through April), but it should also be known that this may increase the overall cost of the project. 2) All site work should be completed and stabilized as quickly as possible. 3) Additional perimeter erosion and sediment control features may be required to reduce the possibility of sediment entering the surface water. This may include additional silt fences, silt fences with a higher Apparent Opening Size (AOS), construction of a berm, or other filtration systems. 4) Any runoff generated by dewatering discharge should be treated through construction of a sediment trap if there is sufficient space. If space is limited, other filtration methods will need to be incorporated. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. Groundwater Influence on Structures and Earthwork Construction KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 18 Groundwater seepage was not encountered in the test pits extending to 11.0 feet below the surface during our exploration of this site. However, it is our opinion that perched groundwater could occur on this property, especially during and after prolonged periods of wet weather. It should be recognized that groundwater elevations may fluctuate with time. If groundwater is encountered during construction, we should observe the conditions to determine if dewatering will be needed. Design of temporary dewatering systems to remove groundwater should be the responsibility of the contractor. Care should be taken to protect foundation subgrades from disturbance when groundwater or wet soils are encountered. If earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils may become saturated. These soils may "pump," and the materials may not respond to densification techniques. Typical remedial measures include: disking and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with drier materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material. A qualified geotechnical engineering firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to observe the unstable subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recommendations. Drainage and Landscaping The ground surface should slope away from building pads and pavement areas, toward appropriate drop inlets or other surface drainage devices. It is recommended that adjacent exterior grades be sloped a minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures. We recommend the installation of foundation drains with cleanouts for this project. The foundation drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter perforated pipe, sloped to drain, with perforations placed down and enveloped by 6 inches of washed gravel in all directions and filter fabric to limit the migration of silt and clay into the drains. Roof drains should be tightlined away from the foundations. Roof drains should not be connected to the foundation drains. Subgrade soils in pavement areas should be inclined at a minimum of 1 percent and drainage gradients should be maintained to carry all surface water to collection facilities, and suitable outlets. These grades should be maintained for the life of the development. Specific recommendations for and design of storm water disposal systems are beyond the scope of our services and should be prepared by other consultants that are familiar with design and discharge requirements. Utility Trench Backfill Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 19 Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practices following OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards, by a contractor experienced in such work. The responsibility for the safety of open trenches should be borne by the contractor. Traffic and vibration adjacent to trench walls should be minimized; cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should be avoided. Depending upon the location and depth of some utility trenches, groundwater flow into open excavations could be experienced, especially during or shortly following periods of precipitation. All utility trench backfill should consist of structural fill. Utility trench backfill placed in or adjacent to buildings and exterior slabs should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. The upper 5 feet of utility trench backfill placed in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Below 5 feet, utility trench backfill in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Pipe bedding should be in accordance with the pipe manufacturer's recommendations. The contractor is responsible for removing all water -sensitive soils from the trenches regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction. Testing and Inspection A representative of Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be present at the site during the earthwork activities to confirm that actual subsurface conditions are consistent with the exploratory fieldwork. This activity is an integral part of our services as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction testing and stability of the material. This representative can also verify that the intent of these recommendations is incorporated into the project design and construction. Krazan & Associates, Inc. will not be responsible for grades or staking, since this is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor. Furthermore, Krazan & Associates is not responsible for the contractor's procedures, methods, scheduling or management of the work site. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. LIMITATIONS KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 20 Geotechnical engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil Engineering is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences improves. Although your site was analyzed using the most appropriate current techniques and methods, undoubtedly there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to improvements in the field of geotechnical engineering, physical changes in the site either due to excavation or fill placement, new agency regulations or possible changes in the proposed structure after the time of completion of the soils report may require the soils report to be professionally reviewed. In light of this, the owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report without critical review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that two years be considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report. Foundation and earthwork construction are characterized by the presence of a calculated risk that soil and groundwater conditions have been fully revealed by the original foundation investigation. This risk is derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited sampling of the earth. Our report, design conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those disclosed during our field investigation. The findings and conclusions of this report can be affected by the passage of time, such as seasonal weather conditions, manmade influences, such as construction on or adjacent to the site, natural events such as earthquakes, slope instability, flooding, or groundwater fluctuations. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, the geotechnical engineer should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be made. The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed construction. If the proposed construction is relocated or redesigned, the conclusions in this report may not be valid. The geotechnical engineer should be notified of any changes so that the recommendations can be reviewed and reevaluated. Misinterpretations of this report by other design team members can result in project delays and cost overruns. These risks can be reduced by having Krazan & Associates, Inc. involved with the design teams' meetings and discussions after submitting the report. Krazan & Associates, Inc. should also be retained for reviewing pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret this report. To reduce this, risk Krazan & Associates. Inc. should participate in pre -bid and preconstruction meetings, and provide construction observations during the site work. This report is a geotechnical engineering investigation. The scope of our services did not include any environmental site assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Krazan & Associates, Inc. KA No. 092-22001 Glacier Offices and Warehouse 7509 21211' Street SW Edmonds, WA February 04, 2022 Page No. 21 groundwater or atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands. Any statements or absence of statements, in this report or on any soils log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey engineering judgment regarding potential hazardous and/or toxic assessments. The geotechnical information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation utilizing standard engineering practices and a degree of conservatism deemed proper for this project. It is not warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical developments. We emphasize that this report is valid for this project as outlined above, and should not be used for any other site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. CLOSURE If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (425) 485-5519. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Michael D Rundquist, PE Senior Project Manager MDR 02/04/2022 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Vicinity Map N (Not to Scale) 16TH ST Sw j/ 524�rrrl� t' I Edmonds TOOTH ST SW I Community Coll Central TOOTH ST SW Wasliingto A Univ 202ND ST SW IarH sr sw Cedar w Approximate t 3-Valley a Site Area Z m Seattle `o Heights 208TH Sr SW I � ztOHST Sw l.,rkr w 3 99i a I2THSTSW' - 1 C r` j W z aL q 9STSW zr6rHsrsw 220TH ST SW r 3 C'httsr 3 Luke < � T a 22 E �� dTH S7 SW_ 3 W a sw 3 N Sp ran Pe 226TH PL SW a 3 � 3 —w 3 228THST-Sw S r w x �T1 130TH ST, SW 110 4E�.�� /�- E . k4b f r� 4 ` . w Q�s 3 3 7509 212th St SW, Edmonds, WA Reference: The Vicinity Map is based on the USGS topographic map titled, "Edmonds East Quadrangle - Washington - 7.5-min Series", dated 2017. & ASSOCIATES,INC. Glacier Offices and Warehouse - 7509 212th St SW, Edmonds, WA Date: January 2022 1 Project Number: 092-22001 Drawn By: NG Figure 1 Not to scale Site Plan N (Not to Scale) -------- I _____ Gra_l -------- I Asphalt INF- TP-1 Trash Area I Proposed Outdoor I Storage I (Future Addition) I INF-2 I I Proposed 1-Story Warehouse I Building I Tp_3 I 0 C I I m D L7 ; INF-1 I ; Proposed I 2-Story I I Office , Building I I ; ; ; TP-4 I I ; ; 212th St SW Reference: The site plan is based on the preliminary site plan titled, LEGEND"Glacier Environmental Services New Construction" by TG Architect dated 12/30/21. TP-1 1<1:-az;arl& S S C 1 T E s, 1 N C. Number and Approximate L� L� Location of Test Pit INF-1 Glacier Offices and Warehouse - 7509 212th St SW, Edmonds, WA Number and Approximate "PIT' Locations of Small Scale Date: January 2022 Project Number: 092-22001 -------- Approximate Property Line [Drawn By: NG Figure 2 Not to scale APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Field Investigation The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program. Four (4) test pits and three (3) infiltration test pits were excavated, performed and sampled at the property for the subsurface exploration at this site. The test pits explorations were excavated to depths ranging from approximately 4.0 feet to 11.0 feet below the existing ground surface using a trackhoe excavator provided by the client. Locations of the soil explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. The depths shown on the attached soil logs are from the existing ground surface at the time of the explorations. The soils encountered were logged in the field during the subsurface exploration and, with supplementary laboratory test data, are described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). All samples from the explorations were returned to our laboratory for evaluation. The logs of the soil explorations along with the laboratory test results are presented in this appendix. Laboratory Testing The laboratory testing program was developed primarily to determine the physical characteristics of the soils. Test results were used for soil classification and as criteria for determining the engineering suitability of the subsurface materials encountered. Krazan and Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Soil Classification USCS Soil Classification Major Division Group Description Coarse- Grained Soils Gravel and Gravelly Soils < 50% coarse fraction passes #4 sieve Gravel (with little or no fines) GW Well -Graded Gravel GP Poorly Graded Gravel Gravel (with > 12% fines) GM Silty Gravel GC Clayey Gravel < 50% passes #200 sieve Sand and Sandy Soils > 50% coarse fraction passes #4 sieve Sand (with little or no fines) SW Well -Graded Sand SP PoorlyGraded Sand Sand (with > 12% fines) SM Silty Sand Sc Clayey Sand Fine- Grained Soils Silt and Clay Liquid Limit < 50 MIL Silt CL Lean Clay OL Organic Silt and Clay (Low Plasticity) > 50% passes #200 sieve Silt and Clay Liquid Limit > 50 MH Inorganic Silt CH Inorganic Clay OH Organic Clay and Silt (Med. to High Plasticity) Highly Organic Soils PT Peat Relative Density with Respect to SPT N-Value Coarse -Grained Soils Fine -Grained Soils Density N-Value (Blows/Ft) Density N-Value (Blows/Ft) Very Loose 0-4 Very Soft 0-1 Loose 5 -10 Soft 2-4 Medium Dense 11 - 30 Medium Stiff 5-8 Dense 31 -50 Stiff 9 - 15 Very Dense > 50 Very Stiff 16 - 30 Hard > 30 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITINF.1 KRA z N AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT: Glr ofies&Aareh_se DATE: e/42/22 PROJECT NO:m2- 001PAGE: 1Q1 CONTRACTOR: Glacier Environmental SURFaE ELEV.: -3K' SAMPLE METHomo Grab LOCATION: Edmonds, AA Natural Moisture Content and a!lerbem Limb ¢ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ) mea Moisture bps, F > w ) LU a o m. Content Limit IL Lu § k \ f m y 3 #± Topsoil my _ Gray &y&lylSndwhGmml (9dk L o e)(Un o umeme 9§ 2' Brown slylSand with Gravel and Trace Organics (S9) (9d#Loose to Medium Dense)(Native Weathered Soils) � G a \\\ 4 :_. .__ �®� ---------------- ---- \\\ Gray &lylSand with Gravel (S9) /\\ (9dk Dns)(Nkv Glacial So %) 5 \ <\§ 2 � 6 \\\ 7 \ t\\ 3 G � \\£ g \ _Small Scale ?I2 Depth - 4 G 1O \\\ En ¥ Exploratory Test m! 12 1a Warav ¥AE2 Fier! Water Observaea:Groundwater seepage was not observed. Notes: -- LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT INF- KRA z N AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT: Glr ofies&Aareh_se DATE: e/42/22 PROJECT NO:m2- 001PAGE: 1Q1 CONTRACTOR: Glacier Environmental SURFaE ELEV.: -3K' SAMPLE METHomo Grab LOCATION: Edmonds, AA Natural Moisture Content and a!lerberg Limb ¢ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ) mea Moisture bps, F > w ) LU a o m. Content Limit IL Lu § k \ q m y 3 #k A Topsoil — —-----c- ---- ------ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ma • I I I � Brown &lylSand with Gravel and Trace Organics (S9) G \\{ (9dkLoose to Medium Dns)(NkvWeathered Soils) 2 /A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Olive-Brown Sly! Sand with Gravel and Trace Organics (S9) as a\A (9dkDmm)(N+m Glacial Soils) 2 G 4 \\} 5 \\\ 8 \\\ 7 \\/ a \ /\\ Soil becomes gray. \\} is g G _Small Scale ?I2 Depth - 3 1O \\\ En ¥ Exploratory Test m! 12 1a Warav ¥AE2 Fier! Water Observaea:Groundwater seepage was not observed. Notes: -- LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT INF-3 KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT: Glacier Offices&Warehouse DATE: 01/24/22 PROJECT NO.: 092-22001 PAGE: 1 of 1 CONTRACTOR: Glacier Environmental SURFACE ELEV.: —390' SAMPLE METHOD: Grab LOCATION: Edmonds, WA Natural Moisture Content and Atterberg Limits J m J w J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Z W a Plastic Moisture Liquid _ > _j _j Limit Content Limit m w a a- o? N N 10 30 50 70 t-- -t Topsoil P Dark Yellowish -Brown Sand with Silt, Gravel and Trace Organics (SP-SM) (Moist, Loose to Medium Dense)(Native Weathered Soils) . 9.1 2 1 Small Scale "PIT" Depth - 1 G 2 G Gray Silty � Sand with Gravel SM) (Moist, Dense)(Native Glacial Soils) 4 6 End of Exploratory Test Pit 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Water Level Initial: 0 Final: V Water Observations: Groundwater seepage was not observed. Notes: -- LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT TP-1 KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT: Glacier Offices&Warehouse DATE: 01/24/22 PROJECT NO.: 092-22001 PAGE: 1 of 1 CONTRACTOR: Glacier Environmental SURFACE ELEV.: —390' SAMPLE METHOD: Grab LOCATION: Edmonds, WA Natural Moisture Content and Atterberg Limits J m J w J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Z W a Plastic Moisture Liquid _ > -j -i Limit Content Limit m w a a- o? N N 10 30 50 70 Topsoil -- -- -- -- - - -- -- - - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- " Brown Silty Sand with Gravel and Trace Organics (SM) 1 I. (Moist, Loose to Medium Dense)(Native Weathered Soils) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gray Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) 2 G �;: (Moist, Dense)(Native Glacial Soils) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Exploratory Test Pit 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Water Level Initial: 0 Final: V Water Observations: Groundwater seepage was not observed. Notes: -- LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT TP-2 KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT: Glacier Offices&Warehouse DATE: 01/24/22 PROJECT NO.: 092-22001 PAGE: 1 of 1 CONTRACTOR: Glacier Environmental SURFACE ELEV.: -390' SAMPLE METHOD: Grab LOCATION: Edmonds, WA Natural Moisture Content and Atterberg Limits J m J w W MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Z W a Plastic Moisture Liquid _ > -j -i Limit Content Limit m w a a- o? N N 10 30 50 70 Topsoil and Forest Duff 1 Brown Silty Sand with Gravel and Trace Organics (SM) 1 G (Moist, Loose to Medium Dense)(Native Weathered Soils) 3 Gray Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) 2 G (Moist, Dense)(Native Glacial Soils) End of Exploratory Test Pit 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Water Level Initial: 0 Final: V Water Observations: Groundwater seepage was not observed. Notes: -- LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT TP-3 KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT: Glacier Offices&Warehouse DATE: 01/24/22 PROJECT NO.: 092-22001 PAGE: 1 of 1 CONTRACTOR: Glacier Environmental SURFACE ELEV.: -390' SAMPLE METHOD: Grab LOCATION: Edmonds, WA Natural Moisture Content and Atterberg Limits J m J w J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Z W a Plastic Moisture Liquid _ > -j -i Limit Content Limit m w a a- o? N N 10 30 50 70 Topsoil -- -- -- -- - - -- -- - - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- " Brown Silty Sand with Gravel and Trace Organics (SM) 1 I. (Moist, Loose to Medium Dense)(Native Weathered Soils) 1 G Gray Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) 2 G (Moist, Dense)(Native Glacial Soils) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Exploratory Test Pit 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Water Level Initial: 0 Final: V Water Observations: Groundwater seepage was not observed. Notes: -- LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT TP-4 KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT: Glacier Offices&Warehouse DATE: 01/24/22 PROJECT NO.: 092-22001 PAGE: 1 of 1 CONTRACTOR: Glacier Environmental SURFACE ELEV.: —390' SAMPLE METHOD: Grab LOCATION: Edmonds, WA Natural Moisture Content and Atterberg Limits J m J w J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Z W a Plastic Moisture Liquid _ > -j -i Limit Content Limit m w a a- o? N N 10 30 50 70 Topsoil -- -- -- -- - - -- -- - - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- " Brown Silty Sand with Gravel and Trace Organics (SM) 1 I. (Moist, Loose to Medium Dense)(Native Weathered Soils) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gray Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) 2 G �;: (Moist, Dense)(Native Glacial Soils) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Exploratory Test Pit 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Water Level Initial: 0 Final: V Water Observations: Groundwater seepage was not observed. Notes: -- KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. TEST REPORT (Page 1 of 1) Job Name: Glacier Office & Warehouse Job # : 092-22001 Glacier Enviromental Services, Inc. 1 /25/2022 Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soils by Mass (ASTM D-2216) Sample ID Sample Description Boring / Test Pit Depth Wet & Tare Dry &Tare Tare Results 77382-A Brown silty sand with gravel and trace of organics INF-2 0.5' 1148.0 1059.4 202.9 10.3% 77382-B Olive -brown silty sand with gravel and trace of organics INF-2 3.0' 1265.3 1178.2 174.7 8.7% 77382-C Gray silty sand with gravel INF-2 9.0' 1089.7 1012.1 173.3 9.3% 77382-D Dark yellowish -brown poorly graded sand with silt, gravel and trace of organics INF-3 2.0' 1009.4 942.6 206.3 9.1% Tested By: Cole Demas Checked By: Corbett Mercer (Lab Manager) Revision 3 1 /21 /09 iY W Z Z W U Of W 0- 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Krazan & Associates Sieve Analysis _ o00 T- --F-- T--7-M I i 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm. % +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 6.5 17.1 10.2 17.7 27.8 20.7 Test Results (ASTM C-136 & ASTM C-117) Opening Percent Spec." Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 1.5 100.0 1 95.2 .75 93.5 .5 83.9 .375 79.9 #4 76.4 #10 66.2 #20 57.6 #40 48.5 #60 37.4 #100 28.7 #200 20.7 Material Description Brown silty sand with gravel and trace of organics. Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) PL= NP LL= NV Pl= NP Classification USCS (D 2487)= SM AASHTO (M 145)= A-1-b Coefficients D90= 16.0947 D85= 13.2939 D60= 1.0906 D50= 0.4629 D80= 0.1645 D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Natural Moisture Content (ASTM D-2216): 10.3% Date Received: 1/25/2022 Date Tested: 1/27/2022 Tested By: Cole Demas Checked By: Corbett Mercer Title: Lab Manager (no specification provided) Location: INF-2 Date Sampled: 1/25/2022 Sample Number: 77382-A Depth: 0.5' Client: Glacier Environmental Services, Inc. ALmI Project: Glacier Office & Warehouse IY W Z Z W U IY W d 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Krazan & Associates Sieve Analysis _ o00 I Ell 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm. % +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 10.4 20.3 12.4 17.0 25.7 14.2 Test Results (ASTM C-136 & ASTM C-117) Opening Percent Spec." Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 1.5 100.0 1.25 92.6 1 89.6 .75 89.6 .5 81.8 .375 79.0 .25 73.9 #4 69.3 #10 56.9 #20 48.8 #40 39.9 #60 29.0 #100 20.9 #200 14.2 Material Description Olive -brown silty sand with gravel and trace of organics. Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) PL= NP LL= NV PI= NP Classification USCS (D 2487)= SM AASHTO (M 145)= A-1-b Coefficients D90= 27.5511 D85= 14.8273 D60= 2.5632 D50= 0.9679 D80= 0.2629 D15= 0.0822 D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Natural Moisture Content (ASTM D-2216): 8.7% Date Received: 1/25/2022 Date Tested: 1/27/2022 Tested By: Cole Demas Checked By: Corbett Mercer Title: Lab Manager (no specification provided) Location: INF-2 Date Sampled: 1/25/2022 Sample Number: 77382-B Depth: 3.0' Client: Glacier Environmental Services, Inc. Project: Glacier Office & Warehouse IY W Z Z W U IY W d 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Krazan & Associates Sieve Analysis _ o00 f0 M N n \ M # # # # # # # # # i i i i 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm. % +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 1.5 16.9 1 6.7 19.3 37.5 18.1 Test Results (ASTM C-136 & ASTM C-117) Opening Percent Spec." Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 1 100.0 .75 98.5 .5 91.3 .375 88.8 .25 84.1 #4 81.6 #10 74.9 #20 67.1 #40 55.6 #60 40.0 #100 27.7 #200 18.1 Material Description Gray silty sand with gravel Atterbera Limits (ASTM D 4318 PL= NP LL= NV PI= NP Classification USCS (D 2487)= SM AASHTO (M 145)= A-2-4(0) Coefficients D90= 11.1440 D85= 6.8454 D60= 0.5200 D50= 0.3478 D30= 0.1684 D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Natural Moisture Content (ASTM D-2216): 9.3% Organic Content of Soils (ASTM D-2974): 0.6% Date Received: 1/25/2022 Date Tested: 1/28/2022 Tested By: Cole Demas Checked By: Corbett Mercer Title: Lab Manager (no specification provided) Location: INF-2 Date Sampled: 1/25/2022 Sample Number: 77382-C Depth: 9.0' Client: Glacier Environmental Services, Inc. Project: Glacier Office & Warehouse iY W Z Z W U Of W d 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Krazan & Associates Sieve Analysis _ o00 __T f0 M N n \ M # # # # # # # # # i 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm. % +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 14.8 19.6 7.4 16.1 30.1 12.0 Test Results (ASTM C-136 & ASTM C-117) Opening Percent Spec." Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 1.5 100.0 1 94.6 .75 85.2 .5 77.2 .375 73.5 .25 69.1 #4 65.6 #10 58.2 #20 51.3 #40 42.1 #60 29.0 #100 19.1 #200 12.0 Material Description Dark yellowish -brown poorly graded sand with silt, gravel and trace of organics Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) PL= NP LL= NV Pl= NP Classification USCS (D 2487)= SP-SM AASHTO (M 145)= A-1-b Coefficients D90= 21.9789 D85= 18.9524 D60= 2.5675 D50= 0.7415 D80= 0.2603 D15= 0.1061 D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Natural Moisture Content (ASTM D-2216): 9.1% Organic Content of Soils (ASTM D-2974): 2.4% Date Received: 1/25/2022 Date Tested: 1/28/2022 Tested By: Cole Demas Checked By: Corbett Mercer Title: Lab Manager (no specification provided) Location: INF-3 Date Sampled: 1/25/2022 Sample Number: 77382-D Depth: 2.0' Client: Glacier Environmental Services, Inc. Project: Glacier Office & Warehouse Report Date: February 3, 2022 Report No: 84664 Client: Krazan & Associates, Inc. Sampler: Corbett Mercer Project: Glacier Office Field: P.N.: 092-22001 - 2022 Control Samples Sampled: 1 /25/2022 L� KUOTESTING LABS A Matrix Sciences Company SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT Lab # Depth Field Sample CEC Inches ID ID Meq/ Start End 1000 9451 9452 77382-C (INF-2 @ 9') 77382-D (INF-3 @ 2') Main Office: 119 E Main St., Othello, WA 99344 Oregon Office: 1300 Sixth St., Suite J, Umatilla, OR 97882 Pasco Office: 1320 E Spokane St., Pasco, WA 99301 to (509) 488-0112 ® info@kuotestinglabs.com 2.2 5.5 APPENDIX B EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the recommendations in the report have precedence. SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including but not limited to the furnishing of all labor, tools, and equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the lines and grades shown on the project grading plans, and disposal of excess materials. PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and tested by a representative of Krazan and Associates, Inc., hereinafter known as the Geotechnical Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades when achieved shall be certified to by the project Civil Engineer. Both the Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer are the Owner's representatives. If the contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary readjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer. No deviation from these specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Geotechnical Engineer, Civil Engineer or project Architect. No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Geotechnical Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Geotechnical Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork. The Contractor agrees that he shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the Owner of the Engineers. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be densified to a density not less than 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557 as specified in the technical portion of the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The results of these tests and compliance with these specifications shall be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by the Geotechnical Engineer. SOIL AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the soil report. The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in said report, and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability under the contractor for any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work. Krazan and Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off -site if caused by the Contractor's operation either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including Court costs of codefendants, for all claims related to dust or windblown materials attributable to his work. SITE PREPARATION Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grabbing and preparations of foundation materials for receiving fill. CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter, and all other matter determined by the Geotechnical Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site. Tree root systems in proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to such an extent which would permit removal of all roots larger than 1 inch. Tree root removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper P/2 feet of the ground surface. Backfill or tree root excavation should not be permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Geotechnical Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas, which are to receive fill materials, shall not be permitted. SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Structural fill shall be prepared as outlined above, excavated/scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture -conditioned as necessary, and compacted to 95 percent compaction. Loose and/or areas of disturbed soils shall be moisture conditioned and compacted to 95 percent compaction. All ruts, hummocks, or other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill material. All areas which are to receive fill materials shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of any of the fill material. EXCAVATION: All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over excavation below the grades specified shall be backfilled at the Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable technical requirements. FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shall be moved or compacted without the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for construction site fills provided prior approval is given by the Geotechnical Engineer. All materials utilized for constructing site fills shall be free from vegetable or other deleterious matter as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. However, compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Geotechnical Engineer. Both cut and fill shall be surface compacted to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer prior to final acceptance. Krazan and Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Geotechnical Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed fill are as specified. Krazan and Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Appendix C Page C. APPENDIX C PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS 1. DEFINITIONS — The term "pavement' shall include asphalt concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base, or subbase is to be placed. 2. SCOPE OF WORK — This portion of the work shall include all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary for and reasonable incidental to the completion of the pavement shown on the plans and as herein specified, except work specifically noted as "Work Not Included." 3. PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE — The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the plans and as per the pavement design section of this report. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a minimum compaction of 95% of maximum dry density as determined by test method ASTM D1557. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement of additional pavement courses. 4. AGGREGATE BASE — The aggregate base shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base should conform to WSDOT Standard Specification for Crushed Surfacing Base Course or Top Course (Item 9-03.9(3)). The base material shall be compacted to a minimum compaction of 95% as determined by ASTM D1557. Each layer of subbase shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. 5. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACING — Asphaltic concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at central mixing plant and spread and compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall conform to WSDOT Specifications. The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall conform to WSDOT Specifications, with the exception that no surface course shall be placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with combination steel - wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in WSDOT Specifications. The surface course shall be placed with an approved self-propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine. 6. TACK COAT — The tack (mixing type asphaltic emulsion) shall conform to and be applied in accordance with the requirements of WSDOT Specifications. Krazan and Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Draft —Issued for Agency Review APPENDIX C STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MODELING REPORT TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT 212' Street Site Redevelopment Edmonds, Washington Farallon PN: 416-018 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater Tndocx WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT General Model Information Project Name: Glacier-001 Site Name: Glacier 212th Street Redevelopment Site Address: 7509 212th Street Southwest City: Edmonds Report Date: 2/8/2022 Gage: Everett Data Start: 1948/10/01 Data End: 2009/09/30 Timestep: 15 Minute Precip Scale: 1.000 Version Date: 2021 /07/23 Version: 4.2.18 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Year Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:41:39 AM Page 2 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use 7509-212th-Pre-Developed Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat 0.762 C, Forest, Mod 0.106 Pervious Total 0.868 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 0.868 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:41:39 AM Page 3 Mitigated Land Use 7509-212th-Developed Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat 0.098 C, Lawn, Flat 0.152 Pervious Total 0.25 Impervious Land Use acre ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.147 DRIVEWAYS FLAT 0.472 Impervious Total 0.619 Basin Total 0.869 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow StormTech 1 Groundwater Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:41:39 AM Page 4 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:41:39 AM Page 5 Mitigated Routing StormTech 1 Chamber Model: 3500 Dimensions Max Row Length: 200 Number of Chambers: 57 Number of Endcaps: 6 Top Stone Depth: 12 Bottom Stone Depth: 9 Infiltration On Infiltration rate: 0.2 Infiltration safety factor: 0.5 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): 61.941 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 34.667 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): 96.608 Percent Infiltrated: 64.12 Total Precip Applied to Facility: 0 Total Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 3.5 ft. Riser Diameter: 18 in. Orifice 1 Diameter: 0.5 in. Elevation:0 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 StormTech Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0833 0.068 0.002 0.002 0.006 0.1667 0.068 0.004 0.002 0.006 0.2500 0.068 0.006 0.003 0.006 0.3333 0.068 0.009 0.003 0.006 0.4167 0.068 0.011 0.004 0.006 0.5000 0.068 0.013 0.004 0.006 0.5833 0.068 0.016 0.005 0.006 0.6667 0.068 0.018 0.005 0.006 0.7500 0.068 0.020 0.005 0.006 0.8333 0.068 0.025 0.006 0.006 0.9167 0.068 0.030 0.006 0.006 1.0000 0.068 0.035 0.006 0.006 1.0833 0.068 0.040 0.007 0.006 1.1667 0.068 0.045 0.007 0.006 1.2500 0.068 0.050 0.007 0.006 1.3333 0.068 0.055 0.007 0.006 1.4167 0.068 0.060 0.008 0.006 1.5000 0.068 0.065 0.008 0.006 1.5833 0.068 0.070 0.008 0.006 1.6667 0.068 0.075 0.008 0.006 1.7500 0.068 0.080 0.009 0.006 1.8333 0.068 0.085 0.009 0.006 1.9167 0.068 0.089 0.009 0.006 2.0000 0.068 0.094 0.009 0.006 2.0833 0.068 0.099 0.009 0.006 2.1667 0.068 0.104 0.010 0.006 Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:41:39 AM Page 6 2.2500 0.068 0.108 0.010 0.006 2.3333 0.068 0.113 0.010 0.006 2.4167 0.068 0.118 0.010 0.006 2.5000 0.068 0.122 0.010 0.006 2.5833 0.068 0.127 0.010 0.006 2.6667 0.068 0.131 0.011 0.006 2.7500 0.068 0.136 0.011 0.006 2.8333 0.068 0.140 0.011 0.006 2.9167 0.068 0.144 0.011 0.006 3.0000 0.068 0.149 0.011 0.006 3.0833 0.068 0.153 0.011 0.006 3.1667 0.068 0.157 0.012 0.006 3.2500 0.068 0.161 0.012 0.006 3.3333 0.068 0.165 0.012 0.006 3.4167 0.068 0.169 0.012 0.006 3.5000 0.068 0.173 0.012 0.006 3.5833 0.068 0.177 0.395 0.006 3.6667 0.068 0.181 1.087 0.006 3.7500 0.068 0.184 1.951 0.006 3.8333 0.068 0.188 2.895 0.006 3.9167 0.068 0.191 3.826 0.006 4.0000 0.068 0.195 4.652 0.006 4.0833 0.068 0.198 5.307 0.006 4.1667 0.068 0.201 5.768 0.006 4.2500 0.068 0.203 6.085 0.006 4.3333 0.068 0.206 6.483 0.006 4.4167 0.068 0.208 6.799 0.006 4.5000 0.068 0.210 7.101 0.006 4.5833 0.068 0.213 7.390 0.006 4.6667 0.068 0.215 7.669 0.000 4.7500 0.068 0.217 7.937 0.000 4.8333 0.068 0.220 8.197 0.000 4.9167 0.068 0.222 8.449 0.000 5.0000 0.068 0.224 8.694 0.000 5.0833 0.068 0.227 8.932 0.000 5.1667 0.068 0.229 9.164 0.000 5.2500 0.068 0.231 9.390 0.000 5.3333 0.068 0.233 9.611 0.000 5.4167 0.068 0.236 9.826 0.000 5.5000 0.068 0.238 10.03 0.000 Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:41:39 AM Page 7 Analysis Results POC 1 u 3 0 J IL IN Percer�t Time Exceeding + Predeveloped Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 0.868 Total Impervious Area: 0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 0.25 Total Impervious Area: 0.619 5 05 1 2 5 10 00 A W /0 K h YS ei W 04 100 x Mitigated Flow Frequency Method: Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.018714 5 year 0.027794 10 year 0.034026 25 year 0.042079 50 year 0.04818 100 year 0.054355 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.009277 5 year 0.016245 10 year 0.022451 25 year 0.032472 50 year 0.04177 100 year 0.052868 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.011 0.008 1950 0.021 0.008 1951 0.017 0.008 1952 0.013 0.007 1953 0.011 0.007 1954 0.043 0.009 1955 0.028 0.009 1956 0.025 0.010 1957 0.027 0.010 1958 0.019 0.008 Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:41:39 AM Page 8 1959 0.020 0.009 1960 0.018 0.009 1961 0.018 0.009 1962 0.016 0.009 1963 0.020 0.008 1964 0.016 0.008 1965 0.018 0.008 1966 0.010 0.008 1967 0.023 0.008 1968 0.027 0.010 1969 0.021 0.008 1970 0.015 0.008 1971 0.021 0.009 1972 0.018 0.009 1973 0.015 0.008 1974 0.026 0.008 1975 0.015 0.008 1976 0.014 0.009 1977 0.012 0.008 1978 0.015 0.007 1979 0.027 0.009 1980 0.016 0.008 1981 0.013 0.008 1982 0.018 0.010 1983 0.026 0.008 1984 0.018 0.009 1985 0.024 0.009 1986 0.060 0.066 1987 0.026 0.011 1988 0.015 0.009 1989 0.013 0.007 1990 0.019 0.009 1991 0.020 0.009 1992 0.016 0.008 1993 0.010 0.008 1994 0.010 0.008 1995 0.020 0.010 1996 0.034 0.010 1997 0.066 0.305 1998 0.012 0.007 1999 0.018 0.009 2000 0.010 0.010 2001 0.003 0.007 2002 0.019 0.008 2003 0.014 0.008 2004 0.022 0.011 2005 0.016 0.008 2006 0.038 0.010 2007 0.032 0.008 2008 0.050 0.124 2009 0.016 0.008 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.0656 0.3047 2 0.0598 0.1244 3 0.0498 0.0656 Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:06 AM Page 9 4 0.0429 0.0108 5 0.0380 0.0107 6 0.0344 0.0105 7 0.0320 0.0103 8 0.0280 0.0102 9 0.0274 0.0099 10 0.0269 0.0099 11 0.0266 0.0098 12 0.0265 0.0097 13 0.0263 0.0096 14 0.0255 0.0094 15 0.0247 0.0093 16 0.0244 0.0093 17 0.0227 0.0093 18 0.0215 0.0092 19 0.0208 0.0091 20 0.0207 0.0090 21 0.0206 0.0089 22 0.0205 0.0089 23 0.0200 0.0089 24 0.0199 0.0089 25 0.0196 0.0088 26 0.0193 0.0086 27 0.0188 0.0086 28 0.0187 0.0085 29 0.0185 0.0085 30 0.0184 0.0085 31 0.0183 0.0084 32 0.0181 0.0084 33 0.0179 0.0083 34 0.0177 0.0083 35 0.0176 0.0083 36 0.0169 0.0083 37 0.0164 0.0083 38 0.0164 0.0083 39 0.0161 0.0083 40 0.0158 0.0083 41 0.0156 0.0083 42 0.0156 0.0082 43 0.0146 0.0082 44 0.0146 0.0081 45 0.0146 0.0081 46 0.0145 0.0081 47 0.0145 0.0081 48 0.0139 0.0081 49 0.0137 0.0080 50 0.0134 0.0080 51 0.0132 0.0080 52 0.0126 0.0076 53 0.0124 0.0076 54 0.0117 0.0076 55 0.0109 0.0076 56 0.0105 0.0074 57 0.0102 0.0074 58 0.0101 0.0070 59 0.0098 0.0069 60 0.0095 0.0067 61 0.0032 0.0065 Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:06 AM Page 10 Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:06 AM Page 11 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0094 22351 2438 10 Pass 0.0097 20221 1700 8 Pass 0.0101 18249 1201 6 Pass 0.0105 16486 906 5 Pass 0.0109 14867 713 4 Pass 0.0113 13434 610 4 Pass 0.0117 12204 512 4 Pass 0.0121 11030 358 3 Pass 0.0125 9954 210 2 Pass 0.0129 9067 108 1 Pass 0.0133 8237 108 1 Pass 0.0137 7433 105 1 Pass 0.0141 6729 104 1 Pass 0.0145 6126 102 1 Pass 0.0148 5587 101 1 Pass 0.0152 5127 100 1 Pass 0.0156 4682 98 2 Pass 0.0160 4299 96 2 Pass 0.0164 3927 94 2 Pass 0.0168 3557 94 2 Pass 0.0172 3223 93 2 Pass 0.0176 2915 92 3 Pass 0.0180 2624 91 3 Pass 0.0184 2406 90 3 Pass 0.0188 2203 90 4 Pass 0.0192 2019 89 4 Pass 0.0196 1875 87 4 Pass 0.0199 1752 87 4 Pass 0.0203 1638 87 5 Pass 0.0207 1526 85 5 Pass 0.0211 1429 84 5 Pass 0.0215 1354 83 6 Pass 0.0219 1286 82 6 Pass 0.0223 1218 81 6 Pass 0.0227 1154 81 7 Pass 0.0231 1100 80 7 Pass 0.0235 1038 80 7 Pass 0.0239 971 79 8 Pass 0.0243 925 77 8 Pass 0.0247 884 76 8 Pass 0.0250 852 76 8 Pass 0.0254 819 76 9 Pass 0.0258 778 73 9 Pass 0.0262 741 72 9 Pass 0.0266 707 72 10 Pass 0.0270 679 72 10 Pass 0.0274 657 72 10 Pass 0.0278 639 71 11 Pass 0.0282 622 70 11 Pass 0.0286 606 69 11 Pass 0.0290 588 69 11 Pass 0.0294 573 68 11 Pass 0.0297 560 68 12 Pass Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:06 AM Page 12 0.0301 551 68 12 Pass 0.0305 540 67 12 Pass 0.0309 523 66 12 Pass 0.0313 510 65 12 Pass 0.0317 497 63 12 Pass 0.0321 471 63 13 Pass 0.0325 457 63 13 Pass 0.0329 447 63 14 Pass 0.0333 438 63 14 Pass 0.0337 425 63 14 Pass 0.0341 417 63 15 Pass 0.0345 403 63 15 Pass 0.0348 392 63 16 Pass 0.0352 386 63 16 Pass 0.0356 369 63 17 Pass 0.0360 361 63 17 Pass 0.0364 353 63 17 Pass 0.0368 346 63 18 Pass 0.0372 337 63 18 Pass 0.0376 327 63 19 Pass 0.0380 315 63 20 Pass 0.0384 310 63 20 Pass 0.0388 303 62 20 Pass 0.0392 298 61 20 Pass 0.0396 295 61 20 Pass 0.0399 286 61 21 Pass 0.0403 281 61 21 Pass 0.0407 271 60 22 Pass 0.0411 266 60 22 Pass 0.0415 258 58 22 Pass 0.0419 251 58 23 Pass 0.0423 244 56 22 Pass 0.0427 237 56 23 Pass 0.0431 229 55 24 Pass 0.0435 221 54 24 Pass 0.0439 208 54 25 Pass 0.0443 203 54 26 Pass 0.0447 195 54 27 Pass 0.0450 191 54 28 Pass 0.0454 187 54 28 Pass 0.0458 180 54 30 Pass 0.0462 173 53 30 Pass 0.0466 166 53 31 Pass 0.0470 161 53 32 Pass 0.0474 155 53 34 Pass 0.0478 148 53 35 Pass 0.0482 141 53 37 Pass Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:06 AM Page 13 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0.0146 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.0075 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0075 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.0053 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0053 cfs. Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:06 AM Page 14 LID Report LID Technique Used for Total Volume Volume Infiltration Cumulative Percent Water Quality Percent Comment Treatment? Needs Through volume Volume Volume A"aterQuality Treatment Facility (ac-ft) Infiltration Infiltrated Treated ac-ft) ac-ft) Credit StormTech 1 POC ❑ 87.91 ❑ 6412 Total Volume Infiltrated 8791 0 00 0.00 64 12 0.00 0% Ho Treat. Credit Duration Compliance with LID Analysis Standard 8% of 2-yr to 50% of Result= 2 yr Passed Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:06 AM Page 15 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:14 AM Page 16 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:14 AM Page 17 Mitigated Schematic Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:15 AM Page 18 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> END FILES OPN SEQUENCE 2009 09 30 UNIT SYSTEM 1 <-----------File Name ------------------------------>*** *** INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 10 PERLND 11 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<---------- Title ----------- >***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 1 7509-212th-Pre-Developed MAX END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 2 30 9 <PLS ><------- Name ------- >NBLKS Unit -systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 10 C, Forest, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 11 C, Forest, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:15 AM Page 19 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 11 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 10 0 4.5 0.08 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 11 0 4.5 0.08 400 0.1 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 10 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 11 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 10 0.2 0.5 0.35 6 0.5 0.7 11 0.2 0.5 0.35 6 0.5 0.7 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 10 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATEI END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><------- Name ------- > Unit -systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <ILS > ******** Print -flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* END PRINT -INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:15 AM Page 20 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS END IWAT-STATEI END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <Name> # 7509-212th-Pre-Developed*** PERLND 10 PERLND 10 PERLND 11 PERLND 11 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# 0.762 COPY 501 12 0.762 COPY 501 13 0.106 COPY 501 12 0.106 COPY 501 13 NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------ >< --- > User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT -INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC Al A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------ ><-------- ><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><-------- > <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:15 AM Page 21 SPEC -ACTIONS END SPEC -ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS -LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> MASS -LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 END MASS -LINK 12 MASS -LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO END MASS -LINK 13 END MASS -LINK END RUN 0.083333 <Target> <Name> COPY COPY <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> # #*** INPUT MEAN INPUT MEAN Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:15 AM Page 22 Mitigated UC/ File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> END FILES OPN SEQUENCE 2009 09 30 UNIT SYSTEM 1 <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** *** INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 10 PERLND 16 IMPLND 4 IMPLND 5 RCHRES 1 COPY 1 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<---------- Title ----------- >***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 1 StormTech 1 MAX END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 2 30 9 <PLS ><------- Name ------- >NBLKS Unit -systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 10 C, Forest, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 16 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:15 AM Page 23 PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 10 0 4.5 0.08 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 16 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 10 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 16 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 10 0.2 0.5 0.35 6 0.5 0.7 16 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 10 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATEI 1211IBM an 411,101 IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><------- Name ------- > 4 ROOF TOPS/FLAT 5 DRIVEWAYS/FLAT END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** Unit -systems Printer *** User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 1 1 27 0 1 1 1 27 0 ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <ILS > ******** Print -flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO IWAT-PARMl Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:15 AM Page 24 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 4 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 5 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 4 0 0 5 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 4 0 0 5 0 0 END IWAT-STATEI END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# 7509-212th-Developed*** PERLND 10 0.098 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 16 0.152 RCHRES 1 2 IMPLND 4 0.147 RCHRES 1 5 IMPLND 5 0.472 RCHRES 1 5 ******Routing****** PERLND 10 0.098 COPY 1 12 PERLND 16 0.152 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 4 0.147 COPY 1 15 IMPLND 5 0.472 COPY 1 15 RCHRES 1 1 COPY 501 17 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------ >< --- > User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** 1 StormTech 1 2 1 1 1 28 0 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:15 AM Page 25 END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC Al A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 1 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------ ><-------- >< -------- ><-------- >< -------- ><-------- ><-------- > *** 1 1 0.04 0.0 3.0 0.5 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><-------- > <--- ><--- ><--- >< --- ><---> *** <--- ><--- ><--- ><--- ><---> 1 0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC -ACTIONS END SPEC -ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 1 66 5 Depth Area Volume Outflowl Outflow2 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.069528 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.083333 0.069528 0.002317 0.001958 0.007011 0.166667 0.069528 0.004635 0.002770 0.007011 0.250000 0.069528 0.006952 0.003392 0.007011 0.333333 0.069528 0.009270 0.003917 0.007011 0.416667 0.069528 0.011588 0.004379 0.007011 0.500000 0.069528 0.013905 0.004797 0.007011 0.583333 0.069528 0.016223 0.005182 0.007011 0.666667 0.069528 0.018540 0.005539 0.007011 0.750000 0.069528 0.020858 0.005875 0.007011 0.833333 0.069528 0.025977 0.006193 0.007011 0.916667 0.069528 0.031071 0.006495 0.007011 1.000000 0.069528 0.036149 0.006784 0.007011 1.083333 0.069528 0.041210 0.007061 0.007011 1.166667 0.069528 0.046253 0.007328 0.007011 1.250000 0.069528 0.051275 0.007585 0.007011 1.333333 0.069528 0.056285 0.007834 0.007011 1.416667 0.069528 0.061269 0.008075 0.007011 1.500000 0.069528 0.066234 0.008309 0.007011 1.583333 0.069528 0.071175 0.008537 0.007011 1.666667 0.069528 0.076094 0.008758 0.007011 1.750000 0.069528 0.080988 0.008975 0.007011 1.833333 0.069528 0.085856 0.009186 0.007011 1.916667 0.069528 0.090698 0.009392 0.007011 2.000000 0.069528 0.095510 0.009594 0.007011 2.083333 0.069528 0.100294 0.009792 0.007011 2.166667 0.069528 0.105044 0.009986 0.007011 2.250000 0.069528 0.109761 0.010176 0.007011 2.333333 0.069528 0.114444 0.010363 0.007011 2.416667 0.069528 0.119090 0.010546 0.007011 2.500000 0.069528 0.123698 0.010727 0.007011 2.583333 0.069528 0.128263 0.010904 0.007011 2.666667 0.069528 0.132786 0.011079 0.007011 Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:15 AM Page 26 2.750000 0.069528 0.137265 0.011250 0.007011 2.833333 0.069528 0.141695 0.011420 0.007011 2.916667 0.069528 0.146076 0.011586 0.007011 3.000000 0.069528 0.150404 0.011751 0.007011 3.083333 0.069528 0.154674 0.011913 0.007011 3.166667 0.069528 0.158888 0.012073 0.007011 3.250000 0.069528 0.163040 0.012230 0.007011 3.333333 0.069528 0.167127 0.012386 0.007011 3.416667 0.069528 0.171135 0.012540 0.007011 3.500000 0.069528 0.175075 0.012692 0.007011 3.583333 0.069528 0.178932 0.395134 0.007011 3.666667 0.069528 0.182701 1.087260 0.007011 3.750000 0.069528 0.186368 1.951567 0.007011 3.833333 0.069528 0.189935 2.895802 0.007011 3.916667 0.069528 0.193381 3.826046 0.007011 4.000000 0.069528 0.196690 4.652660 0.007011 4.083333 0.069528 0.199818 5.307652 0.007011 4.166667 0.069528 0.202682 5.768343 0.007011 4.250000 0.069528 0.205322 6.085663 0.007011 4.333333 0.069528 0.207873 6.483335 0.007011 4.416667 0.069528 0.210345 6.799225 0.007011 4.500000 0.069528 0.212709 7.101059 0.007011 4.583333 0.069528 0.215104 7.390562 0.007011 4.666667 0.069528 0.217421 7.669131 0.000000 4.750000 0.069528 0.219740 7.937921 0.000000 4.833333 0.069528 0.222057 8.197894 0.000000 4.916667 0.069528 0.224374 8.449864 0.000000 5.000000 0.069528 0.226692 8.694530 0.000000 5.083333 0.069528 0.229009 8.932490 0.000000 5.166667 0.069528 0.231327 9.164269 0.000000 5.250000 0.069528 0.233644 9.390325 0.000000 5.333333 0.069528 0.235962 9.611061 0.000000 5.416667 0.069528 0.238279 9.826836 0.000000 END FTABLE 1 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** RCHRES 1 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1000 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR 0 1 1 1 WDM 1001 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR 0 2 1 1 WDM 1002 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1003 STAG ENGL REPL COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS -LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <Name> MASS -LINK PERLND PWATER END MASS -LINK <-Member-><--Mult--> <Name> # #<-factor-> 2 SURO 0.083333 2 MASS -LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO END MASS -LINK 5 MASS -LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO <Target> <Name> RCHRES 0.083333 RCHRES 0.083333 COPY <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> # #*** INFLOW IVOL INFLOW IVOL INPUT MEAN Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:15 AM Page 27 END MASS -LINK 12 MASS -LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO END MASS -LINK 15 MASS -LINK 17 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL END MASS -LINK 17 END MASS -LINK END RUN 0.083333 COPY COPY INPUT MEAN INPUT MEAN Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:15 AM Page 28 Predeveloped HSPF Message File Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:15 AM Page 29 Mitigated HSPF Message File Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:15 AM Page 30 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as -is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by: Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2022; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com Glacier-001 2/8/2022 9:42:15 AM Page 31 WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT General Model Information Project Name: Glacier-Ex-&-TESC Site Name: Glacier 212th Street Redevelopment Site Address: 7509 212th Street Southwest City: Edmonds Report Date: 2/6/2022 Gage: Everett Data Start: 1948/10/01 Data End: 2009/09/30 Timestep: 15 Minute Precip Scale: 1.000 Version Date: 2021 /07/23 Version: 4.2.18 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Year Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:09 PM Page 2 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use 7509-212th-Existing Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat 0.098 C, Lawn, Flat 0.516 Pervious Total 0.614 Impervious Land Use acre ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.059 DRIVEWAYS FLAT 0.195 Impervious Total 0.254 Basin Total 0.868 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:09 PM Page 3 Mitigated Land Use 7509-212th-TESC Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat 0.098 C, Lawn, Flat 0.77 Pervious Total 0.868 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 0.868 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:09 PM Page 4 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:09 PM Page 5 Mitigated Routing Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:09 PM Page 6 Analysis Results POC 1 0.35 3 0.26 0 IL 0.16 0.07 10E-5 10E-4 10E.3 E 10E-2 10E-1 1 1i, An Percent Time Exceeding + Predeveloped Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area- 0.614 Total Impervious Area- 0.254 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area- 0.868 Total Impervious Area- 0 x Mitigated Flow Frequency Method- Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.144504 5 year 0.218497 10 year 0.277433 25 year 0.364286 50 year 0.438684 100 year 0.522006 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.055064 5 year 0.118137 10 year 0.168472 25 year 0.238263 50 year 0.29306 100 year 0.349186 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.185 0.105 1950 0.208 0.106 1951 0.126 0.037 1952 0.134 0.052 1953 0.171 0.065 1954 0.301 0.192 1955 0.198 0.109 1956 0.076 0.029 1957 0.179 0.096 1958 0.414 0.252 Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:09 PM Page 7 1959 0.123 0.046 1960 0.151 0.079 1961 0.638 0.475 1962 0.131 0.053 1963 0.249 0.152 1964 0.106 0.066 1965 0.088 0.004 1966 0.093 0.019 1967 0.224 0.053 1968 0.145 0.059 1969 0.434 0.316 1970 0.104 0.037 1971 0.184 0.088 1972 0.249 0.133 1973 0.181 0.074 1974 0.219 0.092 1975 0.185 0.090 1976 0.107 0.043 1977 0.094 0.010 1978 0.080 0.021 1979 0.249 0.160 1980 0.111 0.052 1981 0.103 0.024 1982 0.093 0.025 1983 0.177 0.088 1984 0.128 0.050 1985 0.160 0.073 1986 0.240 0.141 1987 0.165 0.042 1988 0.121 0.030 1989 0.163 0.080 1990 0.098 0.031 1991 0.104 0.021 1992 0.141 0.063 1993 0.098 0.026 1994 0.086 0.029 1995 0.090 0.031 1996 0.156 0.061 1997 0.263 0.146 1998 0.207 0.099 1999 0.081 0.010 2000 0.255 0.058 2001 0.079 0.004 2002 0.075 0.005 2003 0.101 0.009 2004 0.259 0.096 2005 0.107 0.022 2006 0.200 0.124 2007 0.178 0.084 2008 0.124 0.027 2009 0.116 0.027 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.6379 0.4754 2 0.4338 0.3161 3 0.4142 0.2523 Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:36 PM Page 8 4 0.3010 0.1922 5 0.2632 0.1602 6 0.2588 0.1525 7 0.2546 0.1463 8 0.2489 0.1410 9 0.2487 0.1333 10 0.2487 0.1238 11 0.2399 0.1087 12 0.2240 0.1056 13 0.2189 0.1048 14 0.2080 0.0992 15 0.2066 0.0957 16 0.2003 0.0956 17 0.1981 0.0924 18 0.1851 0.0896 19 0.1846 0.0882 20 0.1837 0.0881 21 0.1805 0.0836 22 0.1794 0.0801 23 0.1776 0.0788 24 0.1771 0.0743 25 0.1707 0.0727 26 0.1648 0.0659 27 0.1635 0.0653 28 0.1604 0.0628 29 0.1563 0.0613 30 0.1507 0.0590 31 0.1454 0.0575 32 0.1411 0.0526 33 0.1342 0.0526 34 0.1310 0.0525 35 0.1281 0.0522 36 0.1264 0.0504 37 0.1243 0.0456 38 0.1231 0.0432 39 0.1214 0.0423 40 0.1159 0.0372 41 0.1109 0.0369 42 0.1075 0.0312 43 0.1069 0.0307 44 0.1057 0.0301 45 0.1037 0.0291 46 0.1036 0.0285 47 0.1026 0.0271 48 0.1006 0.0265 49 0.0983 0.0259 50 0.0975 0.0251 51 0.0940 0.0242 52 0.0934 0.0225 53 0.0928 0.0212 54 0.0895 0.0207 55 0.0883 0.0189 56 0.0856 0.0102 57 0.0809 0.0102 58 0.0799 0.0093 59 0.0787 0.0051 60 0.0763 0.0041 61 0.0749 0.0036 Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:36 PM Page 9 Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:36 PM Page 10 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0723 920 63 6 Pass 0.0760 800 60 7 Pass 0.0797 677 54 7 Pass 0.0834 567 52 9 Pass 0.0871 500 45 9 Pass 0.0908 443 38 8 Pass 0.0945 380 36 9 Pass 0.0982 328 34 10 Pass 0.1019 291 32 10 Pass 0.1056 246 30 12 Pass 0.1093 221 27 12 Pass 0.1130 202 25 12 Pass 0.1167 185 25 13 Pass 0.1204 167 23 13 Pass 0.1241 147 19 12 Pass 0.1278 135 17 12 Pass 0.1315 124 16 12 Pass 0.1352 116 14 12 Pass 0.1389 109 13 11 Pass 0.1426 97 11 11 Pass 0.1463 90 10 11 Pass 0.1500 88 8 9 Pass 0.1537 79 6 7 Pass 0.1574 76 6 7 Pass 0.1611 71 5 7 Pass 0.1648 69 5 7 Pass 0.1685 65 5 7 Pass 0.1722 61 5 8 Pass 0.1759 58 5 8 Pass 0.1796 51 5 9 Pass 0.1833 46 5 10 Pass 0.1870 40 5 12 Pass 0.1907 38 5 13 Pass 0.1944 36 4 11 Pass 0.1981 36 4 11 Pass 0.2018 32 4 12 Pass 0.2055 29 4 13 Pass 0.2092 27 4 14 Pass 0.2129 27 4 14 Pass 0.2166 27 4 14 Pass 0.2203 24 4 16 Pass 0.2240 20 4 20 Pass 0.2277 19 4 21 Pass 0.2314 19 4 21 Pass 0.2351 18 4 22 Pass 0.2388 18 4 22 Pass 0.2425 12 4 33 Pass 0.2462 11 4 36 Pass 0.2499 8 4 50 Pass 0.2536 8 3 37 Pass 0.2573 7 3 42 Pass 0.2610 6 3 50 Pass 0.2647 5 3 60 Pass Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:36 PM Page 11 0.2684 5 3 60 Pass 0.2721 5 3 60 Pass 0.2758 5 3 60 Pass 0.2795 5 3 60 Pass 0.2832 5 3 60 Pass 0.2869 5 3 60 Pass 0.2906 5 3 60 Pass 0.2943 5 3 60 Pass 0.2980 5 3 60 Pass 0.3017 5 3 60 Pass 0.3054 4 3 75 Pass 0.3091 4 3 75 Pass 0.3128 4 3 75 Pass 0.3165 4 3 75 Pass 0.3202 4 2 50 Pass 0.3239 4 2 50 Pass 0.3276 4 2 50 Pass 0.3313 4 2 50 Pass 0.3350 4 2 50 Pass 0.3387 4 2 50 Pass 0.3424 4 1 25 Pass 0.3462 4 1 25 Pass 0.3499 4 1 25 Pass 0.3536 4 1 25 Pass 0.3573 4 1 25 Pass 0.3610 4 1 25 Pass 0.3647 4 1 25 Pass 0.3684 4 1 25 Pass 0.3721 4 1 25 Pass 0.3758 4 1 25 Pass 0.3795 4 1 25 Pass 0.3832 4 1 25 Pass 0.3869 4 1 25 Pass 0.3906 4 1 25 Pass 0.3943 4 1 25 Pass 0.3980 4 1 25 Pass 0.4017 4 1 25 Pass 0.4054 4 1 25 Pass 0.4091 4 1 25 Pass 0.4128 4 1 25 Pass 0.4165 3 1 33 Pass 0.4202 3 1 33 Pass 0.4239 3 1 33 Pass 0.4276 3 1 33 Pass 0.4313 3 1 33 Pass 0.4350 2 1 50 Pass 0.4387 2 1 50 Pass Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:36 PM Page 12 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0.01 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.005 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.005 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.0034 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0034 cfs. Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:36 PM Page 13 LID Report LID Technique Used for Total Volume Volume Infiltration Cumulative Percent Water Quality Percent Comment Treatment? Needs Through volume Volume Volume t",�aterQuality Treatment Facility (ac-ft) Infiltration Infiltrated Treated ac-ft) (aC-ft) Credit Total Volume Infiltrated 0.00 a I-) CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% No Treat. Credit Duration Compliance with LID Analysis Standard 8% of 2-yr to 50% of Result= 2 rr Passed Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:36 PM Page 14 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:43 PM Page 15 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:43 PM Page 16 Mitigated Schematic Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:44 PM Page 17 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 END GLOBAL 2009 09 30 FILES <File> <Un#> END FILES OPN SEQUENCE UNIT SYSTEM 1 <----------- File Name---- -------------------------->*** *** INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 10 PERLND 16 IMPLND 4 IMPLND 5 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<---------- Title ----------- >***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FILL 1 7509-212th-Existing MAX END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 2 30 9 <PLS ><------- Name ------- >NBLKS Unit -systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 10 C, Forest, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 16 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:44 PM Page 18 <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY 10 0 4.5 0.08 400 0.05 0.5 16 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.05 0.5 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP 10 0 0 2 16 0 0 2 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR 10 0.2 0.5 0.35 16 0.1 0.25 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 *** INFILD DEEPFR 2 0 2 0 INTFW IRC 6 0.5 6 0.5 AGWRC 0.996 0.996 BASETP AGWETP 0 0 0 0 *** LZETP *** 0.7 0.25 PWAT-STATEl <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 10 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATEI END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><------- Name ------- > 4 ROOF TOPS/FLAT 5 DRIVEWAYS/FLAT END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** Unit -systems Printer *** User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 1 1 27 0 1 1 1 27 0 ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <ILS > ******** Print -flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:44 PM Page 19 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 4 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 5 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 4 0 0 5 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 4 0 0 5 0 0 END IWAT-STATEI END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** 7509-212th-Existing*** PERLND 10 0.098 COPY 501 12 PERLND 10 0.098 COPY 501 13 PERLND 16 0.516 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 0.516 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 4 0.059 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 5 0.195 COPY 501 15 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------ >< --- > User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT -INFO Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:44 PM Page 20 HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC Al A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------ ><-------- ><-------- ><-------- ><-------- ><-------- ><-------- > *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------ ><-------- > <--- ><--- ><--- ><--- >< --- > *** <--- ><--- ><--- ><--- >< --- > END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC -ACTIONS END SPEC -ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS -LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS -LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS -LINK 12 MASS -LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS -LINK 13 MASS -LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS -LINK 15 END MASS -LINK END RUN Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:44 PM Page 21 Mitigated UC/ File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 END GLOBAL 2009 09 30 FILES <File> <Un#> END FILES OPN SEQUENCE UNIT SYSTEM 1 <----------- File Name---- -------------------------->*** *** INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 10 PERLND 16 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<---------- Title ----------- >***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 1 7509-212th-TESC MAX END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 2 30 9 <PLS ><------- Name ------- >NBLKS Unit -systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 10 C, Forest, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 16 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:44 PM Page 22 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 10 0 4.5 0.08 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 16 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 10 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 16 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 10 0.2 0.5 0.35 6 0.5 0.7 16 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 10 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATEI END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><------- Name ------- > Unit -systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <ILS > ******** Print -flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* END PRINT -INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:44 PM Page 23 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS END IWAT-STATEI END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <Name> # 7509-212th-TESC*** PERLND 10 PERLND 16 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# 0.098 COPY 501 12 0.77 COPY 501 12 NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------ >< --- > User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT -INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC Al A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------ ><-------- ><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><-------- > <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC -ACTIONS Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:44 PM Page 24 END SPEC -ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS -LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> MASS -LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY END MASS -LINK 12 END MASS -LINK END RUN <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> # #*** INPUT MEAN Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:44 PM Page 25 Predeveloped HSPF Message File Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:44 PM Page 26 Mitigated HSPF Message File Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:44 PM Page 27 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as -is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com Glacier-Ex-&-TESC 2/6/2022 6:52:44 PM Page 28 Draft —Issued for Agency Review APPENDIX D WATER QUALITY FACILITY SIZING TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT 212' Street Site Redevelopment Edmonds, Washington Farallon PN: 416-018 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater Tndocx 1=w- FARALLON C O N S U L T I N G Farallon PN: 416-018 Project Name: Glacier 212th Street Redevelopment Page: 1 of 1 Subject: Presettling and Wet Volume Sizing (by sub -basin and total) Prepared By: CPK Date: 2/6/2022 Checked By: ROL Date: 2/28/2022 PRE -SETTLING AND WET VOLUME SIZING CALCULATIONS References: 1 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Amended in December 2014) 2014-S WMMW W 2 Edmonds Stormwater Addendum (June 8, 2017) 2017 ESA 3 Civil Plans CN.NN 4 Western Washington Hydrology Model 2012 WWHM2012 5 King County Surface Water Design Manual (2009) KCSWDM-2009 Pre -Settling Individual Catch Basins Sizing Calculation Procedure: Using KCSWDM, Page 6-105, Section 6.5.1.2, the presettling volume must be equal to at least 0.75 times the runoff from the mean annual storm. KCSWDM-2009 VPs = (0.75 x V,) VPs = Required Presettling Volume (cf) V, = Mean Annual Storm Runoff Volume (cf) V, = [(0.90 x A) +(0.25 x Ater+(0.10 x Atr)+(0.01 x AJ] x R Ai = Area of Impervious Surface (sf) Atg = Area of Till Soil Covered with Grass (sf) Atf= Area of Till Soil Covered with Forest (sf) A. = Area of Outwash Soil Covered with Grass or Forest R = Rainfall from the Mean Annual Storm (ft) R = 0.054-ft, per Figure 6.4. LA (page 6-71) No project site areas are Ate or A.. Vcb = Catch Basin Provided Presettling Volume (cf) 0 1=w- FARALLON C O N S U L T I N G Farallon PN: 416-018 Project Name: Glacier 212th Street Redevelopment Page: Subject: Presettling and Wet Volume Sizing (by sub -basin and total) Prepared By: CPK Date: 2/6/2022 Checked By: ROL PRE -SETTLING AND WET VOLUME SIZING CALCULATIONS of Date: 2/28/2022 References: 1 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Amended in December 2014) 2014-S WMMW W 2 Edmonds Stormwater Addendum (June 8, 2017) 2017 ESA 3 Civil Plans CN.NN 4 Western Washington Hydrology Model 2012 WWHM2012 5 King County Surface Water Design Manual (2009) KCSWDM-2009 Presettling Sub -Basin Areas and Sizing Sub -Basin Pre -Settling CB # Total Served Area (sf) AI (sf) Atg (sf) R (ft) Vr (cf) Vp (cf) SB-N2 CB-008 6,834 6,834 0 0.054 332 249 SB-Nl CB-007 3,986 39986 0 0.054 194 145 SB-C CB-005 6,048 6,048 0 0.054 294 220 SB-S CB-003 39213 39213 0 0.054 156 117 Sub -Basin Pre -Settling CB # CB Diameter (inches) CB Unit Area (sf) CB Presettling Depth (ft) VP9 (cf) VO (cf) Check SB-N2 CB-008 72 28.3 9 249 254 OK SB-Nl CB-007 72 28.3 6 145 170 OK SB-C CB-005 72 28.3 8 220 226 OK SB-S CB-003 1 60 1 19.6 1 6 1 117 1 118 OK Total Volume: 768 cf Required WQ Volume: 0.0146 acre-feet WWHM2012 Required WQ Volume: 636 cf 64.1 WETPOND$—BASIC AND W2GE—METHODS OFANALMS FIGURE6.4.I.A PRECIPITATION FOR MEAN ANNUAL STORM IN INCHES(FEET) is a iman eats . ...,..„.....__.... ..e.... inches unless raIO'OJ9I iabW lame location a interest 10.04]') result, generates large amounts of mnoff. For this application, fill soil types include Buckley and bedrock soils, and alluvial and outwash soils that have a seasonally high water table or are underlain at shallow depth (less (ban 5 feet) by glacial till. U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SW) hydrologic soil groups that are classified as till soils include a few B, most C, and all D soils. Sea Chapter 3 for classification of specific SCS soil types. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual I/9/2W9 6-71 Oldcastle Infrastructure" A cO.—' 7000 Central Park, Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30328 oldcastlei nfrastructu re.com 25 February 2022 Christopher P. Kovac, PE Farallon Consulting 975 5th Ave Northwest Issaquah, WA 98027 RE: Glacier 212th Street Redevelopment — Edmonds, WA - BioPodT"' Biofilter Sizing Dear Mr. Kovac, Oldcastle Infrastructure (Oldcastle) is pleased to provide sizing of our BioPod biofilter with StormMixT"" media for the Glacier 212th Street Redevelopment in Edmonds, WA. The 2-year release rate of 0.0053 cfs was calculated by Farallon Consulting (the designer). Based on the current design conditions and the mass loading calculations for the location of the unit downstream of detention (enclosed), Oldcastle recommends a 4' x 6' BioPod Underground with internal bypass (model BPU-461B). This system has 16 square feet of media surface area and is sized to treat up to 0.057 cfs. The internal bypass can convey flows up to 5 cfs, which exceeds the peak design flow rate (0.055 cfs). The location and depth of the filtration system on the site appear to allow for adequate maintenance access and internal clearance. The BioPod has been rigorously tested in accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology TAPE testing protocol and has General Use Level Designation approval for Basic, Enhanced and Phosphorus removal. The proposed BioPod Underground unit is sized based on the approved surface loading rate of 1.6 gpm/sf. The BioPod media profile consists of 18" StormMix Media which is located above a 6" drain rock layer and below a 2" mulch layer. The system is designed to operate with 6" ponding above the mulch layer as controlled by an orifice cap on the underdrain pipe. This results in an overall hydraulic head loss of 32"/2.67' during treatment. The design engineer is aware of the head loss and impact to the detention hydraulic calculations with affected outflow rates and volume reduction. In summary, the BioPod system appears to be a good treatment solution for this project and has been designed to operate within Oldcastle's specifications. Please note, the hydraulics of the collection system upstream or downstream of the filtration system have not been reviewed by Oldcastle. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, (a Anna Deiters Solutions Engineer Anna.deiters@oldcastle.com Oldcastle Infrastructure 0 A CRM COMPANY Site Information Project Name Project Location Design Engineer OI Engineer Drainage Area Impervious Drainage Area (PGIS) Impervious Drainage Area (NPGIS) Pervious Area % Impervious Runoff Coefficient Flow -Based Calculations Treatment Release Rate Peak Release Rate (Qp) Minimum Surface Area Required Mass Loadina Calculations Mean Annual Rainfall (P) Required % Removal Required % Runoff Capture Mean Annual Runoff (Vt) Assumed Pollutant EMC Annual Mass Load Detention Pretreatment Credit Media Surface Area Based on Mass Loadin Mass Removed by Pretreatment Mass Load to Filter after Pretreatment Required Filter Efficiency Mass Removal Required Mass Load per Square Foot of Media Minimum Surface Area Required Determine Limiting Sizing Approach Method to Use (Flow -Based, Mass Load) Bypass Method Summary BioPod Model BioPod Model Bypass Method Treatment Flow Capacity BioPod TM Downstream of Detention Sizing Summary Glacier Environmental Servit Edmonds, WA Farallon Consultina 0.62 ac 0.62 ac 0.00 ac 0.00 ac 100% 0.95 0.0053 cfs 0.055 cfs 1.49 square feel 37 in 80% 91% 71,989 cf 80 mg/L 358.71 lb 50% 179.36 lb 179.36 lb 60% 107.61 lb 22 I b/sf 4.89 square feel Mass Loading Internal BPU-46 BPU-461B Internal 0.057 cfs 2/25/2022 https://oldcastle-my.sharepoint.com/personal/anna_deiters_oldcastle_com/Documents/Projects/Glacier Environmental/BioPod Mass Loading Calculation -WA _V2.3_ working Q i Draft —Issued for Agency Review APPENDIX E CONVEYANCE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT 212' Street Site Redevelopment Edmonds, Washington Farallon PN: 416-018 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater Tndocx FARALLON CONSULTING Farallon PN: 416-018 Project Name: Glacier 212th Street Redevelopment Page: 1 of 1 Subject: Conveyance Capacity Calculations Prepared By: CPK Date: ####### Checked By: ROL Date: 2/28/2022 CONVEYANCE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS (USING MANNING EQUATION) Run: Site Storm: 100 YEAR, 24 HOUR TOTAL RAINFALL IN INCHES: 3.2 COEFFICIENTS FOR "i" EQUATION: a= 3.2 b= 0.63 Location From To Inc. Area (Acre) Runoff Coe£ A*C Sum A*C Time of Concen. (min.) Rain Intens (in/hr) Runoff (cfs) n Value Diam (in.) Slope (%) Length (ft) Pipe Capac (cfs) % Capac Used Veloc Full (ft/sec) Flow Time (min) Remarks CAPACITY CHECK VELOC CHECK SLOPE CHECK PARKING LOT BioPod CB-02 0.75 0.014 12 0.25 35 1.7 45.3 2.11 0.28 OK OK OK CB-02 CB-01 0.75 0.014 12 0.25 33 1.7 45.3 2.11 0.26 OK OK OK Presettling Arch Tank 0.25 0.014 6 2.00 33 0.7 33.9 3.75 0.15 OK OK OK 416-018-001-TIR-Calculations.xlsx ManningSizing-100yr Page 1 of 1 2/27/2022 3:12 PM Draft —Issued for Agency Review APPENDIX F OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DOCUMENTATION TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT 212' Street Site Redevelopment Edmonds, Washington Farallon PN: 416-018 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\2022-06 Stormwater Tndocx Operations and Maintenance documentation will be provided with the final submittal of this TIR. \\EDGEFS02\Projects\416 Glacier Environmental\416018 212th St Redevelopment\Deliverables\2022 Stormwater TIR\Appendices\Appendix-F-O-&-M-to-be-provided-Filler-Sheet.docx