20180242 Prelim Stormwater ReportYELM AUTO RECYCLING
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT
JUNE 2018
MEngineering
DESIGN -) PERMIT -> MANAGE
,.
Table of Contents
Part 1— Project Site Analysis and Data
Part 2— Site Development Layout
Part 3 — Offsite Analysis Report
Part 4— Applicable Minimum Requirements
Part 5 — Permanent Stormwater Control Plan
Part 6 — Source Control BMPs
Part 7— Construction SWPPP
Part 8—Special Reports and Studies
Part 9—Other Permits
Part 30—Operational and Maintenance Plan
Part 11— Bond Quantities and Financial Responsibility
Part 12 — Grading and Drainage Plans
Project Engineer
Prepared by:
RB Engineering, Inc. (RBE)
_
PO Box 923
Chehalis, WA 98532
(360)740-8919
Ro be rtb (D RB E n o i n e e rs. co m
Contact:
Robert W. Balmelli PE
RBE Project:
17041
Prepared for:
NPR Holdings LLC
Ubaida Mufrej
3655 E. Marginal Ways
Seattle, Washington 98134
u baida(a),safariexoorts. co m
'
Reference:
2014 WSDOE Stormwater Manual
Project Engineers Certification
"I hereby certify that this Drainage and Erosion Control Plan for Yelm Auto Recycling has been
prepared by me or under my supervision and meets minimum standards the Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington and normal standards of engineering practice.
.. I hereby acknowledge and agree that the jurisdiction does not and will not assume liability for
the sufficiency, suitability, or performance of drainage facilities designed by me."
Drainage Report
PART 1 — PROJECT SITE ANALYSIS AND DATA
Permit Requested: Site Plan Review
Other Permits Required: Building Permit
Grading/Earthwork
SEPA Review
Agency Permit No.: Pending
Site Address:
939 North Pacific Rd
Yelm, Washington 98597
Section, Township, Range:
Section 19
Township 17
Range 02E, W.M
Total Site Area:
13.93 Acres
Zoning:
I - Industrial
Project Overall Description
The project is to include the development of an auto wrecking yard named, Yelm Auto
Recycling, on lot 64300900200. Development will include the construction of 3 structures to be
used for office space, storage and general shop/maintenance space. Construction will also
include the development of onsite customer parking, graveled and paved vehicle storage yards,
water, sewer, and power service, stormwater facilities, and frontage improvements along North
Pacific Road.
Proposed Flow Control Improvements
The flow control facilities proposed for this project were designed and modeled using the latest
edition of the Western Washington Hydrology Manual Continuous Simulation Program. The site
will utilize the areas extremely well -draining soils to dispose of stormwater through infiltration.
Stormwater will be conveyed to bioretention swales along the sites east/west boundaries. Test
pits dug at the stormwater facilities proposed locations revealed infiltration rates in excess of
100 in/hr. For design purposed, stormwater facilities were modeled with a Ksat safety factor of
4 and an infiltration rate of 20. The soils report can be found in Part 8 of this document.
Proposed Water Quality Improvements
The water quality improvements for the project site runoff consist of the addition of a
bioretention swales at the sites east/west boundaries. The swales will be constructed in include
an 18 -inch thick layer of WSDOE approved amended soils.
Proposed Conveyance System
The proposed conveyance systems will consist of Type I catch basins and conveyance pipe in
various sizes to distribute stormwater to the proposed stormwater facilities.
Proposed Discharge Location
The project site will infiltrate all runoff at the proposed bioretention swale locations.
18025 Drainage Report 1-2
Downstream Condition
The site contains a ridge running SE to NW. The ridge effectively splits the site with stormwater
naturally draining to the east/west boundaries. The proposed improvements will have no effect
.. on the existing conditions as runoff will be contained on-site. Given the sites native well -
draining soils it is likely that stormwater presently is infiltrated before leaving the site.
Onsite Soils and Geology
An on-site soils report was completed for this project site be Parnell Engineering, LLC. A copy of
the report is included in Part 8 — Special Reports and Studies, of this document. The report
stated that infiltration on-site is feasible with calculated infiltration rates exceeding 100 in/hr.
The report recommends a design infiltration of 20 in/hr be used. Based upon this information the
storm design concept of infiltration was selected.
Drainage Report 1-3
PART 2 — SITE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT
Project Topography
The site topography is nearly level to gently sloping. Elevations range from a high of 338 ft. at
the south-central portion of the site to a low of 328 ft. at the NE corner of the site.
Land Use and Ground Cover
Site vegetation consists of sparsely located conifer trees along with Scotts bloom, indigenous
brush and field grass. The subject site is bounded by rural residential property to the north,
undeveloped property to the east, Northern Pacific Road NW to the south, and a private drive-
way to the west.
Natural or Man -Made Drainage Patterns
The site contains a ridge running SE to NW. The ridge effectively splits the site with stormwater
naturally draining to the east/west boundaries. The proposed improvements will have no effect
on the existing conditions as runoff will be contained on-site. Given the sites native well -
draining soils it is likely that stormwater presently is infiltrated before leaving the site.
Tributary and Discharge Points of Flow
There are no tributary points of flow. The centralized ridge on-site prevents off-site flows from
entering the project.
Historical Drainage Problems
RBE is not aware of any historical drainage problems for this site.
Existing Utilities (Storm, Sewer, Water)
The existing utilities available to site include power, water, sewer, storm.
Erosion Potential
The site has a slight erosion potential. As part of the development plans a detailed Erosion
Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared and submitted with the
final drainage report for use during site construction to minimize erosion and mitigate
sedimentation within and off the site.
Critical Areas Onsite
The site does not contain any critical areas
Existing Fuel Storage Tanks
Review of the onsite parcels resulted in no evidence of existing fuel storage tanks above or
below ground for this property.
Groundwater Wells
The property does not include any onsite ground water wells.
18025 Drainage Report 2-1
Septic Systems
There are no septic systems on-site.
Aquifer Recharge Area
The site is within the City of Yelm Aquifer Recharge Area.
Wellhead Protection Area
The site is not within any wellhead protection areas for public utilities.
18025 Drainage Report 2-2
PART 3 — OFFSITE ANALYSIS REPORT
RBE staff visually inspected the site and offsite surrounding areas. With all runoff being infiltrated
an offsite analysis was deemed unnecessary.
18025 Drainage Report 3-1
PART 4 —APPLICABLE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
The minimum requirements for stormwater development and redevelopment sites are listed in
Volume I of the 2012 SMMWW. Not all minimum requirements of this section apply to all
projects. Determination of applicable minimum requirements is also based in part on Section
2.4 of the Manual.
61xrt Here
1
Applicable Criteria Areas
Existing Site Impervious Coverage 0.00 AC
New Plus Replaced Impervious Surface 12.44 AC
Vegetation Area Converted to Lawn or Landscaped Area 0.75 AC
..
Land Disturbing Area 13.19 AC
61xrt Here
1
See Redevelopment
Does the sire hate
35% mmom of
Tae
M*.mum
eusfing impen'iatss
o
Regwremmts avd
em¢e?
Flow Chmt
No
Does the pmjec[convezt
(Fl.'3)
eof
Doea the projem
eeemnov to I.. or
result m 5,00
landscaped areas. or
sgtare feet, or
Noc
vert 25 acres a more
Beater. ofnew Plw
af narice vegetationm
replacedhazd
pa;twe?
surface
Does the prajert
Tea
Yea No
recnit in 000 sgtare
feet, vv greater. of
ptus replaced
All `t' :..
wd swface area^
I.
apple
Rett the
.m
m [he e. and
replaced hard surfaces
and mntimed
Yea
No
cegetatiov
Minivmm Regtwemevts
Does the project hace
=1 through #1 apply to
land disnubivs
the new and replaced
amiuities of ].000
hard cur£acee and the
Yea
sgtare ft ai Bream?
laud diswt i.
No
hfininaum
Require mt ��
applies
Fignre 2,4.1— Flow Chart for DO—i—, Requi mems b1 llew 1)11e to pment
18025 Drainage Report 4-1
Doe:rhevmjec ;ul,' 000rqune tet --- ofue d hardsmfeee areal OR
Doer b.1 -odd --CODs_ 1t .In 1, 000 zouve feet or geatet
Yes No
Maim— Regmaeuwub Al through' -5 applJ ro \Lmumm Regovemeur, a'_aPPtie;.
the new sod replaced hmd zvdaez and me land
di Imbed
Nen question
Or,- rhe projsr, add 5 000 ogaam teras moa of uea hmd cutfa..sl
OR
c—h !: acre. or more cf-se ne-to Uav ar lazd:caped oma;'
OR
Con:en'_ `. zcre: or vtaa oF.—s segMznou to P,;Cua'
Yes No
Nex
,111 Rfmwum Regmtemear; :pPly to the 0nsa-ien Is deamad
oeu hsd :ue(acee and the coorermd eared project'
Tes
N<
Daea fhe project add OGG squzrt fret or more a fnea'and zwfrcect
Yes No
De eea hard;ut —c dd iM. or I; ma total of new vda= v!aced haM;utfxces
ore to the exu hard aurfama 5.000 -quare feetmmore. eliD doe; fle aha
.,h. tLe Prol mT olol.? of the P, O,oe ed otiro'.'emenY-mcludmg
nm un,n-ltrcnty--..ed 50'. of the
No Tes a"'-s-edr�e(artepta<em�nalue)o[the
ext vogn _ emu.L_
Va adNI:
ae9uu \ Yes Nordd,,. a
evt
?.11 \fwimum Rryuvem ec ;,PPI to rhe uew and
rtp6cedhardwface:acdm emd-'auto. mea;.
Figure 1,4.2 - Flow Chart tat DetertnlNn9 Ra,ttirerrer is I., Retleeelopmenl
18025 Drainage Report 4-2
Based on the thresholds given in Figures 2.4.1 and/or 2.4.2 of Volume I of the Manual, the
proposed project must address or comment on Minimum Requirements #1 through #g.
These requirements as they apply to the project are discussed in more detail below.
Minimum Requirement (MR) #1 — Stormwater Site Plans:
All projects meeting the thresholds of Section 2.4 of Volume I of the SMMWW shall prepare a
Stormwater Site Plan for local government review.
The proposed project will create over 5,000 square feet of impervious surfacing, and therefore a
Stormwater Site Plan complying with minimum requirements #1 through #10 is required.
MR #2 — Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan:
The proposed project exceeds the thresholds of Section 2.5 and therefore a Construction Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan is required for this project. A SWPPP will be created as a
.. standalone document for this project and submitted with the final drainage report.
MR #3 — Source Control of Pollution:
All known, available and reasonable source control BMPs shall be applied to the project to limit
pollutants coming in contact with stormwater. The BMPs for this project will be incorporated into
the projects Final Operation and Maintenance Plan.
MR #4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems/Outfalls:
Proposed stormwater will be infiltrated on-site. There will be no effect to the sites natural
drainage.
18025 Drainage Report 4-3
MR #5 — On -Site Stormwater Management:
The stormwater management plan was developed to meet the following project threshold, "New
Development Inside the UGA on a Parcel of 5 Acres or Larger".
Projects triggering Minimum Requirements #1 through #9, must meet the requirements in Table
2.5.1.
Table 1.5.1 Omsite Stormemter Management Recoirements for Prefects Triggering
Minimum Requirements ki -�4
Project Fypearol Locadon
Requirement
New developmeut m any parcel inside the
Low Impact Development Performance
UGA or rinv development outside the
Standard and 151,11? T5.13, or List ,2
UGA on a parcel less than 5 acres
(applicant op —)
New development outside the UGA on a
Low Impact Detrlopment Performance
Parcel of 5 acres or larger
Standard and BhfP T5.13.
Redecelopmeat on any parcel inside the
Loin hnpact Development Performance
UGA or tedenelopmemt outside the UGA
Standard and SNIP T5.13: or List m2
on a parcel less than 5 acres
(apphca of option).
Redeveloprnent outside the UGA on a
Low Impact Detelopment Perfomunce
Parcel of 5 acres or larger
Standard and Bhp T5.13_
NOTE: This table refers to the Urban Grnuth Area (LTGA) as designated under the
>• Gi noon Uanagement Act (G]L{) (Chanter 36.70A RC Wl of the State of
Washington. If the Permittee is located in a country that is not subject to planning
under the GALA, the cin' limits shall be used instead.
18025 Drainage Report 4-4
,. LID Performance Standard
The project will utilize bioretention facilities to treat and infiltrate all runoff generated on-site.
r MR #7 — Flow Control:
Thresholds
When assessing a project against the following thresholds, consider only those impervious,
hard, and pervious surfaces that are subject to this minimum requirement as determined in
Section 2.4 of this chapter.
The following circumstances require achievement of the standard flow control requirement for
western Washington:
• Projects in which the total of effective impervious surfaces is 10,000 square feet or more
in a threshold discharge area, or
This project creates more than 10,000 square feet of effective impervious surface in its
threshold discharge area.
• Projects that convert % acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscape, or convert 2.5
acres or more of native vegetation to pasture in a threshold discharge area, and from
y which there is a surface discharge in a natural or man-made conveyance system from
the site, or
This project does not exceed this criterion.
• Projects that through a combination of effective hard surfaces and converted vegetation
areas cause a 0.10 cubic feet per second increase in the 100 -year flow frequency from
a threshold discharge area as estimated using the Western Washington Hydrology
Model or other approved model and one-hour time steps (ora 0.15 cfs increase using
15 -minute time steps). 2
This project exceeds the criterion.
Standard Flow Control Requirement
The LID Performance Standard will be met. Flow control will be provided via infiltration through
the proposed bioretention facilities.
MR #8 — Wetlands Protection:
There are no wetlands within the proposed project limits.
MR #9 — Operation & Maintenance:
18025 Drainage Report 4-5
An operation and maintenance agreement and manual will be included in the final drainage
report and functions as a standalone document for the developer and property owners.
MR #10 — Agreements and Financial Guarantees:
Facility agreements and financial guarantees when required will be reviewed by the applicant
and executed at the appropriate time determined by the reviewing agency.
Supplemental Requirement SR#1 — Basin/Watershed Planning:
There are no basin or watershed requirements for this project area.
Supplemental Requirement SR#2 — Offsite Analysis and Mitigation
The offsite analysis for this project did not yield any mitigation for this project.
,. Drainage Easements:
No onsite easements are required or needed for this project's drainage facilities.
Drainage Facility Setbacks:
Bioretention Swales 10' from property line, 10' from any structure.
Adjustments:
No adjustments have been requested for this project.
Exceptions and Variances:
No variances are requested at this time.
18025 Drainage Report 4-6
PART 5 — PERMANENT STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN
Existing Site Hydrology
Existing site hydrology is based on our site investigation, field topographic survey, aerial
topographic mapping and completed soils review for the subject project. The site consists of the
_ basins outlined below.
Pre -developed Basin (P#)
Current Land Use: Vacant Lot
Basin ID
Land Use Assumptions and Site Parameters
Land Use Cover Slope Acres
Hydrologic Comments
Grou
P1
Forested
Flat
5.81
A
Gravel Flat 4.09
A
P2
Forested
Flat
4.22
A
Roof Flat 0.09
A
Lawn Flat 0.49
P3
Forested
Flat
3.16
A
D2
Parking Flat 0.81
A
P4
Forested
Flat
0.13
A
Sidewalks Flat 0.04
A
Total
13.32
Developed Site Hydrology (D#)
The developed site hydrology was modeled using the latest version of the WWHM Continuous
Simulation model created by WSDDE. A complete summary for each sub -basin is included in
the chart below. Because of the existing topography, the site was able to be graded and
modeled as one basin. Basin D1 includes all the new impervious surfaces created by the
development of the project.
Basin Summary
Proposed Land Use: Residential — Multi -Family Housing
18025 Drainage Report 5-1
Land Use Assumptions and Site Parameters
Basin ID
Land Use Cover Slope Acres
Hydrologic
Group
Comments
D1
Parking Flat 1.14
A
Gravel Flat 4.09
A
Sidewalks Flat 0.00
A
Roof Flat 0.09
A
Lawn Flat 0.49
A
D2
Parking Flat 0.81
A
Gravel Flat 3.05
A
Sidewalks Flat 0.04
A
18025 Drainage Report 5-1
Flow Control System Design S Analysis
The proposed storm water facilities were designed using the WWHM storm water model created
by WSDOE.
Flow and Water Quality Control Facilities Proposed:
Basin
Roof
Flat
0.06
A
Water Quality/Flow
D1
Lawn
Flat
0.26
A
Control
D3
Parking
Flat
0.00
A
Gravel
Flat
3.16
A
Water Quality/Flow
D3
Sidewalks
Flat
0.00
A
Control
Roof
Flat
0.00
A
Lawn
Flat
0.00
A
D4
Frontage
Im rovements
Flat
0.13
A
Total
13.32
Flow Control System Design S Analysis
The proposed storm water facilities were designed using the WWHM storm water model created
by WSDOE.
Flow and Water Quality Control Facilities Proposed:
Basin
Facility Type
Comments
Water Quality/Flow
D1
Bioretention Swale - 363'L X 3'W X 2.5'D
Control
Water Quality/Flow
D2
Bioretention Swale - 4651 X 3'W X 2'D
Control
Water Quality/Flow
D3
Bioretention Swale - 469'L X 3'W X 2'D
Control
Water Quality/Flow
D4
Bioretention
Control
RBE conducted modeling of all basins using WWHM12 continuous simulation model. Listed below
are narratives of each delineated drainage basin for this project.
.. Basin Narratives
Basin D1
Basin D1 encompasses the eastern half of the site and involves collecting, treating, and infiltrating
all runoff generated within the basin by utilizing a 363 -foot long by 3' wide bioretention Swale.
Basin D2
Basin D3 encompasses the southwestern quarter of the site and involves collecting, treating, and
infiltrating all runoff generated within the basin by utilizing a 465 -foot long by 3 -foot wide
bioretention Swale.
18025 Drainage Report 5-2
I
Basin D3
Basin D3 encompasses the northwestern quarter of the site and involves collecting, treating, and
infiltrating all runoff generated within the basin by utilizing a 400 -foot long by 3 -foot wide
bioretention swale.
Basin D4
Basin D4 encompasses the frontage improvements along Northern Pacific Road. Stormwater will
be directed to the landscape beds for treatment and infiltration. An amended soil layer will be
added to the beds to meet water quality standards. Basin D4 was not included in the stormwater
modeling.
18025 Drainage Report 5-3
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC
SHEET: 10 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103
DATE: 2!7/2018
PREPARED BY: William Parnell, PE
REVISED 5/25/2018
SOIL LOG: #10
LOCATION: See test pit location map
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE:
2. SCS SOILS SERIES:
3. LAND FORM:
None
Spanaway gravelly sandy
Terrace
loam(110)
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Outwash
GROUP: A
146'
7. CURRENTWATER
8. DEPTH TO
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: 146°
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Sloping
%CL
HORIZONS:
IND CEM ROO
<X>
Greater than bottom of hole
A
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
<10 <40 1SBK -
Slight
Slight
Minimal
11, SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that
a design infiltration rete 220 m/hr be
used for proposed stormwater infiltration facilities located in the C2 horizon soils. Winter water table
was present at 146" below the existing rade.
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #10
Horz
Deoth
Color
Texture
%CL
%ORO CF STR MOT
IND CEM ROO
<X>
FSP
A
0"- 14"
10YR2/1
VGr/CobLm
<25
<10 <40 1SBK -
- - H
2-6
2
C1
14'- 28"
10YR3/4
ExGrM-FSa
<i
- <85 SG -
- - If
#0
>15
C2
28%156'
1OYR5/6
ExGr/CobCSa
<1
- <90 SG -
- - -
>20
>2D
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC
SHEET 11 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103
DATE: 2/7/2018
PREPARED BY: William Parnell, PE
REVISED 5/25/2018
SOIL LOG: #11
STR MOT
LOCATION: See test pit location map
<X>
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE:
2. SCS SOILS SERIES:
3. LAND FORM:
None
Spanaway gravelly sandy
Terrace
<10
foam(110)
1GBK -
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Outwash
GROUP: A
Greater than bottom of hale
7. CURRENT WATER
8. DEPTH TO
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: Greater than bottom
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Nearly level
of hole
HORIZONS:
Greater than bottom of hole
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
Slight
Slight
Minimal
11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that
a design infiltration rate < 20 m1hr be
used for proposed stormwater infiltration facilities located in the C1
horizon soils. Winter water table was
not present to 144" below the existing rade. Hole cave in.
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #11
Horz
Deoth
Color
Texture
%CL
%ORG
CF
STR MOT
IND CEM ROO
<X>
FSP
A
0"- 30"
10YR211
VGr/CobLm
<25
<10
<40
1GBK -
- - fm
2-6
2
C1
30"-144"
10YR5/2
ExGrCSa
j
<85
SG -
- - fm
>20
>20
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC
SHEET: 8 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103
DATE: 2/7/2018
PREPARED BY: William Parnell, PE
REVISED 5/25/2018
SOIL LOG: #8
Texture
LOCATION: See test pit location map
0'- 22'
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE.
2. SCS SOILS SERIES:
3. LAND FORM:
None
Spanaway gravelly sandy
Terrace
<1
loam(110)
- - >20
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Outman
GROUP: A
70'
7, CURRENT WATER
8. DEPTH TO
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: 70'
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Nearly level
stones and
HORIZONS:
Greater than bottom of hole
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
Slight
Slight
Minimal
11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that
a design infiltration rate < 20 in/hr be
used for proposed stormwater infiltration facilities located in the C1
and C2 horizon soils. Winter water
table was present at 70" below the existing rade.
Soils Strata Description
Horz
Deoth
Color
Texture
A
0'- 22'
10YR2/1
VGr/CobLm
C1
2Y- 30'
10YR4/8
ExGr/CobC-
<1
- <80 SG - -
- - >20
FSa
C2
30"-108'
10YR5/2
ExGr/CubC-
MSa some
stones and
boulders
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #8
%CL
%ORG CF STR MOT IND
CEM ROO <X>
FSP
<25
<10 <55 iSBK - -
- R 2-8
2
<1
- <80 SG - -
- - >20
>20
q
- c85 SG - -
- - >20
>20
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC
SHEET: 9 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103
DATE: 2/7/2018
PREPARED BY: William Parnell, PE
REVISED 5/25/2018
SOIL LOG: #9
VGrlCebl.m
LOCATION: See test pit location map
23% 76"
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE:
2. SCS SOILS SERIES:
3. LAND FORM:
None
Spanaway gravelly sandy
Terrace
<1
loam(110)
- - - >20
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Outwash
GROUP: A
112"
7. CURRENT WATER
8. DEPTH TO
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: 112"
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Nearly level
HORIZONS:
Greater than bottom of hole
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
Slight
Slight
I Minimal
11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that
a design infiltration rate 120 in/hr be
used for proposed stormwater infiltration facilities located in the C1
and C2 horizon soils. Winter water
table was present at 112' below the existing rade.
Horz
Deoth
Color
Texture
A
0°- 23"
10YR2/1
VGrlCebl.m
C1
23% 76"
1OYR416
ExGr/CobCSa
C2
76"-144"
10YR5/2
ExGr/CobC-
<1
- <85 SG -
- - - >20
MSa some
<1
- <80 SG -
- - - >20
stones
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #9
%CL
%ORG CF STR MOT
IND CEM ROO <x>
FSP
<25
<10 <40 1SBK -
- - If 2-6
2
<1
- <85 SG -
- - - >20
>20
<1
- <80 SG -
- - - >20
>20
PART 5.1 — FLOW CONTROL
Flow Control System Design & Analysis
The proposed stormwater facility was designed using the professional version of the WWHM
stormwater model created for WSDOE. The proposed site development was modeled using
WWHM that resulted in the following pond volumes listed below. The WWHM data output also
outlines the control structure dimensions and elevations. See WWHM data output for that
information.
Flow Control Facility Proposed: Bioretention Swale D1
Bioretention Swale Design Summary
The proposed swale is approximately 363 feet long x 3 feet wide x 2.5 feet deep. The final
dimensions will be detailed in the final construction drawings prepared after approval of the Site
Plan Review.
Flow Control Facility Proposed: Bioretention Swale D2
Bioretention Swale Design Summary
Swale Stage Storage
Elevation ft
Detention Volume ac -ft)
Top of Swale
Top of Swale
332.5
0.22
333.0 0.12
Design Water Surface
332.0
0.15
Bottom Live Storage
330.0
0
The proposed swale is approximately 363 feet long x 3 feet wide x 2.5 feet deep. The final
dimensions will be detailed in the final construction drawings prepared after approval of the Site
Plan Review.
Flow Control Facility Proposed: Bioretention Swale D2
Bioretention Swale Design Summary
The proposed swale is approximately 465 feet long x 3 feet wide x 2 feet deep. The final
dimensions will be detailed in the final construction drawings prepared after approval of the Site
Plan Review.
Flow Control Facility Proposed: Bioretention Swale D3
Bioretention Swale Design Summary
Swale Stage Storage
Elevation ftDetention Volume ac-ft
Detention Volume (ac -ft)
Top of Swale
333.5 0.20
332.5
Design Water Surface
333.0 0.12
Desi n Water Surface1
Bottom Live Storage
331.5 0
Bottom Live Storage
1 330.5
The proposed swale is approximately 465 feet long x 3 feet wide x 2 feet deep. The final
dimensions will be detailed in the final construction drawings prepared after approval of the Site
Plan Review.
Flow Control Facility Proposed: Bioretention Swale D3
Bioretention Swale Design Summary
The proposed swale is approximately 469 feet long x 3 feet wide x 2 feet deep. The final
dimensions will be detailed in the final construction drawings prepared after approval of the Site
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-1
Swale Stage Storage
Elevation ft
Detention Volume (ac -ft)
Top of Swale
332.5
0.19
Desi n Water Surface1
332.0
0.12
Bottom Live Storage
1 330.5
0
The proposed swale is approximately 469 feet long x 3 feet wide x 2 feet deep. The final
dimensions will be detailed in the final construction drawings prepared after approval of the Site
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-1
Plan Review
WWHM Data Output
The following figures and WWHM modeling data output are included on the following pages of
this section:
WWHM Modeling Data Output
WWRM2012
PROJECT REPORT
Project Name: Basin 1
Site Name: BASIN 1
Site Address: 939 Northern Pacific Rd
City : Yelm
Report Date: 6/6/2018
Gage : Lake Lawrence
Data Start : 1955/10/01 00:00
Data End : 2008/09/30 00:00
Precip Scale: 0.86
Version Date: 2018/03/02
Version : 4.2.14
Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : e Percent of the 2 Year
High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year
PREDEVELOPED LAND USE
Name : Basin 1
Bypass: No
Groundwater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
A B, Forest, Flat 5.81
Pervious Total 5.81
Impervious Land Use acre
Impervious Total 0
Basin Total 5.81
Element Flows To:
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-2
Surface Interflow
Groundwater
Element Flows To:
» Surface Interflow Groundwater
Surface retention 1 Surface retention 1
Name Biorstention 1
Bottom Length: 363.00 ft.
Bottom Width: 3.00 ft.
Material thickness of first layer: 1.5
Material type for first layer: SMMWW 12 in/hr
Material thickness of second layer: 0
Material type for second layer: GRAVEL
Material thickness of third layer: D
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
_ Infiltration On
Infiltration rate: 20
Infiltration safety factor: 1
Wetted surface area On
+� Total Volume Infiltrated (ac -£t.): 945.045
Total Volume Through Riser (ac -ft.): 0.044
Total Volume Through Facility (ac -ft.): 945.089
Percent Infiltrated: 100
Total Precip Applied to Facility: 14.211
Total Evap From Facility: 3.407
Underdrain not used
r Discharge Structure
18025
Drainage Report
5.1-3
MITIGATED LAND USE
Name : Basin 1
Bypass: No
Groundwater: No
Pervious Land Use
acre
A B, Lawn, Flat
.49
Pervious Total
0.49
Impervious Land Use
acre
ROOF TOPS PLAT
0.09
PARKING FLAT
5.23
Impervious Total
5.32
Basin Total
5.81
Groundwater
Element Flows To:
» Surface Interflow Groundwater
Surface retention 1 Surface retention 1
Name Biorstention 1
Bottom Length: 363.00 ft.
Bottom Width: 3.00 ft.
Material thickness of first layer: 1.5
Material type for first layer: SMMWW 12 in/hr
Material thickness of second layer: 0
Material type for second layer: GRAVEL
Material thickness of third layer: D
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
_ Infiltration On
Infiltration rate: 20
Infiltration safety factor: 1
Wetted surface area On
+� Total Volume Infiltrated (ac -£t.): 945.045
Total Volume Through Riser (ac -ft.): 0.044
Total Volume Through Facility (ac -ft.): 945.089
Percent Infiltrated: 100
Total Precip Applied to Facility: 14.211
Total Evap From Facility: 3.407
Underdrain not used
r Discharge Structure
18025
Drainage Report
5.1-3
Riser Height: 2 £t.
Riser Diameter: 24 in.
Element Flow To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Hioretention
1 Hydraulic
Table
Stage (feet)
Area
(ac)
Volume(a,ft.)
Diecharge(cfe)
Infilt(cfe)
r
0.0000
0.1025
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0440
0.1022
0.0005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0879
0.0999
0.0011
0.0000
0.0001
0.1319
0.0975
0.0017
0.0000
0.0003
0.1758
0.0952
0.0024
0.0000
0.0005
0.2198
0.0929
0.0031
0.0000
0.0010
0.2637
0.0906
0.0038
0.0000
0.0016
r
0.3077
0.0883
0.0046
0.0000
0.0024
0.3516
0.0860
0.0055
0.0000
0.0036
0.3956
0.0837
0.0063
0.0000
0.0050
0.4396
0.0814
0.0073
0.0000
0.0068
0.4835
0.0791
0.0082
0.0000
0.0090
0.5275
0.0768
0.0093
0.0000
0.0117
0.5714
0.0745
0.0103
0.0000
0.0149
0.6154
0.0722
0.0114
0.0000
0.0186
0.6593
0.0700
0.0126
0.0000
0.0230
0.7033
0.0677
0.0138
0.0000
0.0280
0.7473
0.0654
0.0150
0.0000
0.0337
i
0.7912
0.0631
0.0163
0.0000
0.0403
0.8352
0.0609
0.0177
0.0000
0.0477
0.8791
0.0586
0.0190
0.0000
0.0560
r
0.9231
0.0563
0.0205
0.0000
0.0653
0.9670
0.0541
0.0219
0.0000
0.0756
1.0110
0.0518
0.0235
0.0000
0.0871
1.0549
0.0496
0.0250
0.0000
0.0997
r
1.0989
0.0473
0.0267
0.0000
0.1136
1.1429
0.0451
0.0283
0.0000
0.1287
1.1868
0.0428
0.0300
0.0000
0.1453
1.2308
0.0406
0.0318
0.0000
0.1634
1.2747
0.0384
0.0336
0.0000
0.1829
1.3187
0.0361
0.0354
0.0000
0.2041
1.3626
0.0339
0.0373
0.0000
0.2270
1.4066
0.0317
0.0392
0.0000
0.2517
1.4505
0.0294
0.0412
0.0000
0.2782
1.4945
0.0272
0.0433
0.0000
0.3065
1.5000
0.0250
0.0435
0.0000
0.3065
Surface
retention
1 Hydraulic
Table
Staae(feet)
Area(s .)
Volu (ac
-£t.)
Diecharge(cfe)
To Acended(cfe)
wetted Surface
1.5000
0.1025
0.0435
0.0000
0.3114
0.0469
1.5440
0.1048
0.0481
0.0000
0.3114
0.0939
1.5879
0.1071
0.0527
0.0000
0.3202
0.1409
1.6319
0.1095
0.0575
0.0000
0.3291
0.1881
+
18025
Drainage Report
5.1-4
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-5
1.6758
0.1118
0.0623
0.0000
0.3380
0.2352
_
1.7198
0.1141
0.0673
0.0000
0.3468
0.2825
1.7637
0.1165
0.0724
0.0000
0.3557
0.3298
1.8077
0.1188
0.0776
0.0000
0.3646
0.3772
1.8516
0.1212
0.0828
0.0000
0.3734
0.4246
1.8956
0.1235
0.0882
0.0000
0.3823
0.4721
1.9396
0.1259
0.0937
0.0000
0.3911
0.5196
1.9835
0.1282
0.0993
0.0000
0.4000
0.5673
'
2.0275
0.1306
0.1050
0.0000
0.4089
0.6150
2.0714
0.1330
0.1108
0.0000
0.4177
0.6627
2.1154
0.1353
0.1167
0.0000
0.4266
0.7105
,.,
2.1593
0.1377
0.1227
0.0000
0.4355
0.7584
2.2033
0.1401
0.1288
0.0000
0.4443
0.8064
2.2473
0.1425
0.1350
0.0000
0.4532
0.8544
2.2912
0.1448
0.1413
0.0000
0.4621
0.9025
2.3352
0.1472
0.1477
0.0000
0.4709
0.9506
2.3791
0.1496
0.1542
0.0000
0.4798
0.9988
2.4231
0.1520
0.1609
0.0000
0.4887
1.0471
2.4670
0.1544
0.1676
0.0000
0.4975
1.0954
s
2.5110
0.1568
0.1744
0.0000
0.5064
1.1438
2.5549
0.1592
0.1814
0.0000
0.5152
1.1923
2.5989
0.1616
0.1884
0.0000
0.5241
1.2408
2.6429
0.1640
0.1956
0.0000
0.5330
1.2894
2.6868
0.1664
0.2028
0.0000
0.5418
1.3381
2.7308
0.1688
0.2102
0.0000
0.5507
1.3868
2.7747
0.1712
0.2177
0.0000
0.5596
1.4356
'
2.8187
0.1737
0.2253
0.0000
0.5684
1.4844
2.8626
0.1761
0.2330
0.0000
0.5773
1.5333
2.9066
0.1785
0.2407
0.0000
0.5862
1.5823
2.9505
0.1809
0.2486
0.0000
0.5950
1.6314
2.9945
0.1834
0.2567
0.0000
0.6039
1.6805
3.0385
0.1858
0.2648
0.0000
0.6128
1.7296
3.0824
0.1882
0.2730
0.0000
0.6216
1.7789
'
3.1264
0.1907
0.2813
0.0000
0.6305
1.8282
3.1703
0.1931
0.2898
0.0000
0.6394
1.8776
3.2143
0.1956
0.2983
0.0000
0.6482
1.9270
3.2582
0.1980
0.3069
0.0000
0.6571
1.9765
3.3022
0.2005
0.3157
0.0000
0.6659
2.0260
3.3462
0.2029
0.3246
0.0000
0.6748
2.0757
3.3901
0.2054
0.3335
0.0000
0.6837
2.1253
3.4341
0.2079
0.3426
0.0000
0.6925
2.1751
3.4780
0.2103
0.3518
0.0000
0.7014
2.2249
3.5220
0.2128
0.3611
0.0692
0.7103
2.2748
3.5659
0.2153
0.3705
0.3591
0.7191
2.3247
r
3.6099
0.2178
0.3800
0.7719
0.7280
2.3748
3.6538
0.2202
0.3897
1.2766
0.7369
2.4248
3.6978
0.2227
0.3994
1.8560
0.7457
2.4750
3.7418
0.2252
0.4093
2.4970
0.7546
2.5252
3.7857
0.2277
0.4192
3.1878
0.7635
2.5754
3.8297
0.2302
0.4293
3.9171
0.7723
2.6258
3.8736
0.2327
0.4394
4.6731
0.7812
2.6762
'
3.9176
0.2352
0.4497
5.4440
0.7900
2.7266
3.9615
0.2377
0.4601
6.2177
0.7989
2.7708
4.0000
0.2399
0.4693
6.9822
0.8067
1.5333
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-5
Name Surface retention 1
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Hioretention 1
r ANALYSIS RESULTS
POC $1 was not reported because POC must exist in both scenarios and both
scenarios must have been run.Perind and Impind Changes
No changes have been made.
This program and accompanying documentation are provided .,
r - without x r ant, of any kind.
The entire risk regarding the performance andr sults of this program i assumed by End User.
Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties,
either expressed o r
implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and
daccompanying 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 uad 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. 2005-2016; All Rights Reserved.
y 18025 Drainage Report 5.1-6
WNHM2012
PROJECT REPORT
Project Name: Basin 2
Site Name: BASIN 2
Site Address: 939 Northern Pacific Ad
r city : Yelm WA
Report Date: 6/6/2018
Gage : Lake Lawrence
Data Start : 1955/10/01 00:00
Data End : 2008/09/30 00:00
Precip Scale: 0.86
Version Date: 2018/03/02
Version : 4.2.14
Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 8 Percent of the 2 Year
High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year
MITIGATED LAND USE
Name Basin 1
Bypass: No
Groundwater
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-7
PREDEVELOPED LAND USE
Name : Basin 1
r
Bypass: No
Groundwater: No
Pervious Land Use
acre
A B, Forest, Flat
4.22
Pervious Total
4.22
Impervious Land Use
acre
Impervious Total
0
Basin Total
4.22
r
Element Flows To:
Surface
Interflow
MITIGATED LAND USE
Name Basin 1
Bypass: No
Groundwater
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-7
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use
acre
A B, Lawn, Flat
.26
Pervious Total
0.26
Impervious Land Use
acre
ROOF TOPS FLAT
0.06
SIDEWALKS FLAT
0.04
PARKING FLAT
3.86
i
Impervious Total
3.96
Basin Total
4.22
Element Flows To:
Surface Inter£low Groundwater
Surface retention 1 Surface retention 1
Name Eioretention 1
Bottom Length: 465.00 ft.
Bottom Width: 3.00 ft.
Material thickness of first layer: 1.5
Material type for first layer: SMMWW 12 in/hr
Material thickness of second layer: 0
Material type for second layer: Sand
Material thickness of third layer: 0
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
Infiltration On
Infiltration rate: 20
Infiltration safety factor: 1
Wetted surface area On
Total volume Infiltrated (ac -ft.): 705.783
Total volume Through Riser (ac -£t.): 0
Total volume Through Facility (ac -ft.): 705.783
Percent Infiltrated: 100
Total Precip Applied to Facility: 14.438
Total Evap From Facility: 4.104
Underdrain not used
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 1.5 ft.
Riser Diameter: 18 in.
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-8
Stage(feet)
Bioretention 1 Hydraulic Table
Area(ac.) Volume(aoft.) Diecharge(cfe)
Infilt(cfe)
0.0000
0.1306
To Anonded(cfe)
0.0000
1.5000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0385
0.1280
0.3974
0.0006
0.0519
0.0000
1.5385
0.0000
0.0769
0.1254
0.0000
0.0012
0.3974
0.0000
0.1039
0.0001
1.5769
0.1154
0.1229
0.0658
0.0019
0.0000
0.0000
0.4074
0.0002
0.1560
0.1538
0.1203
0.1383
0.0026
0.0711
0.0000
0.0000
0.0005
0.4173
0.1923
0.1177
0.0034
0.1409
0.0000
0.0764
0.0009
0.0000
0.2308
0.1152
0.0042
0.0000
0.1435
0.0014
0.0819
0.2692
0.1126
0.0050
0.0000
0.0021
0.1461
0.3077
0.1101
0.0059
0.0000
0.0031
0.3462
0.1075
0.0068
0.0000
0.0044
0.3846
0.1050
1.8077
0.0078
0.0000
0.0059
0.4231
0.1024
0.4693
0.0088
0.0000
0.0078
0.4615
0.0999
0.0099
0.0000
18025
0.0100
0.5000
0.0973
Report
0.0110
0.0000
5.1-9
0.0127
0.5385
0.0948
0.0122
0.0000
0.0159
0.5769
0.0922
0.0134
0.0000
0.0196
0.6154
0.0897
0.0146
0.0000
0.0238
0.6538
0.0872
0.0159
0.0000
0.0286
0.6923
0.0846
0.0172
0.0000
0.0341
0.7308
0.0821
0.0186
0.0000
0.0402
0.7692
0.0796
0.0200
0.0000
0.0472
0.8077
0.0770
0.0215
0.0000
0.0549
0.8462
0.0745
0.0230
0.0000
0.0635
0.8846
0.0720
0.0246
0.0000
0.0729
0.9231
0.0695
0.0262
0.0000
0.0834
0.9615
0.0670
0.0278
0.0000
0.0948
1.0000
0.0645
0.0295
0.0000
0.1074
1.0385
0.0620
0.0312
0.0000
0.1210
1.0769
0.0594
0.0330
0.0000
0.1359
1.1154
0.0569
0.0348
0.0000
0.1520
1.1538
0.0544
0.0367
0.0000
0.1694
1.1923
0.0519
0.0386
0.0000
0.1881
1.2308
0.0494
0.0406
0.0000
0.2084
1.2692
0.0469
0.0426
0.0000
0.2301
1.3077
0.0445
0.0446
0.0000
0.2533
1.3462
0.0420
0.0467
0.0000
0.2782
1.3846
0.0395
0.0489
0.0000
0.3048
1.4231
0.0370
0.0511
0.0000
0.3331
1.4615
0.0345
0.0533
0.0000
0.3633
1.5000
0.0320
0.0556
0.0000
0.3633
Surface retention 1 Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet)
Area(ac.)
Volo -(ac -ft.)
Diecharge(efe)
To Anonded(cfe)
wetted Surface
1.5000
0.1306
0.0556
0.0000
0.3974
0.0519
1.5385
0.1332
0.0606
0.0000
0.3974
0.1039
1.5769
0.1357
0.0658
0.0000
0.4074
0.1560
1.6154
0.1383
0.0711
0.0000
0.4173
0.2081
1.6538
0.1409
0.0764
0.0000
0.4272
0.2602
1.6923
0.1435
0.0819
0.0000
0.4372
0.3124
1.7308
0.1461
0.0875
0.0000
0.4471
0.3647
1.7692
0.1487
0.0931
0.0000
0.4571
0.4170
1.8077
0.1513
0.0989
0.0000
0.4670
0.4693
18025
Drainage
Report
5.1-9
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-10
1.8462
0.1538
0.1048
0.0000
0.4769
0.5217
+
1.8846
0.1564
0.1107
0.0000
0.4869
0.5741
1.9231
0.159D
0.1168
0.0000
0.4968
0.6266
1.9615
0.1617
0.1230
0.0000
0.5067
0.6792
+
2.0000
0.1643
0.1292
0.0000
0.5167
0.7318
2.0385
0.1669
0.1356
0.0000
0.5266
0.7844
2.0769
0.1695
0.1421
0.0000
0.5365
0.8371
+
2.1154
0.1721
0.1487
0.0000
0.5465
0.8898
2.1538
0.1747
0.1553
0.0000
0.5564
0.9426
2.1923
0.1773
0.1621
0.0000
0.5663
0.9954
2.2306
0.1799
0.1690
0.0000
0.5763
1.0483
+
2.2692
0.1826
0.1759
0.0000
0.5862
1.1013
2.3077
0.1852
0.1830
0.0000
0.5962
1.1542
2.3462
0.1878
0.1902
0.0000
0.6061
1.2073
2.3846
0.1904
0.1975
0.0000
0.6160
1.2604
+
2.4231
0.1931
0.2048
0.0000
0.6260
1.3135
2.4615
0.1957
0.2123
0.0000
0.6359
1.3667
2.5000
0.1983
0.2199
0.0000
0.6458
1.4199
+
2.5385
0.2010
0.2276
0.0000
0.6556
1.4732
2.5769
0.2036
0.2353
0.0000
0.6657
1.5265
2.6154
0.2063
0.2432
0.0000
0.6756
1.5799
2.6538
0.2089
0.2512
0.0000
0.6856
1.6333
+
2.6923
0.2116
0.2593
0.0000
0.6955
1.6868
2.7308
0.2142
0.2675
0.0000
0.7054
1.7403
2.7692
0.2169
0.2758
0.0000
0.7154
1.7939
2.8077
0.2195
0.2842
0.0000
0.7253
1.8475
+
2.8462
0.2222
0.2927
0.0000
0.7353
1.9012
2.8846
0.2249
0.3013
0.0000
0.7452
1.9549
2.9231
0.2275
0.3100
0.0000
0.7551
2.0087
2.9615
0.2302
0.3188
0.0000
0.7651
2.0625
3.0000
0.2329
0.3277
0.0000
0.7750
2.1164
3.0385
0.2355
0.3367
0.1200
0.7849
2.1703
3.0769
0.2382
0.3458
0.3391
0.7949
2.2243
+
3.1154
0.2409
0.3550
0.6219
0.8048
2.2783
3.1538
0.2436
0.3643
0.9542
0.8147
2.3323
3.1923
0.2462
0.3737
1.3261
0.8247
2.3865
+
3.2308
0.2489
0.3833
1.7286
0.8346
2.4406
3.2692
0.2516
0.3929
2.1526
0.8446
2.4948
3.3077
0.2543
0.4026
2.5691
0.8545
2.5491
3.3462
0.2570
0.4124
3.0289
0.8644
2.6034
+
3.3846
0.2597
0.4224
3.4625
0.8744
2.6578
3.4231
0.2624
0.4324
3.8809
0.8843
2.7122
3.4615
0.2651
0.4426
4.2756
0.8942
2.7667
3.5000
0.2678
0.4528
4.6391
0.9042
2.7667
3.5000
0.2678
0.4528
4.9654
0.9042
0.0000
+
Name
Surface retention
1
element
Flows
To:
Outlet
1
Outlet 2
Bioretention
1
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-10
ANALYSIS RESULTS
POC #1 was not reported because POC must exist in both scenarios and both
scenarios must have been run.Perind and Impind Changes
No changes have been made.
This program and accompanying documentation are provided r
- without warranty of any kind.
The entire risk regarding the performance ande
results of thisprogram i med by had past.
Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee o sublicensees disclaim all warranties,
either expressed o 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, lose of
business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out be the u of, or
n
' inability to use this program e 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. 2005-2018; All Rights Reserved.
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-11
WWHM2012
PROJECT REPORT
Project Name: Basin 3
Site Name: BASIN 3
Site Address: 939 Northern Pacific Rd
City : Yetm WA
Report Date: 6/6/2018
Gage : Lake Lawrence
Data Start : 1955/10/01 00:00
Data End : 2008/09/30 00:00
Precip Scale: 0.86
Version Date: 2018/03/02
Version : 4.2.14
Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 8 Percent of the 2 Year
High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year
PREDEVELOPED LAND USE
Name : Basin 1
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
A B, Forest, Flat 3.16
Pervious Total 3.16
Impervious Land Use acre
Impervious Total 0
Basin Total 3.16
Element
Flows
To:
Surface
Interflow
Groundwater
MITIGATED LAND USE
Name Basin 1
Bypass: No
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-12
,o Groundwater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
+ Pervious Total 0
Impervious Land Use acre
PARKING FLAT 3.16
Impervious Total 3.16
+ Basin Total 3.16
Element Flows To:
Surface Interflow Groundwater
+ Surface retention 1 Surface retention 1
Bioretention 1 Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volu (ac -ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)
18025
Drainage Report
5.1-13
Name : Bioretention 1
Bottom Length: 469.00 ft.
Bottom Width: 3.00 ft.
Material thickness of first layer: 1.5
Material type for first layer: SMMww 12 in/hr
Material thickness of second layer: 0
Material type for second layer: Sand
+
Material thickness of third layer: 0
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
Infiltration On
Infiltration rate: 20
_
Infiltration safety factor: 1
Wetted surface area On
Total Volume Infiltrated (ac -ft.): 563.52
+
Total Volume Through Riser (ac -ft.): 0
Total Volume Through Facility (ac -ft.): 563.52
Percent Infiltrated: 100
Total Precip Applied to Facility: 12.798
`
Total Evap From Facility: 3.998
Underdrain not used
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 1.5 ft.
Riser Diameter: 18 in.
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Bioretention 1 Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volu (ac -ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)
18025
Drainage Report
5.1-13
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-14
0.0000
0.1317
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0385
0.1291
0.0006
0.0000
0.0000
0.0769
0.1265
0.0012
0.0000
0.0001
0.1154
0.1239
0.0019
0.0000
0.0002
0.1538
0.1213
0.0026
0.0000
0.0005
0.1923
0.1187
0.0034
0.0000
0.0009
0.2308
0.1161
0.0042
0.0000
0.0014
0.2692
0.1136
0.0051
0.0000
0.0022
+
0.3077
0.1110
0.0060
0.0000
0.0031
0.3462
0.1084
0.0069
0.0000
0.0044
0.3846
0.1058
0.0079
0.0000
0.0059
+
0.4231
0.1033
0.0089
0.0000
0.0078
0.4615
0.1007
0.0100
0.0000
0.0101
0.5000
0.0981
0.0111
0.0000
0.0128
0.5385
0.0956
0.0123
0.0000
0.0160
+
0.5769
0.0930
0.0135
0.0000
0.0197
0.6154
0.0905
0.0147
0.0000
0.0240
0.6538
0.0879
0.0160
0.0000
0.0288
+
0.6923
0.0854
0.0174
0.0000
0.0344
0.7308
0.0828
0.0188
0.0000
0.0406
0.7692
0.0803
0.0202
0.0000
0.0476
0.8077
0.0777
0.0217
0.0000
0.0554
0.8462
0.0752
0.0232
0.0000
0.0640
0.8846
0.0726
0.0248
0.0000
0.0736
0.9231
0.0701
0.0264
0.0000
0.0841
0.9615
0.0675
0.0281
0.0000
0.0956
+
1.0000
0.0650
0.0298
0.0000
0.1083
1.0385
0.0625
0.0315
0.0000
0.1220
1.0769
0.0600
0.0333
0.0000
0.1370
+
1.1154
0.0574
0.0351
0.0000
0.1532
1.1538
0.0549
0.0370
0.0000
0.1708
1.1923
0.0524
0.0390
0.0000
0.1897
1.2308
0.0499
0.0409
0.0000
0.2101
_
1.2692
0.0473
0.0430
0.0000
0.2320
1.3077
0.0448
0.0450
0.0000
0.2555
1.3462
0.0423
0.0471
0.0000
0.2806
,.
1.3846
0.0398
0.0493
0.0000
0.3074
1.4231
0.0373
0.0515
0.0000
0.3360
1.4615
0.0348
0.0537
0.0000
0.3663
1.5000
0.0323
0.0560
0.0000
0.3663
Surface
retention
1 Hydraulic
Table
Sta4e(feet)
Area(ac.)
rola (ac
-ft)
Uiecharge(cfe)
To A ended(cfe)
Wetted Suzface
1.5000
0.1317
0.0560
0.0000
0.4009
0.0524
+
1.5385
0.1343
0.0611
0.0000
0.4009
0.1048
1.5769
0.1369
0.0664
0.0000
0.4109
0.1573
1.6154
0.1395
0.0717
0.0000
0.4209
0.2098
+�
1.6538
0.1421
0.0771
0.0000
0.4309
0.2624
1.6923
0.1447
0.0826
0.0000
0.4409
0.3150
1.7308
0.1473
0.0882
0.0000
0.4510
0.3677
1.7692
0.1499
0.0939
0.0000
0.4610
0.4204
1.8077
0.1525
0.0997
0.0000
0.4710
0.4732
1.8462
0.1551
0.1057
0.0000
0.4810
0.5260
1.8846
0.1578
0.1117
0.0000
0.4910
0.5788
1.9231
0.1604
0.1178
0.0000
0.5011
0.6318
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-14
ANALYSIS RESULTS
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-15
1.9615
0.1630
0.1240
0.0000
0.5111
0.6847
r
2.0000
0.1656
0.1303
0.0000
0.5211
0.7377
2.0385
0.1683
0.1368
0.0000
0.5311
0.7908
2.0769
0.1709
0.1433
0.0000
0.5412
0.8439
2.1154
0.1735
0.1499
0.0000
0.5512
0.8971
2.1538
0.1762
0.1566
0.0000
0.5612
0.9503
2.1923
0.1788
0.1635
0.0000
0.5712
1.0036
2.2308
0.1814
0.1704
0.0000
0.5812
1.0569
r
2.2692
0.1841
0.1774
0.0000
0.5913
1.1102
2.3077
0.1867
0.1845
0.0000
0.6013
1.1636
2.3462
0.1894
0.1918
0.0000
0.6113
1.2171
.�
2.3846
0.1920
0.1991
0.0000
0.6213
1.2706
2.4231
0.1947
0.2066
0.0000
0.6313
1.3242
2.4615
0.1973
0.2141
0.0000
0.6414
1.3778
2.5000
0.2000
0.2217
0.0000
0.6514
1.4314
_
2.5385
0.2027
0.2295
0.0000
0.6614
1.4851
2.5769
0.2053
0.2373
0.0000
0.6714
1.5389
2.6154
0.2080
0.2453
0.0000
0.6815
1.5927
0
2.6538
0.2107
0.2533
0.0000
0.6915
1.6466
2.6923
0.2133
0.2615
0.0000
0.7015
1.7005
2.7308
0.2160
0.2697
0.0000
0.7115
1.7544
2.7692
0.2187
0.2781
0.0000
0.7215
1.8084
2.8077
0.2214
0.2866
0.0000
0.7316
1.8625
2.8462
0.2240
0.2951
0.0000
0.7416
1.9166
2.8846
0.2267
0.3038
0.0000
0.7516
1.9707
2.9231
0.2294
0.3126
0.0000
0.7616
2.0249
2.9615
0.2321
0.3214
0.0000
0.7716
2.0792
3.0000
0.2348
0.3304
0.0000
0.7817
2.1335
3.0385
0.2375
0.3395
0.1200
0.7917
2.1878
3.0769
0.2402
0.3487
0.3391
0.8017
2.2422
3.1154
0.2429
0.3580
0.6219
0.8117
2.2967
3.1538
0.2456
0.3674
0.9542
0.8218
2.3512
3.1923
0.2483
0.3769
1.3261
0.8318
2.4057
3.2308
0.2510
0.3865
1.7286
0.8418
2.4603
3.2692
0.2537
0.3962
2.1526
0.8518
2.5149
3.3077
0.2564
0.4060
2.5891
0.8618
2.5696
3.3462
0.2591
0.4159
3.0289
0.8719
2.6244
3.3846
0.2618
0.4259
3.4625
0.8819
2.6792
3.4231
0.2645
0.4360
3.8809
0.8919
2.7340
3.4615
0.2673
0.4462
4.2756
0.9019
2.7889
3.5000
0.2700
0.4566
4.6391
0.9119
2.7889
3.5000
0.2700
0.4566
4.9654
0.9119
0.0000
Name
Surface retention
1
Element
Flows
To:
Outlet 1
Outlet
2
Bioretention
1
ANALYSIS RESULTS
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-15
POC #1 was not reported because POC must exist in both scenarios and both
scenarios must have been run.Perind and Impind Changes
No changes have been made.
This program and accompanying documentation are provided r
- without warranty of any kind.
r The entire risk regarding the performance andr sults of this program i r.
assumed by End Use
Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee of sublicensees disclaim all warranties,
either expressed o r
implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and
ompanying 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
bus Information, bus interruption, and the like) Ing out of the of, or
mess mess ares use
inability to use this program e if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. ge their authorized
representativesCreekSol have been advised of the possibility er such damages. Software Copyright ° by
Cie., Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2018; All Rights Reserved.
18025 Drainage Report 5.1-16
PART 5.2 — WATER QUALITY DESIGN
Water Quality System Design & Analysis
The drainage basins delineated for this project will have openly exposed pollution generating
impervious surfaces. These tributary areas will be treated using the following treatment
technologies listed under the associated drainage basins.
Determine the Receiving Waters/Pollutants of concern based on Offsite Analyses
Pollutants of Concern
Step 2: Oil Control Facility
This project will be required to provide oil control facility based on the analysis below.
Oil Control Determination Chart
ADT 100 Vehicles or Greater per 1000 SF Building Area
Yes or No
Site Subject to Petroleum Storage or Transfer Greater than 1500
Yes or No
Gallons per year.
Site have Parking, Storage or maintenance of 25 or more
vehicles over 25 Tons gross weight. (Trucks, Buses, Trains,
Yes or No
Heavy Equipment)
Road Intersection with measured ADT of 25000 vehicles or
more on main roadway and 15000 vehicles or more on
Yes or No
intersection roadway.
Step 3: Is Infiltration Practicable for pollutant removal?
No
Step 4: Phosphorus Control Required
Oil Control Determination Chart
Local Government Require Phosphorus control Yes or No
18025 Drainage Report 5.2-1
.. Step 5: Enhanced Treatment Required
Oil Control Determination Chart
Site discharge directly to fresh waters or conveyance systems
tributary to fresh waters?
Yes or No
Site uses infiltration strictly for flow control and the discharge is
within 1.4 mile of fresh water designate foraquatic life?
Yes or No
Site an industrial project site?
Yes or No
Site a commercial project site?
Yes or No
Site a multi -family residential project site
Yes or No
UGA— Fully controlled and partially controlled limited access
highways with AADT 15000 or greater
No
UGA - All other roads with and AADT of 7500 or greater.
No
Outside UGA - Roads with and AADT of 15,000 or greater
unless discharging to a Strahler order Stream or large
No
Outside UGA - Road with an AADT of 30,000 or greater if
discharging to a 411 Strahler order stream or larger.
No
Step 6: Select Basic/Enhanced Treatment Facility
Based on the above determination the following Enhanced treatment requirements will be
.. provided for this facility.
Selected Treatment BMP's
Basin D1
Water Quality Facility: BMP T7.30 — Bioretention Swale — Enhanced
Water Quality Facility: BMP T11.11 — Coalescing Plate Oil Water Separator
RBE has selected these treatment methods for water quality control for the new PGIS
associated with the project. Below is the summary of results from the WWHM water quality
model.
Bio -Retention Swale 131 — (See WWHM Data Output in Part 5.1 for Model Data)
Basin D2
Water Quality Facility: BMP T7.30 — Bioretention Swale — Enhanced
Water Quality Facility: BMP T11.11 — Coalescing Plate Oil Water Separator
RBE has selected this treatment method for water quality control for the new PGIS associated
with the project. Below is the summary of results from the WWHM water quality model.
Bio -Retention Swale D2 — (See WWHM Data Output in Part 5.1 for Model Data)
+ 18025 Drainage Report 5.2-2
Basin D3
Water Quality Facility: BMP T7.30 — Bioretention Swale - Enhanced
RBE has selected this treatment method for water quality control for the new PGIS associated
with the project. Below is the summary of results from the WWHM water quality model.
Bio -Retention Swale D3 — (See WWHM Data Output in Part 5.1 for Model Data)
Basin D4
Water Quality Facility: BMP T7.30 — Bioretention - Enhanced
RBE has selected this treatment method for water quality control for the new PGIS associated
with the project. This facility has not yet been modeled.
18025 Drainage Report 5.2-3
PART 5.3 — CONVEYANCE SYSTEM DESIGN
Pipe Conveyance Design
All onsite storm conveyance systems will be sized to accommodate the 25 -year storm flows. All
proposed onsite storm drain pipe will vary from 8 to 24 inches in diameter and the minimum
slope shall not be less than 0.5%. Final conveyance pipe type and sizes will be provided in the
final drainage report.
18025 Drainage Report 5.3-1
PART 6—SOURCE CONTROL BMPS
The following permanent source control BMPs will be utilized for this project and will be included
in the final Operation and Maintenance Manual submitted prior to final project acceptance by the
County.
Landscape and Lawn Vegetation Management
18025 Drainage Report 6-1
M
PART 7 — CONSTRUCTION SWPPP
A stand-alone SWPPP will be prepared for this project and submitted with the final drainage
report.
18025 Drainage Report 7-1
PART 8 — SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
1. Soils Report— Parnell Engineering, LLC
18025 Drainage Report 8-1
PE Parnell Engineering, LLC
10623 Hunters Lane S.E.
Olympia, We. 98513
(360)491-3243
DATE: 6125118
LETTER OF
TRANSMITTAL
PROJECT NAME :NPR Holdings LLC
Northern Pacific Road NW, Yelm, WA
TPN:64300900200
SEND TO : RB Engineering
PO Box 923
91 SW 13th St.
Chehalis, WA 98532 PE PROJECT NUMBER: #18103
Atm : Michael Lesmeisler, EIT
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
X❑ FOR YOUR USE ❑ AS REQUESTED
FOR YOUR REVIEW& COMMENT n APPROVEDASNOTED
FORYOURAPPROVAL F1 RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS
REMARKS: Michael,
Please find the subject soils report.
Contact me at 491-3243 should you have any questions.
Thank -you
TRANSMITTED BY: William Parnell
NPR Holdings LLC
Soils Report For Stormwater Drainage Design Purposes
Site Address: 1000-1100+ block of Northern Pacific Road NW, Yelm WA
TPN: 64300900200
Prepared For: NPR Holdings LLC
3655 E. Marginal Way S.
Seattle, WA 98134
206-313-0256
Contact: Ubaida A. Mufrej
Prepared By: Parnell Engineering, LLC
10623 Hunters Lane S.E.
Olympia, WA 98513
(360) 491-3243
Contact: William Parnell, P.E.
PE
PARNELL ENGINEERING, LLC
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 1: GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC SHEET: 1 OF 1
PE PROJECT N0.:18103 DATE: 5/25/18
PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E.
1.SITEADDRESS: 1000-1100± blockRNorthern Pacific Road NW.,,; i TPN: 64300900200
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Vehicle storage yard with office buildings.
3. SITE DESCRIPTION: The 13.93 acre irregular shapetl parcel is currently unoccupied. Site topography is
neatly level to gently sloping. Elevations range from a high of 338 ft. at the southcentral portion of the site to
a low of 328 ft. at the NE corner of the site. Site vegetation consists of sparsely located conifer trees with a
dominate scods bloom understory and some indigenous brush and field grass ground cover. The project site
is bounded by rural residential property to the north, undeveloped property to the east, Northern Pacific Road
NW to the south and a private driveway to the west. The on-site soils are mapped by the NRCS as a
somewhat excessively drained Spanaway series soil formed in glacial outwash.
4. SUMMARY OF SOILS WORK PERFORMED: Seventeen lest pits were excavated by trackhoe to a
maximum depth of 162" below the existing grade. Soils were inspected by entering and visually logging each
test pit to a depth of four feet. Soils beyond four feet were inspected by examining backhoe tailings. Nine
grain size analysis tests were completed on samples taken from lest pit #1 at 60", #2 at 60", #5 at 72", 98 at
72", #7 at 38', #13 at 72, #15 at 84", #16 at 60"and #17 at 66" below the existing grade. Test pit soil log data
sheets, grain size analysis test results and Ksat design infiltration rate calculations are included in this report.
5. ADDITIONAL SOILS WORK RECOMMENDED: Additional its work should not be necessary unless
drainage infiltration facilities are located outside the general area encompassed by the soil test pits.
6. FINDINGS: The Natural Resource Conservation Service soil survey far Thurston County mapped the on-
site soils as a Spanaway gravelly sandy loam (110,111). All test pits confirmed the Spanaway series
designation generally profiling gravelly sandy loam stratum soils underlain by extremely gravelly coarse sand
substratum soils. Winter water table was present in all test pits except #11, #12 and #15 which were located
at the highest point on the property. Grain size analysis tests and Ksat design infiltration rale calculations
resulted in calculated infiltration rates of 208 in/hr for sample #1 taken at 60" below the existing grade in test
pit #1, 345 in/hr for sample #2 taken at 60" below the existing grade in test pit #2, 128 in/hr for sample #3
taken at 72" below the existing grade in test pit #5, 99 in/hr for sample #4 taken at 72" below the existing
grade in test pit #6, 114 m/hr for sample #5 taken at 36" below the existing grade in test pit #7, 780 in/hr for
sample #6 taken at 72' below the existing grade in test pit #13, 555 m/hr for sample #7 taken at 84" below the
existing grade in test pit #15, 1253 in/hr for sample #8 taken at 60" below the existing grade in test pit #16
and 410 in/hr for sample #9 taken at 66" below the existing grade in test pit #17.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Spanaway soil series is a somewhat excessively drained soil that formed
on terraces in glacial outwash. Infiltration rates are generally rapid in the substratum gravelly soils. It is
recommended that a design infiltration rate 120 in/hr be used for all proposed stormwater infiltration facilities
that are located in the C1 and C2 horizon soils as indicated in the attached soil log data sheets. Winter water
table was identified and should be considered in the design of all infiltration facilities.
Drainage facility infiltration surfaces must be properly protected from contamination by the fine-grained upper
horizon soils and from compaction by construction site activities. Soils not properly protected will cause
drainage infiltration facilities to rematureli fail.
I hereby certify that I prepared this report, and conducted or supervised the performance of related work. I
certify that I am qualified to do this work. t my work to be complete an accurate within the bounds
of uncertainly inherent to the,pr a of s its science andp�rto be suitable for its intended use.
SIGNED:
DATE: zS
f �
m
R
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC SHEET: 1 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103 DATE: 217/2018
PREPARED BY: William Pannell, PE REVISED 512 512 01 8
SOIL LOG: #1
LOCATION: See test pit location map
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE:
2. SCS SOILS SERIES:
3. LAND FORM:
Grain Size Analysis Test
Spanaway gravelly sandy
Terrace
FxGr/CobCSa
loam(110)
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Oulwash
GROUP: A
103"
7. CURRENT WATER
8. DEPTH TO
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: 103"
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Nearly level
HORIZONS:
Greater than bottom of hole
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
Slight
Slight
Minimal
11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Grein size analysis and Ksat design infiltration rate
calculations resulted in a calculated infiltration rate of 208 in/hr for sample #1 taken at 60" below the
existing grade. It is recommended that a design infiltration rate < 20 Whir be used for proposed
stormwater infiltration facilities located in the Ci horizon soils. Winter water table was present at 103"
below the existing rade.
Harz
DePth
Color
Texture
A
0'- 24'
10YR2/1
GIL.
C1
24"- 86'
10YR4/6
FxGr/CobCSa
aome atones
and boulders
C2
86"-132'
t0YR512
ExGrCSa
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #1
%CL %ORG CF STR MOT
<25 <10 <26 1SBK -
<1 _ 85 SG
<1 - <80 SG
IND CEM ROO OX-' FSP
2-6 2
20 >20
>20 20
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC SHEET: 2 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103 DATE: 2/7/2018
PREPARED BY: William Pamell, PE REVISED 5/25/2018
SOIL LOG: #2
LOCATION: See test pit location map
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE.
2. SGS SOILS SERIES:
3, LAND FORM:
Grain Size Analysis Test
Spanaway gravelly sandy
Terrace
loam(110)
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Outwash
GROUP: A
108"
7. CURRENTWATER
8. DEPTH TO
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: 108"
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Nearly level
HORIZONS:
Greater than bottom of hole
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
Slight
Slight
Minimal
11, SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Grain size analysis and Ksat design infiltration rate
calculations resulted in a calculated infiltration rate of 345 in/hr for sample #2 taken at 60" below the
existing grade. It is recommended that a design infiltration rate < 20 Whir be used for proposed
stormwater infiltration facilities located in the C1 and C2 horizon soils. Winter water table was present at
108" below the exasting grade.
Horz Depth Color
A 0"- 18" 10YR2/1
C1 18"- 40" 10YR4/6
C2 40'-142' 10YR512
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #2
Texture ACL %ORG CF STR MOT IND CEM ROO
VGr/CobLm <25 <10 <40 1SBK - - - H
aGdCobCSa <1 - <80 SG - - H
some stones
EZGr/CobCSa <1 - <85 SG - - -
some stones
<x> FSP
M 2
>20 20
>20 >20
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC
SHEET: 3 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103
DATE: 217/2018
PREPARED BY: William Parnell, PE
REVISED 5/25/2018
SOIL LOG: #3
VGrLm
LOCATION: See test pit location map
24"- 42"
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE:
2. SCS SOILS SERIES:
3. LAND FORM:
None
Spanaway gravelly sandy
Terrace
<20
loam(110)
- - 6 2-6
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Outwash
GROUP: A
125"
7. CURRENT WATER
8. DEPTH TO
g. MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: 125"
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Nearly level
HORIZONS:
Greater than bottom of hole
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
Slight
Slight
Minimal
11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: his recommended that
a design infiltration rate < 20 n1hr be
used for proposed stormwater infiltration facilities located in the C horizon soils. Winter water table was
resent at 125" below the existing rade.
Horz
Depth
Color
Texture
A
0'- 24"
10YR211
VGrLm
Bw
24"- 42"
10YR3/3
GrSaLm
C1
42"-14F
10YR5/6
ExGr/CobC-
<20
<6 <25 1SBK -
- - 6 2-6
MSa some
<t
- <76 SG -
- - - >20
stones
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #3
%CL
%ORG CF STR MOT
IND CEM ROO <X>
FSP
<25
<10 140 1SBK -
- - If 2-6
2
<20
<6 <25 1SBK -
- - 6 2-6
4
<t
- <76 SG -
- - - >20
>20
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC
SHEET: 4 OF 17
Color
DATE: 2/7/2018
PROJECT NO.: 18103
REVISED 5/25/2018
PREPARED BY: William Parnell, PE
VGr/CobLm
C1
21'- 30'
SOIL LOG: #4
ExGrC-MSa
LOCATION: See test pit location map
30"-150'
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE:
2. SCS SOILS SERIES:
3. LAND FORM:
None
Spanaway gravelly sandy
Terrace
<1
loam(110)
- - - >20
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Outwash
GROUP: A
7. CURRENT WATER
8. DEPTH TO
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: 132"
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Nearly level
HORIZONS:
Greater than bottom of hole
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
Slight
Slight
Minimal
11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that
a design infiltration rate < 20 in/hr be
used for proposed stormwater infiltration facilities located in the C1
and C2 horizon soils. Winter water
table was present at 132" below the eXiStinq grade,
Horz
Depth
Color
Texture
A
0'- 21"
10YR2/1
VGr/CobLm
C1
21'- 30'
t0YR4/6
ExGrC-MSa
C2
30"-150'
10YR5/2
ExGr/CobCSa
<2
- <75 SG -
- - - >20
some stones
<1
- <80 SG -
- - - >20
and bpolders
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #4
-/.CL
%ORG CP8TR MOT
IND CEM ROO 4(>
FSP
Q5
4p <45 15BK -
- - If 2-6
2
<2
- <75 SG -
- - - >20
>20
<1
- <80 SG -
- - - >20
>20
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC SHEET: 5 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103 DATE: 2/7/2018
PREPARED BY: William Parnell, PE REVISED 5 /2 512 01 8
SOIL LOG: #5
LOCATION: See test pit location map
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE:
2. SCS SOILS SERIES:
3. LAND FORM:
Grain Size Analysis Test
Spanaway gravelly sandy
Terrace
loam(110)
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Outwash
GROUP: A
120"
7. CURRENT WATER
8. DEPTH TO
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: 120"
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Nearly level
HORIZONS:
Greater than bottom of hole
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
Slight
Slight
Minimal
11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Grain size analysis and Ksat design infiltration rate
calculations resulted in a calculated infiltration rate of 128 in/hr for sample #3 taken at 72" below the
existing grade. It is recommended that a design infiltration rate 120 in/hr be used for proposed
stormwater infiltration facilities located in the C1 and C2 horizon soils. Winter water table was present at
120" below the existing rade.
Horz Depth Color
A 0"- 24" 10YR2/1
C1 24"- 52' 10YR416
C2 52"-148' 10YR5/2
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #5
Te#ure %CL %ORG CF STR MOT IND CEM ROO
VGNCobLm 125 <10 <55 iSBK - - - ff
ExGr/CobCSa <1 - <85 SG - - - -
some stones
ExGrCSa <1 - 75 SG - - - some stones
<X> FSP
2-6 2
>20 20
>20 >20
Hoa
A
C1
C2
Cgm3
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC SHEET: 6 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103 DATE: 2!7/2018
PREPARED BY: William Parnell. PE REVISED 5/25/2018
SOIL LOG: #8
LOCATION: See test pit location map
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE:
2. SCS SOILS SERIES:
3. LAND FORM:
Grain Size Analysis Test
Spanaway gravelly sandy
Terrace
some stones
loam(110)
10YR5/2
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Outwash
GROUP: A
112"
7. CURRENT WATER
8. DEPTH TO
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: 112"
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Nearly level
(Till)
HORIZONS:
118"
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
Slight
Slight
I Minimal
11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Grain size analysis and Kest design infiltration rate
calculations resulted in a calculated infiltration rate of 99 in/hr for sample #4 taken at 72" below the
existing grade. It is recommended that a design infiltration rate <20 in/hr be used for proposed
stormwater infiltration facilities located in the C1 and C2 horizon soils. Winter water table was present at
112" below the existing rade.
Deoth
Color
Texture
0"- 22'
1OYR211
VGr/CobLm
22- 58'
10YR4/6
E%GdCobCSa
mes
- Mod
some stones
58"-118"
10YR5/2
ExGrCSa
some stones
and boulders
118"-148"
10YR5/6
E.GrLmFSa
(Till)
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #6
-/.CL %ORG CF STIR
<25 <10 <45 1SBK
<i - 85 SG
MOT IND CEM ROO
- - - ff
<x> FSP
2-6 2
>20 >20
<1
- 75
SG -
-
-
- >20
>20
<12
- -
mes
- Mod
Wk
- -
-
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC SHEET: 7 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103 DATE: 2/7/2018
PREPARED BY: William Parnell. PE REVISED 5/25/2018
SOIL LOG: #7
LOCATION: See test pit location map
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE:
2. SCS SOILS SERIES:
3. LAND FORM:
Grain Size Analysis Test
Spanaway gravelly sandy
Terrace
10YR2/1
loam(110)
<25
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5, HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Outwash
GROUP: A
76"
7. CURRENT WATER
8. DEPTH TO
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: 76"
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Nearly level
>15
HORIZONS:
Greater than bottom of hole
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
C2
Slight
Slight
Minimal
11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Grain size analysis and Ksat design infiltration rate
calculations resulted in a calculated infiltration rate of 114 in/hr for sample #5 taken at 36" below the
existing grade. It is recommended that a design infiltration rate <20 in/hr be used for proposed
stormwater infiltration facilities located in the C2 horizon soils. Winter water table was present at 76"
below the existing rade.
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #7
Hom
Death
Color
Texture
%CL
%ORG CF
STR MOT
IND CEM ROO <x>
FSP
A
0"- 18"
10YR2/1
VCobLm
<25
<10 <55
1SBK -
- - If 2-6
2
C1
1a"- 24"
10YR4/6
EXGTLmM-
<8
- 75
SG -
- - - 120
>15
FSa
C2
24"-108"
10YR5/6
ExGr/CobC-
<1
- <80
SG -
- - - >20
>20
MSasome
stones and
boulders
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC
SHEET:12 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103
DATE: 2/7/2018
PREPARED BY: William Parnell, PE
REVISED 5/25/2018
SOIL LOG: #12
CEM ROO
LOCATION: See test pit location map
FSP
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE:
2. SCS SOILS SERIES:
3. LAND FORM:
None
Spanaway gravelly sandy
Terrace
loam(110)
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Outwash
GROUP: A
Greater than bottom of hole
7. CURRENT WATER
8. DEPTH TO
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: Greater than bottom
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Nearly level
of hole
HORIZONS:
EXGrSBLnn
<15 -
Greater than bottom of hole
SG - -
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
26'-123"
Slight
Slight
I Minimal
11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
SG - -
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
>20
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that
a diasngn infiltration rate < 20 m/hr be
used for proposed stonnwater infiltration facilities located in the C2 and C3 horizon soils. Winter water
table was not present to 162" below the existing rade. Hole cave
in.
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #12
Hoa
Depth
Calor
Texture
%CL %ORO
CF
STR MOT IND
CEM ROO
<X>
FSP
1N
A
0"- 16"
10YR2/1
VGr/CobLm
<25 <10
<55
1SBK - -
-
2-6
2
C1
16"- 26"
10YR3/3
EXGrSBLnn
<15 -
<70
SG - -
- If
6-20
6
I C2
26'-123"
10YR5/2
E%GrCSa
<1 -
<85
SG - -
- -
>20
>20
C3
123'-162'
1OYR511
MSa
<1 -
<10
SG - -
- -
>20
>20
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC SHEET:13 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103 DATE: 2/7/2018
PREPARED BY: William Parnell. PE REVISED 5/25/2018
SOIL LOG: #13
LOCATION: See test pit location map
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE:
2. SCS SOILS SERIES:
3. LAND FORM:
Grain Size Analysis Test
Spanaway gravelly sandy
Terrace
loam(110)
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Oulwash
GROUP: A
123"
7. CURRENT WATER
8. DEPTH TO
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: 123"
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Sloping
FSP
HORIZONS:
0"- 18"
10YR2/1
Greater than bottom of hole
<25
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
C1
Slight
Slight
I Minimal
11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS &RECOMMENDATIONS: Grain size analysis and Ksat design infiltration rate
calculations resulted in a calculated infiltration rate of 780 in/hr for sample #8 taken at 72" below the
existing grade. It is recommended that a design infiltration rate < 20 in/hr be used for proposed
stormwater infiltration facilities located in the C1 and C2 horizon soils. Winter water table was present at
123" below the existing rade.
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #13
Horz
Deoth
Calor
Texture
-/.CL
%ORG CF STR MOT IND
CEM Roo
<X>
FSP
A
0"- 18"
10YR2/1
VGr/CobLm
<25
<10 <45 1 S6 - -
- It
26
2
C1
18'- 30°
10YR4/6
ExGrC-FSa
<1
- 75 SG - -
- ff
>20
>20
02
30"-144"
10YR512
E%GICSe
<t
- <85 SG - -
-
>20
>20
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC
SHEETA4 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103
DATE: 2/7/2018
PREPARED BY: William Parnell. PE
REVISED 5/25/2018
SOIL LOG: #14
IND CEM ROO
LOCATION: See test pit location map
FSP
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE.
2. SCS SOILS SERIES:
3,
LAND FORM:
None
Spanaway gravelly sandy
iSSK -
Terrace
2-6
loam(110)
Ci
2T- 36°
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6.
DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Outwash
GROUP: A
>20
65"
7. CURRENT WATER
8. DEPTH TO
9.
MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: 65"
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
SG -
Toe of Slope
>20
HORIZONS:
Greater than bottom of hole
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
Slight
Slight
Minimal
11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION. See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: it is recommended that a design infiltration rate < 20 in /hr be
used for proposed stormwater infiltration facilities located in the C1 horizon soils Winter water table was
resent at 65" below the existing rade. Test Rit was at the toe of slope.
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #14
Hoa
Deoth
Color
Texture
-/.CL
%ORG CF
STR MOT
IND CEM ROO
<X>
FSP
A
0"- 20"
10YR2/1
GrLm
<25
<10 <30
iSSK -
- - If
2-6
2
Ci
2T- 36°
1OYR4I6
ExGrM-FSa
<1
- <75
SG -
- - H
>20
>20
C2
36"- "'
1OYR5/2
ExGrCSa
<1
- <85
SG -
- - -
>20
>20
some stones
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC SHEET:15 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103 DATE: 2/712018
PREPARED BY: William Parnell, PE REVISED 5/25/2018
SOIL LOG: #15
LOCATION: See test pit location map
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE:
2. SCS SOILS SERIES:
3. LAND FORM:
Grain Size Analysis Test
Spanaway gravelly sandy
Terrace
loam(110)
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6, DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Oulwash
GROUP: A
Greater than bottom of hole
7. CURRENTWATER
8. DEPTH TO
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: Greaterthan bottom
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Nearly level
of hole
HORIZONS:
0"- 14"
10YR211
Greater than bottom of hole
<25
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
C1
Slight
Slight
I Minimal
11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Grain size analysis and Ksat design infiltration rate
calculations resulted in a calculated infiltration rate of 555 inlhr for sample #7 taken at 84" below the
existing grade. It is recommended that a design infiltration rate:s 20 in/hr be used for proposed
stormwater infiltration facilities located in the C1 and C2 horizon soils. Winter water table was not
resent to 144" below the existing rade. Hole cave in.
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #15
Hoe
Deoth
Color
Texture
%CL
%ORG OF STIR MOT
IND CEM ROO
<X>
FSP
A
0"- 14"
10YR211
VGr/CobLm
<25
<10 <50 1SBK -
- - If
2-6
2
C1
14"- 27'
10YR4/6
ExGrC-FSa
<1
- <80 SG -
- - If
>20
>20
C2
27"-144"
10YR5/2
ExGrCSa
q
- <90 SG -
- - -
>20
>20
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC SHEET:16 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103 DATE: 2/7/2018
REVISED 5/25/2018
PREPARED BY: William Parnell. PE
SOIL LOG: #16
LOCATION: See test pit location map
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE:
2, SCS SOILS SERIES:
3. LAND FORM:
Grain Size Analysis Test
Spanaway gravelly sandy
Terrace
0% 12"
loam(110)
VGrLm
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Outwash
GROUP: A
97"
7. CURRENT WATER
8. DEPTH TO
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
DEPTH: 97'
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Toe of Slope
SG -
HORIZONS:
>20
120
Greater than bottom of hole
21'-120"
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
SG -
Slight
Slight
Minimal
11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Grain size analysis and Ksat design inFllfration rate
calculations resulted In a calculated infiltration rate of 1253 in/hr for sample #8 taken at 60' below the
existing grade. It is recommended that a design infiltration rate < 20 iNhr be used for proposed
stormwater Infiltration facilities located in the C1 and C2 horizon soils. Winter water table was present at
97" below the existin rade. Test it was at the toe of slo e.
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #16
Hoa
Deoth
Color
Texture
-/.CL %ORG
CF
STR MOT
IND CEM ROO
O(>
FSP
A
0% 12"
10YR&1
VGrLm
<25 <10
<55
1SBK -
- - If
2-8
2
Ci
12"- 21'
10YR418
ExGrc-FSa
<1 -
<80
SG -
- - If
>20
120
C2
21'-120"
10YR5/2
ExGrCSa
<t -
<90
SG -
- - -
>20
>20
some stones
SOIL EVALUATION REPORT
FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: NPR Holdings LLC SHEET:17 OF 17
PROJECT NO.: 18103 DATE: 2/7/2018
PREPARED BY: William Parnell, PE REVISED 5/25/2018
SOIL LOG: #17
LOCATION: See test pit location map
1. TYPES OF TEST DONE:
2. SCS SOILS SERIES:
3. LAND FORM:
Grain Size Analysis Test
Spaneway gravelly sandy
Terrace
loam(110)
4. DEPOSITION HISTORY:
5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL
6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW:
Glacial Outwash
GROUP: A
106"
7. CURRENT WATER
8. DEPTH TO
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
DEPTH: 106"
IMPERVIOUS/RESTRICTIVE
Toe of Slope
FSP
HORIZONS:
0°- 20"
10YR211
Greater than bottom of hole
<25
10. POTENTIAL FOR:
EROSION
RUNOFF
PONDING
cl
Slight
Slight
1 Minimal
11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart
12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP
13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Grain size analysis and Vast design infiltration rate
resulted in a calculated infiltration rate of 410 in/hr for sample #9 taken at 66" below the
calculations
existing grade. It is recommended that a design infiltration rate < 20 in/hr be used for proposed
stormwater infiltration facilities located in the C1 and C2 horizon soils. Winter water table was present at
106" below the existing rade. Test oit was at the toe of slo .
Soils Strata Description
Soil Log #17
Hoa
Depth
Color
TeA.re
%CL
%ORG CF STIR MOT
IND CEM ROO
<X>
FSP
A
0°- 20"
10YR211
VGr/CobLm
<25
<10 <55 iSBK -
- - ff
2-6
2
cl
20"- 38"
10YR416
ExGrC-FSa
<i
- <85 SG -
- - ff
>20
>20
C2
38'-122"
1OYR512
ExGr/CabCSa
<1
- <85 SG -
- - -
>20
>20
some stones
Abbreviations
Textural Class
Texture
Structure
STR
1st Letter Abundance2nd
Grades of Structure
Cobbled
- Cob
Granular
- Gr
-3
Stone
- St
Block
- Blky
-Strong
Moderate - 2
Gravel)
- Gr
Plat
- PI
Weak - 1
Sand
- Sa
Massive
- Mas
Loam
- Lm
Sin le Grained
-SG
Silty
- Si
Sub -Angular Block - SBK
Clayey
-Cl
Coarse
- C
Very
- V
Extreme)
- Ex
Fine
- F
Medium
- M
Induration & Cementation
IND CEM
Weak -Wk
Moderate - Mod
Strong Str
Mottles MOT
1st Letter Abundance2nd
1 Letter Abundance
1st Number Size
2nd Letter Contrast
Few - F
Fine - 1
Faint - F
Common - C
Medium - 2
Distinct - D
Man - M
I Coarse -3
Prominent - P
Roots (ROO)
1st Letter Abundance2nd
Letter Size
Few -f
Fine -f
Common - c
Medium - m
Man - m
Coarse - c
<X> - Generalized range of infiltration rates from SCS soil survey (<X>)
FSP - Estimated Design Field Saturated Percolation rate based on horizon specific
factors and specific test results.
Did= 0.7
D6o = 7.0
Deo= 19.0
frees = 0.004
logto(Ksat) = -1.57 + 1.90Dio + 0.015D6o - 0.013D90 - 2.08frnes
logio(Ksat) = -1.57 + 1.90(0.7) + 0.015(7.0) - 0.013(19.0) - 2.08(0.004)
Ksnt = 0.4071 cm/s x 0.3937 in/cm x 60s/min x 60 min/hr = 577 in/hr
Design Infiltration Rate Calculation • I i
[design = Ksat mmai X CFT
Ksaustw = 577 in/hr
CFT = CF, x CFt x CF.
CFT=1.0x 0.4x 0.9
CFT= 0.36
[design = 577 X 0.36
laseign = 208 in/hr
For stormwater facility design purposes, use an [design < 20 in/hr.
Dto= 0.8
Den= 7.0
Deo = 16.5
taus = 0.005
logm(Ksat) = -1.57 + 1.90Dia + 0.015Dso - 0.013Doo - 2.08fr,..
logto(Ksat) = -1.57 + 1.90(0.8) + 0.015(7.0) - 0.013(16.5) - 2.08(0.005)
Ksat = 0.6762 cm/s x 0.3937 in/cm x 60s/min x 60 min/hr = 958 in/hr
Desian Infiltrtion Rat Calcultion'
laesi, = Ksat me X CFr
Ksaolmem = 958 Whir
CFr = CF. x CR x CFm
CFT=1.0x0.4x0.9
CFT= 0.36
ld.sIp = 958 X 0.36
Idesiaa = 345 in/hr
For stormwater facility design purposes, use an lasMy. < 20 in/hr
Did= 0.58
Deo = 6.5
Deo= 17.0
fines = 0.004
logio(Ksat) = -1.57 + 1 MDio + 0.015D60 - 0.013Dso - 2.08fanes
logio(Ksat) = -1.57 + 1.90(0.58) + 0.015(6.5) - 0.013(17.0) - 2.08(0.004)
Ksat = 0.2513 cm/s x 0.3937 in/cm x 60s/min x 60 min/hr = 356 in/hr
Desian Infiltration Rate Calculation : Idasian
laesign = Ksat inmai X CFi
Ksai maai = 356 in/hr
CFr=CF.x CFtx CF.
CF.=1.0x0.4x 0.9
CFr= 0.36
laesign = 356 X 0.36
[design = 128 in/hr
For stormwater facility design purposes, use an laesign < 20 in/hr
Dto= 0.52
Deo = 9.5
Dso= 20.0
fines = 0.007
logio(Ksat) = -1.57 + 1.90Dto + 0.015D6o - 0.013Dso - 2.08frnes
logto(Ksat) = -1.57 + 1.90(0.52) + 0.015(9.5) - 0.013(20.0) - 2.08(0.007)
Kw = 0.1932 cm/s x 0.3937 in/cm x 60s/min x 60 min/hr = 274 in/hr
Desian Infiltration Rate Calculation : Idasion
Ideslgn = Ksat intow X CFT
Ksat mm = 274 in/hr
CFT = CFv x ON x CFm
CFT =1.0x0.4x 0.9
CFr= 0.36
WW, = 274 X 0.36
laesign = 99 in/hr
For stormwater facility design purposes, use an Idasign < 20 in/hr
Dig= 0.60
D6o = 0.7
Dgo= 17.0
fines = 0.005
logia(Ksan) = -1.57 + 1.90Dio + 0.015D6a - 0.013Dso - 2.08fnnes
logio(Ksat) = -1.57 + 1.90(0.60) + 0.015(0.7) - 0.013(17.0) - 2.08(0.005)
Kest = 0.2234 cm/s x 0.3937 in/cm x 60s/min x 60 min/hr = 317 in/hr
n sian Infiltration Rate Calculation , la i
[design = Kset imdsi X CFr
Ksaunmsi = 317 in/hr
CFT = CFs x CFt x CF.
CFr=1.0x0.4x 0.9
CFT= 0.36
Idesign = 317 X 0.36
Idesign = 114 in/hr
For stormwater facility design purposes, use an [design < 20 in/hr
Dto= 1.0
Deo = 6.7
Deo= 17.5
fnnes = 0.009
log to(Ksat) = -1.57 + 1.90Dto + 0.015Dea - 0.013Dgo - 2.08fdnes
logto(Ksat) = -1.57 + 1.90(1.0) + 0.015(6.7) - 0.013(17.5) - 2.08(0.009)
Ksat = 1.5286 cm/s x 0.3937 in/cm x 60s/min x 60 min/hr = 2166 in/hr
Infiltration Rate Calculatio
Idesign = Ksat mi6atX CFr
Ksatmmai = 2166 in/hr
CFr = CFv x CFt x CF.
CFr=1.0x0.4x 0.9
CFr = 0.36
Ideslgn = 2166 X 0.36
leesign = 780 in/hr
For stormwater facility design purposes, use an Idesign < 20 inlhr
Dig= 0.9
D6o= 10.0
Dso= 18.5
fnnes = 0.006
logio(Ksat) = -1.57 + 1.90Dio + 0.015Deo - 0.013Dgo - 2.08fdnes
log o(K m) = -1.57 + 1.90(0.9) + 0.015(10.0) - 0.013(18.5) - 2.08(0.006)
Kiat = 1.089 cm/s x 0.3937 in/cm x 60s/min x 60 min/hr = 1543 in/hr
Desian Infittration Rate Calculation : ggaugn
Ideeign = Kut initial X CFr
Keaunmai = 1543 in/hr
CF=CFsx CFtx CF.
CFr=1.0x0.4x 0.9
CFr= 0.36
[design = 1543 X 0.36 _
[design = 555 in/hr
For stormwater facility design purposes, use an Idesign < 20 in/hr
Dm= 1.1
No = 6.9
Dso= 16.5
fines = 0.009
logio(Ksat) = -1.57 + 1.90Dm + 0,015Deg - 0.013D90 - 2.08fnnes
logtg(Ksat) = -1.57 + 1.90(1.1) + 0.015(6.9) - 0.013(16.5) - 2.08(0.009)
Kw = 2.456 cm/s x 0.3937 in/cm x 60s/min x 60 min/hr = 3481 in/hr
Desian Infiltration Rate Calculation , Iain'
[design = Kat maw X CFr
Keaunteai = 3481 in/hr
CFr = CFe x CFt x CFm
CFr=1.0x 0.4x 0.9
CFr= 0.36
[design = 3481 X 0.36
Idesign = 1253 in/hr
For stormwater facility design purposes, use an Idesign < 20 in/hr
Dic= 0.85
Deo= 5.5
Dm= 16.0
fnnea = 0.007
logm(Ksat) = -1.57 + 1.90Dio + 0.015Deo - 0.013Dsa - 2.08fgnes
logio(K:at) = -1.57 + 1.90(0.85) + 0.015(5.5) - 0.013(16.0) - 2.08(0.007)
Ksat = 0.8034 cm/s x 0.3937 in/cm x 60s/min x 60 min/hr = 1139 in/hr
Desian Infiltration Rate Calculation : laastnn
[design = Keat initial X CFr
Ksaumuai = 1139 in/hr
CFr = CFv x Ch x CF.
CFr=1.0 x0.4x 0.9
CFr= 0.36
Idesign = 1139 X 0.36
[design = 410 in/hr
For stormwater facility design purposes, use an laestgn < 20 in/hr
SOIL Loi TES P,T lry-anov MAP
0- SOIL L06i
\ AA
I
l
I�
r
_..-
i Ely#Jbr , �
�• +
I til > r
f f
l
v
I
'
rl
r
PART 9 — OTHER PERMITS
,. The following is a list of regulatory permits needed for this project and copies are attached if
available.
SEPA Review — Pending Determination
Grading and Drainage — Pending Final Drainage and Grading Plans
' Building Permits — Pending Design and Permitting
18025 Drainage Report 9-1
PART 10 — OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
A final Operation and Maintenance Manual will be prepared during the final design of the
drainage plan. It will follow the WSDOE guidelines.
18025 Drainage Report 10-1
+ PART 11 —BOND QUANTITIES/FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
-. Facility agreements and financial guarantees when required will be reviewed by the applicant
and executed at the appropriate time determined by the reviewing agency.
18025 Drainage Report 11-1
PART 12 — GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS
The half size drawing of the site civil grading and drainage plans are included on the following
pages.
18025 Drainage Report 12-1