The URL can be used to link to this page

Tahoma Blvd Drainage Report~~7 ,v ~ I i ® Consulting Engineers 4200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 309, Lacey, WA 98503 (360) 292-7230 Fax (360) 292-7231 To. James E Gibson City of Yelm Development Services 105 Yelm Avenue W Yelm, WA 98597 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: August 31, 2006 Job: # 406030.02 Project Tahoma Boulevard From: Thomas W. J. Theisen cc: Clinton Pierpoint Mark R. Steepy r Re: Tahoma Boulevard Improvement Plans for Tahoma Terra 3-8 We are sending to you the attached: See Description Below Via: Mail Co 'ies ~Dated~~ ~# of Shts. ~~ Descri"`tion ~~ 2 8/30/06 52 Half Size Imrovement Plans 6 8/30/06 52 Full Size Im rovement Plans 2 8/30/06 Draina a Re ort These are transmitted. As Submitted Remarks: Jim, ` Here is the 90% submittal for Tahoma Boulevard Roadway Improvement Plans and the Drainage Report through Tahoma Terra 3-8. If you have any questions about these plans, report or any other item(s) involving this project please contact Clint Pierpoint or Mark Steepy here at KPFF Consulting Engieers, Inc. at your earliest convenience. Signed: ~~~ TAHOMA BOULEVARD EXTENSION ~ Draina e Report g Thurston County, WA !__1 I~ u r LJ C ~ Consulting Engineers 4200 6th Avenue, Suite 309 n Lacey, WA 98503 L~ KPFF Project No. 406030 August 30, 2006 u V Drainage Report n ~; ~, n V{ I~ LJ I~I LJ~ i_J I~ U I~ LJ I~ iJ Tahoma Boulevard Extension Yelm, Washington August 2006 Project Information Project Prepared for Contact Tahoma Boulevard Extension Tahoma Terra PH3-8 LLC Doug Bloom 4200 6th Ave. SE, Ste. 301 Lacey, WA 98503 (360) 923-9655 Reviewing Agency Jurisdiction Project Number= Project Contact Project Engineer Prepared by~ Contact KPFF Project File Number City of Yelm, Washington James E. Gibson KPFF Consulting Engineers 4200 6th Ave. SE, Ste. 309 Lacey, WA 98503 (360) 292-7230 FAX (360) 293-7231 Mark Steepy, P.E. 406030.02 g=\text\pf\2004pf \Reports\tahoma_dr.rtf PROJECT ENGINEERS CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this Drainage Report for the Tahoma Boulevard Extension in Yelm Washington has been prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the intent of the City of Yelm Development Guidelines and Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin unless noted otherwise, and normal standards of engineering practice. I understand that the jurisdiction does not and will not assume liability for the sufficiency, suitability, or performance of drainage facilities designed for this development. n TABLE OF CONTENTS APPEIVDICEs Draina I e d A PART I STORM DRAINAGE REPORT .................................................................... ....................1 ix - g PPen Calculations SECTION 1 - PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ... 1 SECTION 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS . - - - - 4 Appendix II -Basin Map SECTION 3 - INFILTRATION RATES/SOILS REPORT .. .. .. .. 4 -- SECTION 4 - WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS - . - - - - -5 Appendix IIA -Drainage and TESC 1 1 Plan ~, SECTION 5 - FUEL TANKS ... .. 5 v SECTION 6 - SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION - . .... 5 Appendix III -FaciLty Summary Forms SECTION 7 - SECTION 8 - ANALYSIS OF 100-YEAR FLOOD ... -. AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR FACILITIES .. . 5 . 5 Appendix N -FEMA FIRM Map SECTION 9 - DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS AND FACILITY SIZING - • - 6 Appendix V -Soils Evaluatwn ~ SECTION 10 -COVENANTS, DEDICATIONS, EASEMENTS - .. 6 Report '~ SECTION 11 -PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION 6 PART II -EROSION CONTROL REPORT ............................................................ .....................7 Appendix VI -Geologic Assessment SECTION 1 - CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND PROCEDURE ... - - 7 Report In SECTION 2 - TRAPPING SEDIMENT - - - - 7 SECTION 3 - PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL & SITE RESTORATION 8 Appendix VII -Vicinity Map SECTION 4 - GEOTECI INICAL ANALYSIS AND REPORT - 8 Appendix VIII -Wetlands ~~ SECTION 5 - INSPECTION SEQUENCE .. .. 8 Dehmauon Map SECTION 6 - CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS OTHER THAN SEDIMENTS - - - -- 9 Appendix Dt -Maintenance PART III -MAINTENANCE PLAN ............................................................................................10 Agreement L SECTION 1 - REQUIItED MAINTENANCE SECTION 2 - RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION - - .. .. 19 SECTION 3 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ... - - 19 C SECTION 4 - SOURCE CONTROL .. - - .- 19 I~ LJ~ ~1 1 LJ U I~ u ?--'1 L~ 11 n ~~ U ~i n lU n u ~? U Part I Storm Drainage Report Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drainage Report PART I STORM DRAINAGE REPORT SECTION 1 - PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~, Project Proponent= Tahoma Terra PH3-8 LLC ~,l 4200 6th Ave. SE, Ste. 301 Lacey, WA 98503 ~? (360) 493-6002 1~ Parcel Numbers 21723410000, 21724320000, 21724330000 and 21723440000 i Total Site Area 5.90 Acres ~1 Zoned= R-O-W ~~ Site Address R-O-W ~j Required Permits Grading, Utility, HPA, JARFA, etc. Section, Township, Range Section 24, Township 17 North, Range 1 East, W.M., Thurston County, WA Site Location The site is located in Yelm, Washington westerly of existing Tahoma Blvd. u Project Overview n The proposal is to extend Tahoma Blvd and construct about 2,8151f of new roadway to ~, serve as an access road for future Tahoma Terra Divisions 3 through 8 residential development, and future Thurston Highlands developments. Prior to the roadway construction, existing culverts at Thompson Creek crossing will be replaced as outlined in Thompson Creek Culverts Backwater Analysis prepared by SCA Consulting Group and approved by the City of Yelm. The proposed extension will be constructed in one phase t and will include appropriate erosion control measures as needed, grading, storm drainage improvements and extension of underground utilities including water, sanitary sewer and franchise utilities. `J Storm Draina a Im rovements~ g P The completed project will create approximately 5.03 acres of new impervious roadway and sidewalks, 0.77 acres of disturbed pervious area and 0.1 ac of pond area. For the purposes of this study the site was divided into three sub-basins. KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 1 June 2006 I U ~` r-n U ~1 ~1, ,n Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drai All project impervious areas (roads, sidewalks) are accounted for below Post-Development Basin Area Summary Basin A Basin B Basin C Total Impervious Roadway/Sidewalk 2.35 ac 2.09 ac 0.59 ac 5.03 ac Pond Area 0.0 ac O. l0ac O.Oac 0.1 ac Disturbed Pervious 0.36 ac 0.32 ac 0.09 ac 0.77 ac Total 2.71 ac 2.51 ac 0.68 ac 5.90 ac Stormwater Treatment Stormwater treatment design requirements are based on the 1992 edition of the WSDOE Stormwater Management Manual. StormShed and Boston Harbor software were used to size the treatment facilities. Treatment calculations are provided in Appendix I. Basin `A'~ Basin `A' includes about 1315 LF of western part of proposed Tahoma Blvd. extension. Stormwater runoff from the roadway will sheetflow to a series of street side catch basins and be directed into an interim wetpond for treatment and storage, and into an infiltration pond for infiltration to groundwater. The proposed wetpond will also accommodate treatment requirements for Div 3 and 4 (Phase I) of Tahoma Terra Div 3-8 Residential Development, which will include 392 single-family residential lots with internal streets and associated landscaping. Upon completion of mining activities in future multifamily area the interim wetpond will be replaced with permanent wetpond, as outlined in Tahoma Terra Drainage Concept Narrative. The Manual requires 6- month/24-hour event to be treated. The wetpond is sized to exceed (by 47%) the minimum treatment requirements of the DOE Stormwater Manual as an additional safety margin. Basin `B'~ n ~i Basin `B' includes about 1170 LF of central part of proposed Tahoma Blvd. extension. Stormwater runoff from the roadway will sheetflow to a series of street side catch basins and be directed into a wetpond "B" for treatment and storage, and will be released at allowable rate (WSDOE Stormwater Management Manual requires release rate for developed conditions not to exceed 50% of 2-year/24-hour event for pre developed conditions) into Thompson Creek. Runoff from a 6-monthl24-hour event will be treated in "dead volume" part of the wetpond. The wetpond is sized to exceed (by 5%) the minimum t~ treatment requirements of the DOE Stormwater Manual as an additional safety margin. Basin `C'~ Basin `C' includes about 330 LF of eastern part of proposed Tahoma Blvd extension. Stormwater runoff from the roadway will sheetflow to a series of street side catch basins and be directed for treatment into drainage facility located at Tahoma Terra Div 1-2, which was sized to accommodate eastern part of Tahoma Blvd extension. Drainage report KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 2 June 2006 In ~I r--, L~~ n U t Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drainage Report for Tahoma Terra Div 1-2 included calculations for this facility and was approved by the City of Yelm. Stormwater Storage/Infiltration~ Stormwater storage and infiltration requirements are based on the 1992 edition of the WSDOE Stormwater Management Manual using a 100-year/24-hour storm event. Final storage and infiltration calculations are provided in Appendix I. StormShed and Boston Harbor software were used to size the storage and infiltration facilities. Infiltrations rates used for calculations in this study were recommended by soils professional in Soil Evaluation Report for Tahoma Terra Div.3-8 dated 05/25/2006. This report can be found in Appendix V. Basin `A'~ Treated Stormwater runoff will be conveyed into an infiltration pond for storage and infiltration to groundwater. Storage requirements were calculated using 24-hour/100-year event. WSDOE Stormwater Management Manual requires infiltration ponds to be able to infiltrate 100% of 100-year/24-hour storm within 48 hours. See Appendix I for detailed storage calculations. ~~ Basin `B'~ ~~ ~1 u i~ ZJ Treated Stormwater runoff will be stored in the wetpond "B" "live volume" section and will be discharged into Thompson Creek at the allowable rate (WSDOE Stormwater Management Manual requires release rate for developed conditions not to exceed 50% of 2-year/24-hour event for pre-developed conditions). Storage requirements were calculated using 24-hour/100-year event. See Appendix I for detailed storage calculations. In the unlikely event of facility failure or in case of a storm larger than the 100-year/24- hour event, excessive runoff will safely overflow through spillway into Thompson Creek. Basin `C'~ Treated Stormwater runoff will be stored and infiltrated in the drainage facility located at Tahoma Terra Div 1-2, which was sized to accommodate eastern part of Tahoma Blvd. extension. Drainage report for Tahoma Terra Div 1-2 included calculations for this facility and was approved by the City of Yelm. Stora a Ca acit Summa Basin ID Impervious Area Disturbed Pervious Area Storage Re uired Storage Provided Basin A 2.35 ac 0.36 ac 104,689 cf (1>(2> 121,056 cf Basin B 2.09 ac 0.32 ac 7,316 cf (4) 9,982 cf Basin C 0.59 ac 0.09 ac 0(s) 0(a> KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 3 ~i June 2006 L.1 ~' U Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drama a Re ort TOTAL 5.13 ac 0.77 ac 112,005 cf 131,038 cf (1) Based on StormShed hydrological modeling software for the 100-year/24-hour storm event for 20-in/hz' infiltration rate (2) This number includes storage required for Tahoma Terra Phase I of Div 3-8 Residential Development. (3) Excluded from this report. Part of drainage report for Tahoma Terra Div 1-2 approved by the City. (4) Based on StormShed hydrological modeling software for the 100-year/24-hour storm event for allowable ~--i release rate. LI SECTION 2 -EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed project will extend Tahoma Blvd, which has already been partially built as apart of Tahoma Terra Div 1-2, westerly. The described project is currently an existing r--i road. The site is bisected by Thompson Creek. Site topography east of Thompson Creek is relatively flat with no distinguishing features. Site topography west of Thompson Creek generally consists of a gently sloping, rolling terrain over the central portion of the site. Steeper slopes lie immediately west of Thompson Creek except in the area of proposed r~ project. The vegetation which surrounds the existing road consists of uncropped pasture grasses. Elevations range from about 330 in the eastern part of the project to about 375 in the western part. The project site is bounded by the built part of Tahoma Blvd to the east and undeveloped property to the west, north and south. On-site soils are generally well drained and formed in glacial outwash. There are some wetlands associated with ~1 Thompson Creek. The Coot Company prepared "Wetlands inventory for the Tahoma Terra project" dated Apri12005. The City of Yelm issued MDNS on May 24, 2005. The existing road crosses Thompson Creek over undersized culverts, which will be replaced ~ per Thompson Creek Culverts Backwater Analysis Drainage Report approved by the City ~-> of Yelm prior to beginning of roadway construction. The site is located in an aquifer sensitive area, according to the 1986 Thurston County ~` Comprehensive Plan M-8. The site is located in a wellhead protection area. SECTION 3 -INFILTRATION RATES/SOILS REPORT >~ The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Thurston County classifies onsite soils as a combination of Nisqually loamy fine sand (74), Everett gravelly sandy loam (33,34) and Yelm fine sandy loam (127). On-site soil test pits examined generally confirm the SCS classification. ~~ Nineteen test pits were excavated by trackhoe to a maximum depth of 252" below existing LJ grade. Double ring infiltration tests were completed in test pits #7A, #8A and #17A. Static water was present in test pit # 7A at 108" below existing grade, with high water table indicators present at 48" below existing grade. No static water or high water indicators ~I were found in test pit #8A. The proposed infiltration pond located in close proximity to test pit #8A. No other infiltration facilities proposed for this project. Test pit location map can be found in Appendix V. The recommendation of soils professional is to use design infiltration rate of 20 in/hr in ~ the vicinity of test pit #8A and 1.5 in/hr in the vicinity of test pit #7A. We agreed with this recommendation and used design infiltration rate of 20 in/hr for infiltration pond located in close proximity to the location of test pit #8A. This is a conservative infiltration rate based on actual infiltration tests results. KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 4 ~, June 2006 U Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drainage Report Copies of the soil logs and infiltration tests are provided in Appendix V of this report. The soil log locations map is also shown in Appendix V. SECTION 4 -WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS There was a single well located northeasterly on site, which to the date of this report was abandoned according to the WA DOE rules and regulations. No records were found of any septic system on-site or within 100 feet from proposed infiltration facility. Any septic system found will be removed according with Thurston County Department of Health standards. SECTION 5 - FUEL TANKS 1~ ~ , No fuel tanks were located during site inspection or during soils work. Additionally, a i,J review of the DOE's Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) list did not indicate any r-1 existing or abandoned fuel tanks on the project site. SECTION 6 - SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION ~1 The project site is located in the Yelm Creek Drainage Basin per Thurston County Comprehensive Map M-4. As discussed previously, the proposed development has been divided into three drainage L? sub basins for the purposes of this study. In addition future Phase I of Tahoma Terra Div ~ 3-8 is considered to be tributary to the sub basin A for the purposes of this study. The ~~ facilities in these sub basins consist of wetponds to provide stormwater treatment and storage, and infiltration pond to provide storage and infiltration of the treated ~ stormwater to groundwater. The sub basin B will release runoff at allowable rate into Thompson Creek, which for 100-year/24-hour event will not exceed 50% of 2-year event for existing conditions. No hazardous materials handling is anticipated in the area tributary to the storm ~, drainage facilities. SECTION 7 - ANALYSIS OF 100-YEAR FLOOD ~ The site is found in FEMA Panel Number 530310001 A, which shows Zone X and Zone A. ~ The project contains stream onsite (Thompson Creek). Per Thompson Creek Culverts Backwater Analysis by SCA Consulting Group (approved by the City) the replacement of ~ existing culverts will improve 100-year flood situation and will lower 100-year flood ~ elevation by at least a foot. A FEMA FIRM Map is included in Appendix IV. ~ SECTION 8 - AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR FACILITIES All disturbed pervious areas will be vegetated and landscaped. Fences if required for wet ~ and infiltration ponds will be vegetated along with other "unsightly" features. ~.l KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 5 T-1 June 2006 ~J Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drainage Report ~~~ ~ 1__! SECTION 9 - DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS AND FACILITY SIZING ~~. i-' Calculations for the project's stormwater treatment, storage, and infiltration facilities are provided in Appendix I of this report. All calculations correspond to the Drainage and n, TESC Plan, which can be found in Appendix II of this report. l~~ Historically, the majority of on-site stormwater runoff infiltrates naturally to groundwater with some of the runoff flows into Thompson Creek, which bisects the project site. This flow trend will be maintained by conveying stormwater runoff into on- ~ site ponds for treatment, storage and infiltration, and releasing small part into Thompson Creek at an allowable rate. The Thompson Creek Culverts Backwater Analysis by SCA Consulting Group was approved by the City of Yelm and includes downstream analysis ~ for this project. Per this study the completed project will improve hydrological conditions by reducing possibility of roadway being flooded during larger storm events as it n happened during flood of 1996. In the unlikely event that proposed stormwater facility i~ tr_,i fails, runoff will safely overflow through emergency spillway into Thompson Creek and no roadway will be flooded. (-1 ~1 SECTION 10 - COVENANTS, DEDICATIONS, EASEMENTS Onsite drainage facilities including pipes, wet ponds and infiltration ponds will require l~l routine maintenance. The maintenance manual prepared for the project will list the maintenance requirements. A copy of the completed Maintenance Manual can be supplied to the City upon completion of the project. SECTION 11 -PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION ~ Catch basins and conveyance system located within City of Yelm R-O-W will be ~j maintained by the Home Owners Association. In light of the residential nature of the project Tahoma Blvd extension will serve, special covenants covering landscape, ~ maintenance, signage, stormwater and site maintenance may be put in place at the time ~' of final platting. The Home Owners Association and/or their representatives will perform maintenance of storm drainage facilities located outside R-O-W. n t 1J '~~ l~J LJ KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 6 ~~ June 2006 U ~~, Part II u Erosion Control Report ~' ~~ U n I~ u u ~, ,, u Tahoma Boulevard Extension Draina a Re ort ~ PART II -EROSION CONTROL REPORT --~ SECTION 1 - CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND PROCEDURE ~ The proposed Tahoma Blvd extension will incwitthin 1 the rp oject aboundaries during ~U measures designed to contain silt and soil rovements are in place. construction until permanent vegetation and site imp ~' Erosion/sedimentation control shall be achieved by a combination of structurallvegetative cover measures and construction practices troadwa t~ onstruction Pere ThompsonuCre k will be replaced prior to the beginning of Y Backwater Analysis and Culvert Replaceme Creek culpert should benimplementedsper control measures associated with Thompson Thompson Creek Culverts Backwater Analysis Report by SCA Consulting Group as 1 ~\ approved by the City. lJ ement Practices (BMP's) will be employed to properly clear and grade the site Best Manag and to schedule construction activieas.T Bef lanned constr ction sequence ssas follows•n control facilities shall first be install P 1. Schedule preconstruction conference with the city, contractor, project engineer, and construction staking surveyor. 2. Install rock construction entrance. Use 4" to 8" diameter spalls with 12" minimum depth. 3. Install filter fabric fencing in the locatio Creek Culve is Backwat r Analysisnt all erosion control measures per Thompson 4. Clear site (grubbing and rough grading). ~~ 5. Maintain equipment and water supply for dust control. 6. Designate an area for washing coteneto trucks to control the runoff and eliminate ~ entry into the storm drainage sys ~~ 7. Install undergroo~e d 1 n around all new catch bas ns. g. Provide inlet p sod and/or seed, and mulch all ~---z g. Construct roadway and install landscaping, ~ disturbed areas. 10. Maintain all erosion control facilities until the entire site is stabilized and s' t n runoff ceases. \{1..~ SECTION 2 - TRAPPING SEDIMENT I~ Filter fabric fencing will be installed lied around all exist~ng and new catchebaslns to addition, inlet protection will be inst r-, filter out sediment before runoff enters the storm system. A stabilized construction entrance will be installed to prevent construction vehicles from tracking soil onto roadways. If sediment is trasknod washed int aexisting atch basins or from paved surfaces on a daily basis, so that it ~J other storm drainage facilities. Z..] Page 7 KPFF Consulting Engineers f~ June 2006 u n Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drainage Report During the rainy season from November 1 through March 31, the contractor must cover any disturbed areas greater that 5,000 SF in size if they will be unworked for more than 12 hours. Mulch, sodding, or plastic covering shall be used to prevent erosion in these ~ areas. )-1 ~~--~ SECTION 3 - PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL & SITE RESTORATION All disturbed areas will be paved with asphalt, covered by buildings, or landscaped with grass, shrubbery, or trees per the landscaping plans. (-1 SECTION 4 - GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND REPORT ~l None of the storm drainage facilities will be located near the top of a steep slope. Geologic Assessment Report for Tahoma Terra residential development dated March 4, 2005 was L~l prepared by Insight Geologic, PLLC and can be found in Appendix VI of this report. Geotechnical Report specifically for Thompson Creek culvert replacement dated August 31, 2005 was prepared by E3RA and is part of Thompson Creek Culvert Backwater Analysis approved by the City. SECTION 5 - INSPECTION SEQUENCE In addition to required City inspections, the Project Engineer will inspect facilities related to stormwater treatment, erosion control, storage, and conveyance during construction. At a minimum, the following items shall be inspected at the time specified '~ 1. The erosion control facilities shall be inspected before the start of clearing and grading to ensure the following structures are in place ~ a. Construction Entrance b. Filter Fabric Fences c. Inlet protection of new catch basins I~ 2. The conveyance systems will be inspected after construction of the facilities, but before project completion to ensure the following items are in working order a. Pavement Drainage b. Catch Basins c. Conveyance Piping ~ d. Roof Drain Piping n 3. The infiltration galleries shall be inspected during construction to ensure that the facility is constructed to design specifications. ~ 4. The permanent site restoration measures shall be inspected after landscaping is ~ completed. U KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 8 ~~ June 2006 V Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drainage Report A final inspection shall be performed to verify final grades, settings of structures and all necessary information to complete the Engineer's Construction Inspection Report Form. This form must be completed prior to final public works construction approval. SECTION 6 - CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS OTHER THAN SEDIMENTS The contractor will be required to designate a washdown area for concrete trucks as well as a temporary stockpile area for construction debris. Catch basin inlet protection and ~, filter fabric fencing shall remain in place until construction on the site is complete. l~ ~~ U l~ t~ iU n U n U ~ KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 9 ~ June 2006 U n ~l Part III Maintenance Plan ~..a L1 ~, :_._i ~' t~' ~' I___i ,~ 1~ r~ ~--~ ,, u ~, ~~ U Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drainage Report PART III -MAINTENANCE PLAN INSTRUCTIONS FOR MAINTENANCE OF STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES CI The following pages contain maintenance needs for most components that are part of the drainage system. A checklist should be completed for all system components according to the following schedule ~ 1. Monthly from November through April 2. Once in late summer (preferably September) y ~ 3. After any major storm (use 1" in 24-hours as a guideline) items marked "S" only. ~,, Using photocopies of these pages, check off the problems identified with each inspection. n Add comments on problems found and actions taken. Keep these "checked" sheets in a ~.~ file, as they will be used to write the annual report (due in May of each year). Some items do not need to be checked with every inspection. Use the suggested frequency at the left n of each item as a guideline for the inspections. The City of Yelm is available for technical assistance. Do not hesitate to call, especially if ~~ it appears that a problem may exist. rte, n U 1~ r~ IJ U KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 10 June 2006 U C~ ~. tJ n ~' LU ~'~ n ~1 Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drainage Report ATTACHMENT "A"~ MAINTENANCE PROGRAM COVER SHEET Inspection Period Number of Sheets Attached Date Inspected Name of Inspector Inspector's Signature KPFF Consulting Engineers June 2006 Page 11 J l~ ~' n ~1 U n n ~~ ~` U t~.~ U t~ L__i ~J n~ n, ~~ u If-? U Tahoma Boulevard Extension Draina a Re ort SECTION 1 - REQUIRED MAINTENANCE The drainage facilities will require occasional maintenance. The checklists below are the minimum maintenance requirements and inspection frequencies. Maintenance Checklist for Conveyance Systems (Pipes and Swales) Frequency Drainage ~ Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should System Req'd Exist Feature S. M Pipes ~ Sediment & Accumulated sediment that Pipe cleaned of all . debris exceeds 20% of the diameter of sediment and debris. the pipe. M ~ Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free All vegetation removed so movement of water through pipes. water flows freely. A ~ Damaged Protective coating is damaged, Pipe repaired or replaced. (rusted, rust is causing more than 50% bent or deterioration to any part of pipe. crushed) M ,J Any dent that significantly Pipe repaired or replaced. impedes flow (i.e., decreases the cross section area of pipe by more then 20%). M ,~ Pipe has major cracks or tears Pipe repaired or replaced. allowing groundwater leakage. S M Swales Trash & Dumping of yard wastes such as Remove trash and debris . . debris grass clippings and branches into and dispose as prescribed Swale. Accumulation of non- by City Waste degradable materials such as Management Section. glass, plastic, metal, foam and coated paper. M Sediment Accumulated sediment that Swale cleaned of all buildup exceeds 20% of the design depth. sediment and debris so that it matches design. M Vegetation Grass cover is sparse and weedy Aerate soils and reseed not or areas are overgrown with- and mulch bare areas. growing or woody vegetation. Maintain grass height at a overgrown minimum of 6" for best stonnwater treatment. Remove woody growth, recontour and reseed as necessary. M Conversion Swale has been filled in or If possible, speak with by owner to blocked by shed, woodpile, owner and request that incompatibl shrubbery, etc. Swale area be restored. e use Contact City to report problem if not rectified voluntarily. A Swale does Water stands to Swale or flow A survey may be needed not drain velocity is very slow. Stagnation to check grades. Grades occurs. need to be in 1% range if possible. If grade is less KPFF Consulting Engineers June 2006 Page 12 n' U Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drainage Report _ Frequency Drainage ~ Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should System Req'd Exist Feature than 1%, underdrains may need to be installed. n If you are unsure whether a problem exists, please contact the JurrsdicUOn and ask for technical assistance Comments Key A =Annual (March or Apnl preferred) (`} M = Montlily (see schedule) LJ~ S =After mayor storms U `n U n U n 1._J n i U f~ i U ~~ l _,J KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 13 June 2006 U ~~ U U U ~' U t__l I U t_,t ~i U ~~ 4_1 n~ {~ L__! U U n Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drainage Report ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED) Maintenance Checklist for Catch Basins and Inlets Frequency Drainage ~ Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That System Should Exist Feature M.S. General ~ Trash, debris and Trash or debris in front of No trash or debris sediment in or on the catch basin opening is located basin blocking capacity by more immediately in than 10%. front of catch basin opening. Grate is kept clean and allows water to enter. M ,f Sediment or debris (in the No sediment or basin) that exceeds 1/3 the debris in the catch depth from the bottom of basin. Catch basin basin to invert of the is dug out and lowest pipe into or out of clean. the basin. M.S ~ Trash or debris in any inlet Inlet and outlet or pipe blocking more than pipes free of trash 1/3 of its height. or debris. M ~ Structural Corner of frame extends Frame is even with damage to frame more than 3/4" past curb curb. and/or top slab face into the street (if applicable). M ,J Top slab has holes larger Top slab is free of than 2 square inches or holes and cracks. cracks wider than 1/4" (intent is to make sure all material is running into the basin). M ,~ Frame not sitting flush on Frame is sitting top slab, i.e., separation of flush on top slab. more than 3/4" of the frame from the top slab. A ,~ Cracks in basin Cracks wider than 1/2" and Basin replaced or walls/bottom longer than 3', any repaired to design evidence of soil particles standards. Contact entering catch basin a professional through cracks or engineer for maintenance person judges evaluation. that structure is unsound. A ~ Cracks wider than 1/2" and No cracks more longer than 1' at the joint than 1/4" wide at of any inlet/outlet pipe or the joint of any evidence of soil inlet/outlet pipe. particles entering catch basin through cracks. KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 14 } June 2006 LJ Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drainage Report ~~~` ~J ~I',~ ~J~ n ,~ Frequency Drainage ~ Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That System Should Exist Feature A ~ Settlement/mis- Basin has settled more than Basin replaced or alignment 1" or has rotated more than repaired to design 2" out of alignment. standards. Contact a professional engineer for evaluation. M.S. ~ Fire hazard or Presence of chemicals such No color, odor or other pollution as natural gas, oil and sludge. Basin is gasoline. Obnoxious dug out and clean. color, odor or sludge noted. M.S. ~ Outlet pipe is Vegetation or roots No vegetation or clogged with growing in inlet/outlet pipe root growth vegetation joints that is more than 6" present. tall and less than 6" apart. If you are unsure whether a problem exists, please contact the Junsdrehon and ask for technical assistance Comments Key A =Annual (March or Apnl preferred) M =Monthly (see schedule) S =After mayor storms ~ ~ t~ i~ 1 , u ~` u n ,, u KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 15 ~? June 2006 U Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drainage Report ~J ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED) I~I, U~ n II~I t_J n, I.J ~1 I' ~1 Lf n n U ~, LJ (~ Maintenance Checklist for Infiltration Systems Frequency Drainage '~ Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should System Exist Feature M,S General Trash & See Maintenance See Maintenance debris Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds. buildup in pond M Poisonous See Maintenance See Maintenance vegetation Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds. M,S Fire hazard See Maintenance See Maintenance or pollution Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds. M Vegetation See Maintenance See Maintenance not growing Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds. or is overgrown M Rodent See Maintenance See Maintenance holes Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds. M Insects See Maintenance See Maintenance Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds. A Storage ~l Sediment A soil texture test Sediment is removed area buildup in indicates facility is not and/or facility is cleaned system working at its designed so that infiltration capabilities or was system works according incorrectly designed. to design. A sediment trapping area is installed to reduce sediment transport into infiltration area. A ~ Storage A soil texture test Additional volume is area drains indicates facility is not added through slowly working at its designed excavation to provide (more than capabilities or was needed storage. Soil is 48 hours) incorrectly designed. aerated and rototilled to or improve drainage. overflows Contact the City for information on its requirements regarding excavation. KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 16 ~ June 2006 LJ C~ C G C~ C C C C ,~, n ~~ C u u Tahoma Boulevard Extension Draina a Re ort M Sediment trapping Any sediment and debris filling area to 10% of Clean out sump to design depth. area depth from sump bottom-to-bottom of outlet pipe or obstructing flow into the connector pipe. One Time Sediment trapping area not present Stormwater enters infiltration area directly without treatment. Add a trapping area by constructing a sump for settling of solids. Segregate settling area from rest of facility. Contact City for guidance. M Rock filters ~ Sediment and debris By visual inspection little or no water flows through filter during Replace gravel in rock filter. heavy rainstorms. S Infiltratio n Trenches Infiltration Failure Standing Water in Inspection Well After 48 hours after storm or Overflow during Storms Excavate bottom of trench as necessary but at least 3 feet. Replace with crushed rock. Check pretreatment systems for effectiveness. Check tributary area for sediment sources. If you are unsure whether a problem exists, please contact the Jurisdiction and ask for technical assistance. Comments ~X A =Annual (n'Iarch or April preferred) M =Monthly (see schedule) S =After ma,7or storms KPFF Consulting Engineers June 2006 Page 17 G ~) n IU r~ n C ~l C n ~1 t~ ~J Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drain ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED) Maintenance Checklist for Grounds (Landscaping) Frequen Drainage ~ Problem Conditions to Check Conditions That Should cy System For Exist Feature - M General ~ Weeds Weeds growing in Weeds present in less (nonpoisono more than 20% of the than 5% of the landscaped us) landscaped area (trees area. and shrubs only). M `~ Safety Any presence of poison No poisonous vegetation hazard ivy or other poisonous or insect nests present in vegetation or insect landscaped area. nests. M,S ~l Trash or See Ponds Checklist. See Ponds Checklist. litter M,S ~ Erosion of Noticeable rills are Causes of erosion are Ground seen in landscaped identified and steps taken Surface areas. to slow down/spread out the water. Eroded areas are filled, contoured, and seeded. A Trees and ~l Damage Limbs or parts of trees Trim trees/shrubs to shrubs or shrubs that are split restore shape. Replace or broken which affect trees/shrubs with severe more than 25% of the damage. total foliage of the tree or shrub. M ~ Trees or shrubs that Replant tree, inspecting have been blown down for injury to stem or roots. or knocked over. Replace if severely damaged. A ~l Trees or shrubs, which Place stakes and rubber- are not adequately coated ties around young supported or are trees/shrubs for support. leaning over, causing exposure of the roots. If you are unsure whether a problem exists, please contact the Jurisdiction and ask for techmcal assistance. Comments ~X A =Annual (March or April preferred) M =Monthly (see schedule) S =After mayor storms KPFF Consulting Engineers June 2006 Page 18 !~ U rl C n C U C U ~, u ~1 ~~ ~1 Tahoma Boulevard Extension Drainage Report SECTION 2 - RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION The City of Yelm will be responsible for maintenance of all drainage facilities located within R-O-W. The Home Owners Association shall be responsible for the operations and maintenance of storm drainage facilities located outside R-O-W. SECTION 3 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN All disturbed pervious areas on the site will be landscaped to provide an aesthetically pleasing environment. SECTION 4 - SOURCE CONTROL Warning signs (e.g., "Dump No Waste -Drains to Groundwater") will be embossed or painted on or adjacent to all storm drain inlets and will be repainted periodically as necessary. KPFF Consulting Engineers June 2006 Page 19 I U n n L~' ~~ U n u n LU ~~ Appendix I Drainage Calculations ~1 U DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS The following calculations are based on the requirements contained in the 1992 Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. C DESIGN AND BASIN INFORMATION SUMMARY Soil Classification (Soil Survey of Thurston County, WA) SCS Soil Classification Indianola Loamy Sand (47) C Hydrologic Group ~ A Design Infiltration Rate= 20 inches hour SCS Runoff Curve Number (Table III-1.3 WSDOE Storm Manual) C Post developed (Lawns, 75% + grass cover)• CN = 80 Post development (impervious) CN = 98 C Post-development wet ponds CN=100 ~--~ Rainfall Design Storms (WSDOE Isopluvial Maps -App. AIII-1.1 of WSDOE Storm U Manual) 6 month storm (64% of 2 yr. storm) = 1.28" 2 yr./24 hour storm = 2.0" 10 yr./24 hour storm = 3.0" 100 yr./24 hour storm = 4.0" n ~~ n ,~ ~, U (-' Post-Development Basin Area Summary Basin A Basin B Basin C Total Impervious Roadway/Sidewalk 2.35 ac 2.09 ac 0.59 ac 5.03 ac Pond Area 0.0 ac O.l0ac O.Oac 0.1 ac Disturbed Pervious 0.36 ac 0.32 ac 0.09 ac 0.77 ac Total 2.71 ac 2.51 ac 0.68 ac 5.90 ac ~J I~ U DETAILED CALCULATIONS= n Stormwater Treatment= ~1 Basin `A' U StormShed software was used to model the runoff from roadways and individual lots impervious areas. The 6-month storm event for Basin A will result in a peak flow rate of 0.6343 cfs and hyd. volume of 8,918 cf. The future Phase I of Tahoma Terra Div 3-8 was C considered a tributary basin for the purposes of this study. The 6-month storm event for Phase I will result in a peak flow rate of 5.4935 cfs and hyd. volume of 80,577 cf. This will result in combined peak flow rate of 6.0805 cfs and 89,498 cf C of hyd. volume. The DOE manual, section III-4.3.2, requires that "the permanent pool volume equals the f~ runoff volume from the 6-month, 24-hour design storm." Boston Harbor software was Lj used to calculate provided wet pond volume. The 3.7 feet deep "dead storage" will provide 92,548 cf of available permanent pool volume, which exceeds the required volume of 89,498 cf. The full wetpond available volume with overboard is 132,052 cf. C C "Dead" storage volumes for wetpond Basin A ----------------------- Volume 341.00 to 342.00 = 22,012 ft3 ~ Volume 342.00 to 343.00 = 24,155 ft3 Volume 343.00 to 344.00 = 26,354 ft3 Volume 344.00 to 345.00 = 28,610 ft3 C Overboard ~ ----------------------- Volume 345.00 to 346.00 = 30,922 ft3 ~ Total Volume = 132,052 ft3 C 4, 891 yd3 032 Acre Ft 3 . ., i L.! Basin `B'~ ~ StormShed software was used to model the runoff from roadways and individual lots ~ impervious areas. The 6-month storm event for Basin B will result in a peak flow rate of 0.5937 cfs and hyd. volume of 8,347 cf. U The DOE manual, section III-4.3.2, requires that "the permanent pool volume equals the runoff volume from the 6-month, 24-hour design storm." Boston Harbor software was used to calculate provided wet pond volume. The 4 feet deep "dead storage" part of n wetpond will provide 8,750 cf of available permanent pool volume, which exceeds the U required volume of 8,347 cf. ~! n U C Dead" storage volumes for wetpond Basin B ----------------------- Volume 326.00 to 327.00 = 1,277 ft3 C Volume 327.00 to 328.00 = 1,858 ft3 Volume 328.00 to 329.00 = 2,478 ft3 C Volume 329.00 to 330.00 = 3,137 ft3 "Live" storage volumes for wetpond Basin B ----------------------- Volume 330.00 to 331.00 = 4,214 ft3 Volume 331.00 to 332.00 = 5,768 ft3 C Overboard ----------------------- Volume 332.00 to 333.00 = 6,933 ft3 C ------------------------------------------------------- Total Volume = 25,665 ft3 951 yd3 0.,589 Acre Ft. C Basin `C'~ ~j Runoff will be treated in drainage facility located at Tahoma Terra Div 1-2, which was sized to accommodate eastern part of Tahoma Blvd extension. Drainage report for r`1 Tahoma Terra Div 1-2 included calculations for this facility and was approved by the City of Yelm. n Stormwater Storage/Infiltration~ Stora e Ca acit Summa Basin ID Impervious Area Disturbed Storage Storage n Pervious Area Re uired Provided +~ Basin A 2.35 ac 0.36 ac 104,689 cf (i)(2) 121,056 cf Basin B 2.09 ac 0.32 ac 7,316 cf (4) 9,982 cf Basin C 0.59 ac 0.09 ac 0(s) 0(s) ~ 0.77 ac 112,005 cf 131,038 cf LJ TOTAL 5.13 ac n (1) Based on StormShed hydrological modeling software for the 100-year/24-hour storm event for 20-in/hr U infiltration rate (2) This number includes storage required for Tahoma Terra Phase I of Div 3-8 Residential Development. (3) Excluded from this report. Part of drainage report for Tahoma Terra Div 1-2 approved by the City. n (4) Based on StormShed hydrological modeling software for the 100-year/24-hour storm event for allowable iU release rate. I~ U n U Basin `A'~ See following StormShed software modeling output for stormwater storage and U infiltration results for the Basin A. u Per Stormshed modeling software 100-year/24-hour event will require 104,689 cf of storage volume based on 20 in/hr infiltration rate. The proposed 5 feet infiltration pond will provide 121,057 cf of storage. Overboard will provide additional storage capacity. C "Live" storage volumes for infiltration pond C ----------------------- Volume 340.00 to 341.00 = 19,926 ft3 Volume 341.00 to 342.00 = 22,012 ft3 Volume 342.00 to 343.00 = 24,155 ft3 Volume 343.00 to 344.00 = 26,354 ft3 Volume 344.00 to 345.00 = 28,610 ft3 C Overboard ----------------------- Volume 345.00 to 346.00 = 30,922 ft3 ------------------------------------------------------- Total Volume = 151,978 ft3 ~ 5,629 yd3 3.,489 Acre Ft. r~ The proposed infiltration pond will have 18,900 sf of bottom area and according to Stormshed it will have capacity to infiltrate 100-year/24-hour event within 25 hrs. Only ~ bottom area was used in calculations. In reality side areas of infiltration pond will provide additional infiltration capacity, so our calculations provide additional safety margin. C Basin `B'~ ~ See following StormShed software modeling output for stormwater storage and allowable release results for the Basin B. The DOE Manual requires that release for 100-year/24-hour event for developed conditions will not exceed 50% of 2-year event volume for pre-existing conditions. n For 100-year/24-hour event storage volume of 7,316 cf will be required based on 0.5370 cfs U of allowable release rate. This volume will be stored in "live storage" part of wetpond and will be released through 6" dia. orifice into Thompson Creek. 2 feet of depth will provide 9,982 cf of available "live" storage, which exceeds required 7,316 cf Emergency spillway will provide safe runoff passage into Thompson Creek for events ~U n larger than 100-year event. f~ In LJ n ~J U Dead" storage volumes for wetpond Basin B n ----------------------- Volume 326.00 to 327.00 = 1,277 ft3 lJ Volume 327.00 to 328.00 = 1,858 ft3 Volume 328.00 to 329.00 = 2,478 ft3 Volume 329.00 to 330.00 = 3,137 ft3 "Live" storage volumes for wetpond Basin B ,~ Volume 330.00 to 331.00 = 4,214 ft3 Volume 331.00 to 332.00 = 5,768 ft3 n, ~...I Overboard ----------------------- Volume 332.00 to 333.00 = 6,933 ft3 Total Volume = 25,665 ft3 C 951 yd3 0.,589 Acre Ft. n i V n Basin `C'~ Treated stormwater runoff will be stored and infiltrated in drainage facility located at Tahoma Terra Div 1-2, which was sized to accommodate eastern part of Tahoma Blvd Cj extension. Drainage report for Tahoma Terra Div 1-2 included calculations for this facility and was approved by the City of Yelm. n u U V n U ~--~ n ~, U L In` U r~ ~u Stormshed modeling -infiltration pond for Basin A "live storage" volumes LPOOLCOMPUTE [pondA1] SUMMARY using Puls Mart of live ~tera~e: 340.0000 ft ~ Event ~ Match Q cfs ( ) Peak Q (cfs ) Peak Stg (ft) s -.-- ;Vol (cf) Vol ( (acft) [ ~ Time to Empty y00 ~ 0.2324 8.7500 344.4265 ! 104689.40 j 2.4033 ~ ~ ~ I _ _ 25.17 _ _~ 10t1 pear Hpdrograph Plot ~d~. ~; -- - _ _ -~- o - ; -_ --- _ ___ _ _ __ ___ e _____ % _ s___ ~y~_ ~'1~~3~f^.~4. . rv ~~jj((55 ..]t V ' ~ _ .. z f e 3 Z ~ ,y y~~ ,/ µ,_, - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ « ~k ,. _ _ _ f " b ' e ~ ~ i U7.! rf e ~ C lj t 1 ~ a ~ t~ f ~ fi ~ j Y 5 i.. .. f« } ' i' S 4 x t x c 9 i ~.. a z i s ~ ~ $ ~ y # ~ « .. .. .. .. + .. a w °"~~ ~~ CY f f _ f i ` j t s - Y » i t t r t 3 t 3 t A ~ 1 Y 1 ~ ~ ~ - .€ f / r. ttS ~ o c~ n- I'i {r~ e- o c~ n. o cri n- o c~ n. o cn~ n. o t+'s ew. o r'> n. o rn n. o c+~ r.. o c~ GY OC? tLl t~5 M e- Ci W tt~j ~ C"5 ~; o CLY f0 4'! 4"7 x- C~ 03 GD 4'Y M .r C7 GL1 f t 1 ' O r CSI M c < d' ~ Yll t~ GD a7} C7! C> a- N t* d' C N) t0 Ty- GC !~ QY G7 <- tY t47 ~# r s- e- r r r a- s- +r s- r^ r N CV t'V CY N N Time in Hours Running C:\\Program Files\\pondA1 Report.pgm on Monday, June 12, 2006 Summary Report of all Detention Pond Data Event ;Prec p ) ~---~ ~6 month :1.2800 { ~2 year '2.0000 110 year ;3.0000 100 year ;4.0000 LJ HYDLIST SUMMARY [infiltr pond btm - 100 year] [phl+a dev] [100 year out] LSTEND n i, U ~, U u ~ ~ HydID Peak Q (cfs) ;Peak T (hrs) jPeak Vol (ac-ft) ,font Area (ac) j jinfiltr pond - 0.2324 7( 67 u~ 0.0825 0.4339 E ~ ~phl+a dev 37.0334 ~ 8.00 ~ 13.8584 61.7400 X100 year out 8.7500 ~ 7.00 13.8584 61.7400 , n LJ STORLIST [ti] n LSTEND LJ r-, Record Id: ti ~Descrip: ;Prototype Record Increment ,0.10 ft ~ 1Start El. x340 0000 ft jMax El. '345.0000 ft Len h }270.0000 ft Width 170.0000 ft ~ i , ~~ 1Length ssl 3.OOh:ly ,Length ss2 ~3.000Oh:Iv ' Width ssl 3.OOh:ly Width ss2 ~3.000Oh:ly :. n Only consider bottom area for infiltration C DISCHLIST [Infiltration] LSTEND n U Record Id: Infiltration n ~Descrip: ~cb x ~crement ;0.10 ft ~Sta El 0.0000 ft Max El. 1345.0000 ft ~ ~ Infiltration rate 20.0000 in/hr WP Multiplier ;1.00 ~i n n V ~~ n lU V u C C n C C In u n n L~ n n V C Stormshed modeling - Basin A Treatment and "dead storage" volumes for wetpond Basin A develop treatment Event Summary Event FPe ka Q (cfs) tPeak T (hrs) jHyd Vol (acft) Area (ac) Method ~Raintype - - - - ~6 month v 0.6343 _ __~__B.OOW _ ~_ __0.2047 _v~2.3500 ~ SCS_ _;TYPEIA' Record Id: Basin A develop treatment Design Method SCS Rainfall type TYPEIA ' H d Inty Y Ol 00 min Peaking Factor j s _ _ ~ Abstraction Coeff 484.00 0.20 Pervious Area (AMC 2) ~ 0 00 ac Pervious CN ~ 0.00 Pervious TC ~~ v [ 0.00 min DCIA ~ ~DC CN ~ j ~DC TC ~ ~ 2.35 ac 98.00 5.41 min ~ Directly Connected CN Calc I ` Description j SubArea Sub cn -- Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc) 2.34 ac ~ ~ 98.00 ~ DC Composited CN (AMC 2) 98.00 ~ Directly Connected TC Calc Type ~ Description Length ~ Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet Smooth Surfaces.: 0.011 X27.00 ft X2.00° o/ 0.0110 2.00 in 0.54 min Sheet Smooth Surfaces.: 0.011 X300.00 ft ! 1.00 / 0.0110 2.00 in 4.87 min ~ Directly Connected TC 5.41min ph1 dev new treat Event Summary ~ Event Peak Q cfs) (Peak T (hrs) Hyd Vol (acft) Area (ac) Method {Raintype ~6 month ~ 5.4935 ~ 8.05 ~ 1.8498 20.8500 _ SCS _ ;TYPEIA n n Record Id: ph1 dev new treat SCS ~~Rainfall type ~ TYPElA Design Method I - --- - ---- - -- - --- - -- -------- -- ----- --- -- - ~ 484.0 Hyd Intv 10.00 min jPeaking Factor -- _ p 20 lJ - -- -- - ------ -- - - Abstraction Coeff ' - -- _ _ - - --- - --- - ----- -- - ----- ---~--- - - 20.85 ac f__- _- . j ---- -- -_-_ _ ~ O.OO ac DCIA ' Pervious Area (AMC 2) _- -- -- -- _-_- __-- _ -- - - ------ - ---- ------ -- _ ___ _ -- --- - ,----------- --- - 3 98.00 Pervious CN ~ 0.00 ~DC CN s ' ~ 16.65 min Pervious TC 0.00 min ~DC TC , C----- Directly Connected CN Calc _____------- f - Description ;~SubArea Sub cn !~ ~ 20.85 ac 98.00 C ~ Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc) ~ ~ DC Composited CN (AMC 2) 98.00 C ~ ~ ~~~ Directly Connected TC Calc ~^ Type E Description Length Slope ~ Coeff j Marc TT ~ Sheet Smooth Surfaces.: 0.011 18.50 ft 2.00% j0.0110 0.00 in 0.00 min ~ Sheet Smooth Surfaces.: 0.011 300.00 ft 1.00% 0.0110 0.00 in 0.00 min Channel interm) 'in pipes 4000.00 ft 0.50% ~0 90 ~ 16.65 min C f~ ~ ~ ~ - I Directly Connected TC 21.92min ~, gydrograph ID: phl+a dev treat ~_______~ Area 123.19 ca00 Hyd Int 10.00 min Base Flow G Peak flow 6.0805 cfs Peak Time 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol X2.05 6 --- - Flow cfs Time (hr) Flow (cfs) j TTime (hr) Flow (cfs) Time (hr) ( ) C - ~ _--- ~_.._ r I.83 j 0.0002 9.67..\ 1.6394 ._17.17 _~~ 0.8532 2.00 ' 0. 550 6 ~ - 9.8 ~ 1.5567 ~ :17.33 ~ 0.8252 ~ ~~17 0.1397 ~ 10.00 1.5388 17.50 0.8186 ? C ~ ,~--2.33 A~ 0~ 1937 }' 10.17 1.4739 ~ .17.67- _ Of~- 8174,--~ 2.50 ~ 0.2342 ~ 10.3 ~ 1.3924 ~ 17.83 _ ~ 0.8173 2.67 ' ~ 0.2693 ~~ 10.50 ~ 1. 373 8 i 18.00 ~ 0.8174 ~ 2.83 ~ 0.3010 j 10.67 ` ~ 1.3290 ~ `18 17 ~ ,- --0.7962 ---_~ --- - -i- -------- -- -- 0.7681 3.00 ~ ; 0.3301 ~ 10.53 i 1_2742 15.'13 -_., .....- . .. ~---_- -..----- E 3 17 ~ ~ 0.3981 ~ 11.00 1.2619 ~ - t-8.5.0 __ ~ 0.7614 r r-, ~ ~ ~N 3...33 ~~~ 3 50 _ 0.4274 0.4530 j ___ x-11-.17 ~_ -~11 33 _ _ __ _ _ _ ~ 1.2392 ; '~,18~'6'7 ~ 1 1.2120 ~ =18.83 ~ ~~ON7601 ~, ; 0.7600 3.67: 0.4883 ,~ll .~0~ ` j 1.2062 ~~`~ 19.OQ _ E 0.7601 ' 3.83 0.5268 11~:~7 ° ~~ 1~; 1.1846 ~~l 19 17 ~ ~ 0.7388 C __ ~ _ ~'~ 4.00 ~ 0.5533 ,__._,_ ~ ' 1 3 ~~ .. ~ 1.1575 ~ - - 19 33 - r------ ~ ~ 0.7106 -- 4.17 - -- ; 0.6015 ~ ' 1''.OC)- ~ ~ 1.1516 ~ 19.50 ~- 0.7039 4.33 i ~ 0.6579 - .._ ~ 12.17= ~-- 1.1298 ~ 19.67 - ~ 0.7026 E 3 4.50 ' _-0.6889 12.33 1.1025 19.83 _~ 0.7024 i i ~ 4.67 ~~ 0.7405 ~ 12.50 _ `~ 1.0964 ~ 20.00 ~~ 0.7025 4.83 ~ 0.8002 _ ~._ _ `..12.67 ~ ~ 1.0 4 .20.17 ~ 0.7026 i ~ 5.00 ~ ~ 0.8314 ;~ 12.83 ~ 1.0468 r 20.33 ~ 0.7028 ~ - ~ 5.T7 ~ 1 0.8849 ,- -- ~ 13.00 1.0406 3~ -20.50 ~ 0.7029 ~.3 ~ ~- 0.9467 ~~-13.17 1.0398 ~ .20.67 ' `~ 0.7030 S Su ~~ 0.9776 13. ~ ~ '~ 1.0400 ~~~ ~ ~~.~_~ 0.7032 ; . ~ ~.6 i ;1.0321 ~ 13.>0 1.0406 ? 1.OU 0.7033 j ~ ~ ~j 83 ! 5 0954 1 ~ 13.67 _ 1.0198 ~ 21.17 , 0.7034 .. ~ 6.00 . ~ 1.1255 13.83~ ~0.9924 21.33 ~ 0.7035 ~ 6.17 ;; 1.2149 14.00 0.9861 ~ _ 21.50 ~' 0.7037 6.33 1.3253 14..17 ~ 0.9851 ~ 21.67 0.7038 C ~ 6.:50 ~ 1.3679 14 33 ' 0.9852 ~ 21 83 _ 0.7039 E - ~- 6.67 ~~ 1.4995 14.0 0.9856 22.00 ~ 70 040 __ ~ 6. f~ ~ ~ 1.66 43 ~ 14.6? ~ 0.9647 ~ 22.17 0.6 582 ~~ ~~' 7.(lU 1.7207 14.ti3 ~ 0.9371{ 223 ~ , 0 ~ 7.17 _'~- 1.8801- -~ 15.0 0.9306 ~ 22.~U ~ ~ 0.6475 C 7.33 f 2.0765 ~ 15.1:7 _~ 0.9295 ~ _ 22.67.._ ~ 0.6461 ~ 7.50 ~i 2.14 23 E ~~ 15.33 ~ 0.9296 ~ 22.83 j 0.6458 ~ 7.67 3.5891 ~ -~ 15.50 ~, 0.9299 ~ 23.00 _ _'~ 0. 546 9 7.83 ~i 5. 325 4 15.67 ~ 0.9088 ~ 23.17 ~ 0.6460 8.00 4 ~_' 6.0805 _ ~ 15.83 0.8811 ~ -~3.33' ~ 0.6461 ' ~ 8:17 ~ 5. 40 87 ~ 16.00 . 0.8745 .......23.54 0.6462 n ~ 8.33 ~~ 3.5204 16.17 Oh g -733 ~ __ 23.67 _ : ^I 0.6463 f LI ° 8.50 _ ~ 31527 -_ _ ~~, 16.33 ~~ 0.8 33 ~ 23.83 - j 0.6464 l - 8.67 _ 2.7768 ~ ~~~-16.50 - ~-- ~ 0.8736 ;.,. 24.00~ _ ~ ~ 0.6465 ~ - ---- -- - i s.83 2.3634 16:67 ~ 0.8738 1 24.17 ~ 03989 9 0 ~ -' 2.2711 ~ 16,83 °~~ 0.8741 ~ X4.33 ~~ ~ 0.0927 ~ C ~' ~ _ _ _ -- _ = 17.00 - 9.~17~ ~ 2.0488 --- - ~~~~ 0.8744 y; -____--- _ ; ,~; 24:50 ~ ~ i ~ - -- -- --- 0.0192 t E ' ~ 17.17~~~~~ 933 _ ~~ 1.7766 ,. ;~ ~~ ~ ~ 0.8532 ~ ° 2~ ° ~= I 0.0036 ' € 9.50 ~ 1.7130 j3 -~1`7 33~~„ ~ d ~ 0.8252 X24.83 ~j 0.0002 - L~ 1__1 Hydrograph ID: phl+a dev •-- - --- ---- --- --- - ------ ~ -- -- -- r--- ------- -- -------- --- .- -- -- --- ---- - Area 61.7400 ac Hyd Int '10.00 min Base Flow Peak flow ;37.0334 cfs ,Peak 'Time j8.00 hrs Hyd Vol j 13.8584 acft ( fs) ~ "T ( ~ Fl ime (hr) Flow (cfs) Time (hr) ~ Flow cfs)~i r) Tim c ow 0:67 ~ ~ 0.0060 ;`~ 8.b? 16.3026 ~ 16 83 _, r~6.4247 0.8 ~ ~~ ~ 0.1472 `~ 9.00 ~ 15.4132 ~ 17.40 ~; ( 6.4327 ,-~- I - - ~1.OU ~ 0.3818 ~~~ 9.17 ~' € 14.2133 ~ ~17.17~ ( 6.3203 ~ 1.;17 ~ 0.6411 ~ 9.33 ~ ~ 12.3693 ~ 17.33 , ~ ; 6.1154 1.33. `, 0.9207 9.Sb ~ 11.7700 .17.50 6.0508 l .ill ~ .- 1.1551 I - 9.67 -r------ --- 111.3347 17.67 ~ 6.0386 1,67 ~ _ _ --1.3668 ~ 9.83 r- ~ 10.7731 fi 17.83 6.0400 1.83 1.5739 10.00 10.6139 ~ y18.00 - 6.0453 , `- x.00 1.7355 ~ 10.17 10.2793 '18.17 ~ _ ~ 5.9300 _ x.17 1.8911 ~ _ 10.33 ' '~ 9. 27 89 ~_ ___18.33_: [ 5.7225 .2.33 ~ 2.0567 ~. 10.50 ~ 9.5625 .18.50 ~ 65 562 ~ 2.'S0~ 2.1791~~ 10.67 9. 5 ~ ~ 1$.67. i 5.6427 2.67 „ ~~ 2.2687 ~ 10.83 ~~ 8.9504 _ ~ " 18.83 5.6429 __ __ ~ _ __ 2:83 ~ 2.3410 ' 1 1.00 ~ j 8_8415 ` -19.00 5_6470 ' ~ 3...00 ~'~ 2.4020 11.17 j 8.7217 ~ 19.17 _ ~ 5.5295 ~ 3.17 ~ ~ 2.4545 j l 1.33 I 8.5411 19.33_ j 5.3197 33 ~ 2.5003 ~ 11.50 ~ 8.4961 ~~ 19.50 ~ 5.2520 3.50 ~ ~ 2.540 ~ 11.:67 j 8. 83 91 ~ 19.67 _ 5.2374 , 3.67 2.6136 ~ 11.83 8.2080 ~ 19.83. ~ 2365~~ 3:83 ~ 2. 27 0 ~ 12.00 ~ 8.1602 20.00 ~ 5.2395 ~ 4.00 ~ 2.7871 ~ 12:17 _ ~ 8.0491 ~ X0.17 5.2435 j 1 ~ 4.17 , j 2.9039 ~ 12.33 j 7.8630 - 20.3 -- - 5.2477 , 4.33 ~~ 3.0860 3 --12.50 ' 7.8116 ~ ?(1.50 ( 5.2519 4.50 ~: 3.1882 12.67 ~ 7.6966 ~. 20.67 , j 5.2561 :~ ~7 ~ 3.3657 12.83 ° ~ 7.5060 ~ 20.83 ,~ 5.2602 { ~.8 3~ ~; 3.7590 1;3 00 ^; 7.4516 21.OCi ; 5.2643 ~~ LU I~ l~J n n, 1J _._ s_v.___ 5-.00.-: ~ ~ _____ 4.0160 __ nv_ ._ ~~ 1~3 17~ _ _ __ __ __ _ ~ . 7.4485 _~_ ~~_ v;_____W ~~ 2117 ~~ j _ , .2684 ~ v _ _ __- ~ ~ ' ~ ~~~ 5:~7 ~. 4.3023 ~ ` 13.33 7.4588 ~ 21 33 ~ 5.2724 . - _ - ~ _ __ 33 , `' 5 6618 4 13.50 ~ 7.4727 '~ ~ ° - 2'i .50 5.2764 ~ _, .. ~ . - ~ _ -- _ ~~ 5.5.0 ~ 4.9131 ~ ~ 13.67 ~ ~ 7.3710 ~ _ 21.67 5.2803 l ~~ 5.67 ~; 5.2128 ~~ 13.83. ~~, 7.1798 ~ 21.83E 5.2843 r x.53 ~ ' 5.5999 14.00 _ 7.1230 ~ 2~ Op~, _ 5 2882 j `6.00 ~ ~~ 5.8633 -------- 14.17 - ~ 7.1172 -- - - ~ ~: ?2.17 ~j ----t _ 5.1677 ___~ 6.17 6.3093 ~ 14.33 7.1247 "?L•-~-~ ~ j `+•y~~L~_ ~, ~3 - ; ~~ 6.9718 ~ 1 ~.~t) ~ ---- 7.1359 ,. ~ .._22.50 4.8835 6.50 7.3649 ; 14.67 -~ 7.0299 22 67 J ' 6 ~ 6.67 ~! 8.0343 14.83 ~i 6.8340 ~ 22 $3~~ ~ 4.8654 ~.. 6.83 ~; 9.0460 ~, 15.00 6.7743 I 23 b0°;;- ~ k 8 73 - 7.O a ~? 9.6041 ~ 15. ] 7 ~' 6.7661 ~ 23~ 7~ a°~ 4.8701 7.17 ;' 10.4735 ~ 15.33 ~° ~ 6. 177 2 ~ 23~~ 4.8731 7.33 11.7540 ~ 15.50 j 6.7802 23.50 '~ 4.8762 ~~ ~ 7.50 ~ ~~~~ 12.4418 15.67 ~~ 6.6710 j .23.67 ~ 4.8792 7.67 ~ 19.0169 ~ 15.83 s 6.4708 ~ '23.83 ~~ ~ ~ 4.8822 7. `~ ~ ~ 31.2629 ~ 16.00 ~ ~ 6.4086 ~ ~4.00: ~ j~4.8852 ~ _h.00 -~~ 37.0334 ~` 16.17 ~~; 6.3983 ~ ~4.17~ ~3.4~486~ ,~ X3.17 ~, 33.8421 16.33 ~ 6.4016 X4.33 : _i 1 OS 59 ,~ ~33 ' 24.5724 ~ 16.50 ' `~ 6.4087 ` 2 . ~ ~ 8.'_50 i 21~~ 16.67 ~.' 6.4166 "'4.67 0.0728T _ ~_ 8.67 ~ ; 19. 071 ~ 16:83 ~ 6.4247 ~;~ 24.83'. ' 1 0.0168 V I, U ~~ ..mot L.~ ,u ~ Stormshed modeling - wetpond for Basin B "live storage" volumes LPOOLCOMPUTE [pondB] SUMMARY using Puls ~~ Start of live storage: 330.1600 ft ~__ _ _ U Event Match Q (cfs) Peak Q c sf) Peak Stg (ft) Vol cf) ;Vol ( ft) ;Time to Empty -- - -- - ___ _ . _ __ ` --- 0.5368 ~ 331.6788 '7315.87 ; 0.1679 ~ 30.50 X100 year = 0.5370 ~ - - ---- -- --- -- ---- ---- - -- U - - -- - - -------- ------ -- ~`~ Running C:\\Program Files\\pond B Report.pgm on Thursday, June 01, ~ 2006 r-, tJ Summary Report of all Detention Pond Data n ~~ 1J Event iPrecip (in) s. ~ ~6 month_11v.2800 __ ___ ~2 year X2.0000 10 year X3.0000 100 year 14.0000 n ~` f~ BASLIST2 [Basin B develop] Using [TYPE 1 A] As [ 100 year] r cVmr, ~rr~ LlJ 11J1 ~Y BasinID ~~' Peak Q Peak T Event ~ ) ~ (hrs) f Peak Vol ~ Area Method/Loss Raintype (ac-cf) ~ (ac) (c s ~ ~ Basin B l d 100 2 0737 ~ ear ~ ~ 0.7113 2.41 SCS/SCS TYPEIA op eve y n BASLIST [TYPElA] AS [100 year] DETAILED ~~ [Basin B develop] LSTEND ~ Basin B develop Event Summary rte, r ~--------- lJ ~ E ev nt ;Peak Q (cfs) Peak T (hrs) Hyd Vol (acft) Area (ac) Method ?Raintype ~ 100 year `; 2.0737 ~ 8.00 ~ 0.7113 ~~ 2.4100 ~ SCS jTYPElA ~ --------- --- -- n n LJ i n L.J _~ In U ~' U~ n n i, U I~ U ~1 ~! Record Id: Basin B develop `-~ - =Design Method ~ SCS Rainfall type ~ ~ ~~__ - -- - --- -- - - - - ---- TYPEIA _ ____ - - - - - - - ---- Hyd Into ------- ~---- ---- -: -- ~ 10.00 mm __ __ _ ______ _ ~ Peaking Factor ~ _ _ ____ _ ___ _ _____ _____ _ 484.00 ________ ___ _ Abstraction Coeff 0.20 -- ---- - --- - --- - - -- ---- -- - -- ---- (Pervious Area (AMC 2) - ----- - ------ ~ 0.32 ac --- -- -- - -- - --- ------- DCIA ~ - -- --- ---- - .09 ac - - --- -- - - 4Pervious CN ~ 80.00 ;DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 5.39 min __ ~- . DC TC ~ 5.41 min - -- --- ----- -- --- - -- -- - -- - - - -- - ------- --------- -- --- - - Pervious CN Calc } ` Description ~SubArea Sub cn I~ ~~ Open spaces, lawns,parks (>75% grass) 0.32 ac _ 80.00 ~ Pervious Composited CN (AMC 2) 80.00 ,~ ~---- - Pervious TC Calc 1 ;Type Description Length !Slope Coeff Misc TT I, Sheet Short prairie grass and lawns.: 0.15 ~25.OO ftft ;1.00% ~0. 051 0 2.00 in ,5.39 min I i Pervious TC ~ 5.39 min ~ ~- Directly Connected CN Calc !! Description ! SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc) 2.09 ac 98.00 i i ____ nr (~mm~nsited CN (AMC 21 98.00 i~ - ~ Directly Connected TC Calc tion Length ~ Slope Coeff i D Misc TT p escr Type ~27.OO ftft 2.00% 0.0110 Sheet Smooth Surfaces.: 0.011 2.00 in 0.54 min ~ Sheet S om oth Surfaces.: 0.011 )300 00 ft j1.00% 0.0110 2.00 in 4.87 min ( Directly Connected TC 5.41min Basin B exist Event Summary Event Peak Q (cfs) Peak T (hrs) Hyd Vol (acft) Area (ac) 'Method ~Raintype _ _ __ _~ ~ ___ _ _ __ E-__ _ - _____-.__- i2 year ~ 1.0740 ~ 8.00 ~ 0.3095 2.4100 SCS (TYPElA U U Ir-r U ++n, l.~J 1 u 1~ I~ ~~ U ~i Record Id: Basin B exist (Design Method ; SCS Rainfall type -- - -- --- - ------- - - jHyd Into r 10.00 min ;Peaking actor - - - ---- -- -- ----- - -- - -- - - ------------ ------- - Abstraction Coeff ______~ ~ - -- ----- -- - - ---- - - - - - --- ---- --- ----- --- ---- - - ~pPYVI(111C Area (AMC 21 [ 0.00 ac ,DCIA TYPEIA -- ---- 484.00 0.20 2.41 ac --- -- - -----E - Pervious CN 0.00 ~DC CN Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 98.00 0.99 min - ---- - - ------------ - - ----- -- - ----- -- ---- - - ---- -- ----- ~ Directly Connected CN Calc ~ ! Description E ; Sub cn SubArea Roads (hard surface -includes right of way) 2.41 ac 98.00 ~ DC Composited CN (AMC 2) ~ 98.00 ~- Directly Connected TC Calc T e Descri tion ~ Length ;Slope Coeff Misc Yp ~~ p , IShee Smooth Surfaces.: 0.011 X100.00 ft 16.00% X0.0 11 0 2.00 in Directly Connected TC HYDLIST SUMMARY [Basin Bexist - 2 year] [Basin Bdevelop - 100 year] [100 year out] LSTEND ~~ ~~~ Peak Q [ Peak T ~ --- Peak Vol (ac- Cont Area ( HydID ~ (cfs) (hrs) ft) ~ (ac) Basin Bexist - 2 year 1.0740 ~ 8.00 0.3082 2.4100 Basin Bdevelop - 100 ~ E 8.00 2.0737 0.7113 ~ 2.4100 year X100 year out ~ I ~ 0.5368 ~ 9.50 111 0.7238 2.4100 STORLIST [ti B] LSTEND Record Id: ti B Des nc p ,deteri on b Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 330.0000 ft ;Max El. 332.0000 ft Length 120.0000 ft ;Width 30.0000 ft ~ n ~~ ~U ~' - ~ !Length ssl ~S.OOh:ly Length ss2 j5.0000h:1v ~ Width ssl ~S.OOh:ly Width ss2 , 0 OOh:ly ~ DISCHLIST [Orifice B] ~', LSTEND U Record Id: Orifice B Descrip: cb x ~ Increment';0.10 ft ~ 0000 ft Max El. '332.0000 ft El 330 St ~ ~ . a j ~Orif Coeff 0.62 ~~- k ~~, ~ i n ( LJ ` Lowest Diam 4.0063 in i ,_ ~ ' ~~I U ~J 1~~ 4-_J U I~ 1.J (~1f U 2 +~ C) ~1 1tICl year Npd~agraph Plot ~, g a ~ C~asn B,dea!~lop ; CIQ;~ear ~ ~ ~ ~k~VtF8t3t` OLfI f 4 t t ~ t R i i 1 ~ ~ : 1 t i ' i i f i t t 1 1 x s ! . a i __ - "r^ - ~~~ ~~ t r ` s . a i ~ r s ~ e f ~ z : a t € i ~ ~~ f ~^ s ~ a ~ f - dr .~ • a (} V M ~ i k f`~ O M f ~ 3 N O C7 !*~ O M ~ f`r G'7 z ` R Cri l`- O M t4 O C3 U " i C'I QC} ` h- ~ LO ~<"~.~ s- O OD t0 ~ M r W (D~ tii i, M c- iJ CKS CD ~I} M Q - s- O, d ~ e- l t OD (D ~ Q O r N M C V' 4? tf! tQ h 1 O O r` e-' r 'e"' .-• s- ~ r ~ fV fV f4 C*# t*-i Cwl Tt?TiC in f'{OI~CS I~ U ~~ U IJ I V L~ ,n1 ~1 n U r~ L ~, Stormshed modeling - Basin B Treatment and "dead storage volumes" for wetpond Basin B develop treatment Event Summary - - ~ Event `Peak Q (cfs) (Peak T (hrs) ~Hyd Vol (acft) Area (ac) Method Raintype !6 month ~ 0.5937 % 8.00 ~ 0.1916 2.1900 SCS ;TYPElA Record Id: Basin B develop treatment SCS Rainfall e TYPEIA ',Design Method ~ ~'p _ ___ _ --- -- - -------- ---- --- --- - - -- - -------- --- - -- - --- ----- Hyd Intv ~ 10.00 min Peaking Factor ~ 484.00 ~~ 0.20 ` ~AbstracNon Coeff ? 3 f({ ' k _ __ _ _~ _ -_ _ _ ___ f _ __ Pervious Area (AMC 2) ~ 0.00 ac jDCIA 2.19 ac Pervious CN 0.00 ~ DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC ~ 0.00 min ADC TC 5.41 min _ l %~ Directly Connected CN Calc Description i SubArea ~ Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc) ~ 2.34 ac j 98.00 ~ DC Composited CN (AMC 2) 98.00 i Directly Connected TC Calc Type %- Description ~~~ Leng h Slope ~ Coeff Misc ~ TT Sheet Smooth Surfaces.: 0.011 ;27.00 ft ;2.00% 0.0110 0.00 in 10.00 min 5 0_0110 0.00 in 0.00 min X300. 0 X1.00% ~Sh e Smooth Surfaces._ 0.011 _ - ---- - Directly Connected TC ~ 5.41min LJ ~' U U ~, LJ C ~J (n L.1 ~; U ~' Maximum discharge for 6" PVC Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c.\haestad\fmw\tt38 fm2 Worksheet 100-year pipe capacity Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0 009 Channel Slope 0.004200 ft/ft Depth 0.50 ft Diameter 6.00 in Results Discharge 0.53 cfs Flow Area 0.20 ftz Wetted Perimeter 1.57 ft Top Width 0.00 ft Critical Depth 0 37 ft Percent Full 100.00 Critical Slope 0.005229 ft/ft Velocity 2.67 ft/s Velocity Head 0.11 ft Specific Energy FULL ft Froude Number FULL Maximum Discharge 0 56 cfs Full Flow Capacity 0.53 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.004200 ft/ft FlowMaster v5 15 06/14/06 Page 1 of 1 12 1010 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 U L1 Appendix II Basin Map ~, iu ~J u ~, u n li ~, ~~ (~? U ;~ r~ n LU ~ C~ CJ C_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ C~ ~ C~.~ ~ ~~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ub1 d ,~5~,_L pub a~z~uzz~~rQ III xlpuadd~ z ~ ~~ G w ~ > ~ ~ ~ = w z ~ o ~w~ ~~ ~ ~ z ~ _ ~ z~ ~ ~~~ ~ Q 4 y O O ~ N Nw ~~OU ~S ~OO oNU Z W - JAI/ •~` OZN K~ V' Jl~ i-- a w Z `~'~ '~S 3 w~QUI \ /' ~r / ~/~ E z0~ U Q d. J ~ Y / 6'~ // ~N ~j>L> W \ / ~ p ~ F Z ~ W ° / ~' ~ ~~ X770 1-Z KON V- ~ / N ~ K ~UU N ,'s ~'X\/\ i ~ Z ' ~ ~, '~~ ,-~ J OJ ~ , i ~ ~ a N a Z \ J ~ ~ N o ~ W -~~J / ~ ~ ~ ~ x Z -~ ~ ~ ~ a - ~~,T/ ~•\ I \O z \' I L/ \ ~ ~ ~ ~-~J ~ x Q a O \ ~ \ ~ I ~ ~ \ ~ WJ W ~~ ~ ,c ~ u u u a} N ~ ~ ` ~1 O -' v R~ Q z z ~ ~ h I c!) CD C~ ~--~ Q 1 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ x ~ x w w I ~ H ~ W _ - ~ _ ~ O m n~ - I~ ~ ~ J m z ~~ - I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~~>m ~ ~ _ w ~ ~ ~ ~ Q w Q ~ ~o _~ ~ ~ F- r-, " o > ---- ----- ~ - i ~ - ~: ~ ~ I ~~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~, N ~- ~ :~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ :~ 3 ~~ ~ ~ ~:o ~ :~ ~~~a MM O L l~ z N ~~ W i -~ U v +°, H Q > S N O g .. J ~: xN Q ¢~ n o ~ ~ ~ ~~` ~ ~ w O ~ « 3 m U ~ ~l O ~ _ _ UJ ~ ~ ~ N ~/ ~ o 0 o~ ~J = i ~ ~Q v~.~, N ~ B ~ O E ~ N ~•+ I N ~ Z of Q. O U N ~ , ~ ~ U' ~fl ~ ~O `~ ~ ° ~ W i~~ •. 1~ ~ ~ ~ Ym ~ z Z ~ ~ 3 ••~ X I ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ z x ° ~ ~~D ~:~ I / o = o > Z ~~5 ~ •~ ~ '.~ ~ o ~ a ~ o O V o w ~ .. ~ J ~ K~ g ~ z .~ ~, 1 ,' ~~ D a ~ Da' ' z E 1- v O ~ ~~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ^ i ~~~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ z ~ K D m N ~.. ~~ o ~ ~ ~ a ~ w o N ~ iii G ~, ~ ~ ~ a, ~ ~t D O ri+ z z 9 ~O OpNJ q / ~~ W V a 0 O O SS~ O w z ..' ~~~ w ~i // e~ i / O U ~ O O O d ~ D ~~ "~~p0 L / - ~ O i U ~ O O rii D Z U) O > N Ul N / / Q. F F- N ~ ~ U ~ U ~ H ~C J) ~ ~- Z w o~ ouNOO o ,.i ~ 0 ~ ~ oQ ° ~ ~ u s z u o F _ i ~ Z ~ ~z ~ ~ a ~ ~> a ~ ~'z~ a ,,,~ Q Q u ~ taia ? o ~ 'n ~ uui N'~ ~D u~j~~n o O W OW 9> V ~ p~ `2 ~1 ~ J~~ V ~ " wa d ~ o ~ a~ 5 z z z~ o~o~~ ~ / *' / k, v ~ '" uN z~~o ~~ W o o z ° a u~ c~ z O o zu ~~-aiud~ '~ ~ ~ / ~: ~ / I ~ ~ ~,q~' DZ 3 3 ~ z DZ z 2' Z w H Ul U1 w K ` \ / N ~ i Z p Z 5 ¢ ¢ O D O Y 0 ~ ~~ / ~ U G Z o m~o ~o~~? o .~•~~', /'' •,~/' ~~ N a~i m w w o o a o v Z wo°" ~~~ D z ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ O It u W~ ~ o z o ~ ~ r O~ ~ D Dz o~ o ~~, / // ~ o ~ a z z G~ m o ~ ~~ a z~ o ~ a ~ Nwu~ ~NtOa u7 / =a~~! ,~ \ V vi ui= ~ 3 uh~ '~ O Z 1- W ~ ?a0 ?vlVU ~ C1 m _ 3~ V f Om 3 ~ u ~ Q O O O OOO OOO OOOO O O Z ~ Z N v \ ~I ~ ~ ~ I^ ' I ~~ O~ 4 N ' * I ~` ~ !~ ~ ' ~ ~ z u ," ~- p z + p ~ a F ~ u z 0 I ~ ~ ~ z N w z ' I .~ f / \. ~ O00 ~~ ~' ~ ~ - ~- ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ :- ~,~ ~ ~ ~;~ ~ O c7 m • ~~ N ~ L Z ~ ~' ~ ~ . ~ Vt9 ~Z ~ ~ ` ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ , \ i Z ~~ ~ J ~ - ' _7~~ ~~~ I .'~ as p ~ ~ ~ osLz ~ ~. J ; _ z o . ~ a I , ~ , J( I ~ ~ l * Q ~ ~ ~ N a N ~ ~ ~ ~ \ N N F-~ Q l ~ ~;' ` @~ m ~ Z ~x '~Yr ~ ~; ~ ~ O O r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ Z ; I D ~' ! '~ <D Q N I 1--V ~ O ' ~ ~ b-?1 Q / a Q /^ i ~- J AOL ~~ : X M ~ ~'. :.~ `• ~ z ~ I W } LW ` N ~ , i = ~ r r i ~ ~ ~ O W ~: •:r~ :rr ~ , ~ ~ ii u u ~ ~ ~ P~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ '• ~ZZ d ~ I ~ ~ X ~ I ) ~ ~ ~ _ • - - - w ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~. I , r O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `. ~ e~ / / / ~ 1_ X~, W N / / FiI .. .-~ ~ ~, ~ M I , ~ ~,:Q1, :~ ,., ~ ' ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ of e"" ~ - C ~ ch ,p o+. ~M . I : ~ w y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` n C vl x d ~L ~ 3 +' o~ o w c n c~ - N C Q t 3 ~ X)F'~, ~~.F ~0 T ly LL{ J .. o d o P J j ' X ? • ~~ I ~ ~ N Ll K ~ ~. ` I ~ X ~ p~ ` ~ ° g ~ g ~ ' ~ , ~ 3 J U 0 ` I % / / Z \ ~' 1 . ~ ' I V ~. . . ~ X ~. ~ . N I I v , N / ." _ \ T ~ ~- . ~. ~ - ~• 1 ., Q ~ X * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / N W Z w E ~Q~ ~v1 ~ 0 ~ •~ I ~ . ~ . • ~i ~ ~ w p N ~ j ; * \ - N madpu O ; I ~ X ~ \ w OU OmO NFO~ Z X ~ ` ~ ,'~. • l N w OVD N~~ U ~ ~ ( . ~ '• ~ \ ~ ~ w o a~ ~ ~ ~ . , ~ ~. ~ O z0 i ~ w WF J~O N N i ~. I y .y , i X ~ ~' ~ , ~ ~ , V ~ o ~~Sa~~ ~', i .~ i ~ adz ,, ~ m ~ O ~ ~oo ~ o~z'~O~ w ~.~ ~ yii ,. w _ '~a< ~,QWG~ ,., ~ w of ° ~- _~o ~ z ~ ==N°u~ .l1.INnW~N _ 0~d3NNb'ld?J f'HW~/ .' ~/ y / ~ i ~ __ ~ ." r Q o SONtrluJ lu Np1Sfl 1 ~ ~ O O N 3 nine, ~ ~~~ ~ ~ i ~' o z = z ~ ~~ win ~ z N ~ ~ _ ~ N O wi o f ~v ~O p ~ m O O u z~ ~` °`~oo y oot Q~ F o o ~w~ L~ ~ Q r• ~ ~~~ p u ~~owo~~ L° ~ ~~Ww `~ >m~g N~ 3 ~~ iWOZ o ~p ° p m s w z ~ o~u z3 ~ mpg ~ ~ ¢EUa°p w~ w otwz0 V - < Om ~ ,-. ° d ~ ~ ~ N uw~ =z ~° z~ ~ V ~ ~~' ~ ~ Fpm ° z ° o ~ _ ~ woe o o¢ a a ~o[aw ~~ ~az'3 O u~=a ,~~ ° ~p u zW~ < a ° u O z ~F i"'Uz ~Vp ~ W ,Lna~Nw~N ~O w a F°~0C m0 uu.WN ~~ ~ °'=p pF=W ">-' >F z N < 'a O O zNw z00 ~p ~ z O N~ p U F m ~ O m ° Q N L J O O s> ° ~ aJ m K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U L Z O~ w 0. Z N~ < F Z L,n~ z ° V a~w0~- ~ zd~ ~O°~ ~~ InE L « - O`,z° wz ~ ¢ O uz~~" a~/v a~ J w ~'~=pwz0 Faz~ ~F _ONO zO O°~w a ° o~ G U1 ~ JF~ = ti ~- ONN Ou o~ G m~ L ~ U c w ~ _ ~ a o° o L ~~ m z ~ z = O 3 m N O a in 'a ~a ~ z° L~ ~ z ~ zt°Fa~ riioczc° o0 5 ~- N ~a °~ a ~ >za ~ u o~ m°N z = ~~j ~ ~~~' La puma zo ItJawz~-u~ v~?~°c = ~ `~ ~ a ° z ao Nu,4g a z - op~aoN= NN°~.~ ~~ L3ioWL= m~m> _~ ~ pzm W~w~ ~ N~° _ < °L °~G~wO~< `~ _~ w~ ~pwzF-ON z a z N 2 a~ N w N O- ^~-' 3 ~N~ N - ~ iup-V u ~ IJIO~~=wpb ~n a0 w0 mfr =L~ w tom O~p~~zOz w n a ma NaN~ uw °~ uL"a zN r NW< o L zw p < z ~ ~ QOO ~m ua~0 Wp w~o z L ~~ O"~ OF ~ p mON O awouifw°bu~~°za ~ z ~ N oN > a w= ~ a zwo a =za a-ow ~Woa ~ m~N ~ O v~ O ~ > ~ N~u~.~ ° o~ ~ V p K ? F K w w U K z~ w~ H 2°- N w N V ~t V N `n "~ N ~ z F °~ ~ K N Y K ~ d ° ~ O p p 0 V' O N V w a o ~ ~ z z w O~ w ~ J j w '_ ~ Z N j~ z z z 0 O w 0 w O~ F O cg ~ Z~ In i ~ ~ o= O a m V J~ oFC zd w~ u p O N ~= z (Jl J N> = a a aw m~ p o z ~-~wz \1 z ~~ z ~- °L~ N~~~ ~ Oar a ~ Lz = -~ a °N °o ~ d~ pF~ ~~~ Fz Q o- w z ~ w ao> __ ~ mo N ~w~ a Nf o Lo`~aL ~ o w ~~5 a = ~N~~ zw Nwa i J zwN~ou F~9~ ko w ~wfw>w '~~r m a m~pw o~~ u0 °- ~ ~~w a z aN~a~~V ~r00 ¢N Qwpmiwwo =uL o~ ~ a~~NOF°~a ~ s0~ FO w o~~Gwo~ao~u ~z ~OU ~ oa> poawN~-a o~w I-O~zz~um o~" W ro o ~V~n~J~¢3 V '~z~- z aoc"""O N~--~a > `~ Q Z pOO a ro L L"=w~ zw o~ w m22~_ a ~w ~ Fw pz a_ = u a «~ -a ml-zFwa p3 a. J ~wU w ~ ~"'NZ mFO OIUOp ~~ D~FKV~~~NO=a~ O N z~-LLaJU6 L~~ oOr "~ WKCn~~~KNZ d'Np O "W z ~ w W = N ~ Lw V' Q=zF~-~ L~ F aNLL'K V ti W ~ N°C a ~yUU~ ILpp~ oz a-~n~~~nroo ua~> °~ UFO ~o~oz o~p WN ,~i<~pwz3 ~"NU zw pmv>rN '' ~ u ~ u oeu ~MNZ° p=OO p zw azWOwFNaw gw ~° ~pN ~OOwz pakzi F`'ma°za ~NC~w g ot_Ow u~~ O u Ow Loc F pw N o UO aw'J`-O H a~~ ~.- a.z a a L ~zwwl- z0 z za° o ommo~'aupo a'pw9~ w~ No¢wa5>°eoo v N '~~~~~ Nwz o,<~'uu'~'a~°~ ~~o' Z -N ~ ~ K w~ N ~ m °l7 V z ~ w O H NNLr m ~-_~ ZNU1 Kp cV7g Y ~w ~ ~ V U C7 ~Z NO LOw-~ N°~Q Q °L O ° z? L d F K w~~~ w ~ a-L m Z u~. _J ~ O~~wN p Z N rL=~ ~ ~w W ~!-° <pw> ° ~"' _ ~O~O k ~ z=~~o 3F zo~ U ~~a ~ og~~aOW~~ ~op0 r U1~wOUVSNNE~~z ~'~ u~ U~`~aai°Qwow ti~a°°O ~ ~N oN~Oa~ z UwL ~ ~°~~O°=m°C Wz~~ ~~ wz =mN~3=~pG==°;O wo zp Npwp~LZ ma~JuOO~= mF ~Woz ~~oW ~ O z ~ awFpO 0 "~~O L Lp~ >z fp QQ~tiN m0 Nw F~~gu° a ~ m~ r, ~ N W d~~ a >~ =wL w ,~~~= L~ N o-w- V~~I-°c '~oz ow K a~'dJ Jo'~~w U) Own.zp°> Nm'ow~y<, w~=~ ((~ ~ V OZ F°C~tj LIL- Lw N N~ YiLO~~nOCZ~=wNO~ w w4 Z OF wLOQ Q<~U~ JNZ ~wtNi~ mO~Om~'ti °Lm Owo.~ L O wNFN V.'u>S ~ O zNw ENO Z Z UHLZa>mN~> ~~>O mw W y'~?z=F'm LN ~ ma ~m~~~d ZO m f ~., ON~~p Gw zw = ~L ocNma az u- og0 ~/ ~zo ~=w~'N~ O > zm~u~~~ O_mQ'-o~o~wNO~J~~~~, °;u zwa~wYO ~ ~°CNO ~o~i°o~ ks ~~ O w i°~ Nzmog ~~zum~ o~raoWm~° ~~aaN~~zWWNOe=z ~° pmu=i=°vNOOO pamz~°pN= Zu=i~UtlWZZZI°~u=i~~~ U Z p Nu. m ~~ a F-~wwa w ~~= a"l?wwwKQ t'l> 'i zd ~ ~iOw = OwF- ~o"~~-~ o cnuo~ o=ao~w~~wN NwwuNUZ w~~amm~w3<~~zpz'- z Cj=~>~oco°~= ~N~o~L3d~o ~~o r °w°u<3 ~ Um~~Ni~N~<w~NOLUwu.~~W~mJ~o p~~aoo~ao~o~z zp-zNOz ~N,~ij~ o~ ~~o~Nr°cN~ w~pp o~N?m~~~ a J Q ~°NONO=U1ti NU'pz~Z°C ~cwO~~ O K '~=u= mO~o~~mwoNW K~ ~ p~ O~ J mz xl`o~' ~ Nwa m ~ a z u z aw. zw~ S ~u om p <_ = O zui~woo_ tf) Nma~~o H ~ ~woaoN~~ow°pNW°miW~~wa~o F~-uw°~~'~ z°~a~wl°TiU~u~~F~ NW~O~o=m~~ ~owF~NZ->~ ~W~°N`~°~~"=oW9 ~ O Q F-~i~Ng~~O~Fui~=z`~S~uGuJJ~~-z WglL-pao~~~~~~NW~w~~p ~f~oz~.6<~U ONFz~~°~~~ ~mw~zNZro~~-'two ~ ~. J LpZ ~ zQZ Z V u=N ~°C u.j Z ~ F-~ >z LZQ = a L U~ ln_~owN~/nzvw_3v~?~'uSuNO~iwp _omNmN~pumvw_=u,oo~9~ U_a~uimvNaw t-_mNm'~c9va =_~wmm~v~md~9N ~ ~m ~ N ~ w J CJ Z oo a x O ? ~ N ~j /•1 m m - p F~~/ ii ~ o Q E" o ~ ~ ~ c~ a - J N Z cf~ z Q ~ O O 1 m N ~~ ~ Q u 3 ii ° ~~ ~ w - ~ ~ W ~ r_, O J N K O O ~ W W Z /~ . ~ cn N ~ ~' O m m ~ m ~ U ~ O / o ~ S" m> ° d W ~ ~~ ~ % ~ -N ~ w ~ ~ F- ~ ° / ~ ~ ~ s ~ iAAj k~ W ~\ ~\ 4 /% zN m O [~~ ~ O~ m w \ o ~ / g> ~~ oo/ sN m ~ a ~'~AV//~ ° U W ° ~ ~ / ~ i ~ //~ ~'~' -~ m~ ~ //VA~~ ~ ---I JJ~_______ ~/ z m Q / m p / /j O G N \\~ o ~ O 1-~I o ~ % ~' ~ %jV~/ o z \ ~m O o ~ o Q 3 a N i\\/\ z v - ~ ~ o o m ~ z m~ o _~ m Z_ N I ( iF \\\/\\\ ~ $ z m m ~ z I I \~ \~ ~+ I ~ \/J ~ O ~ / i r~ I ~, W JN ~ >r mw ~w ti \ p K // /~ 2 ~ <F ~ ~>F Z Ow In 3 ~ k Q~ \~\\~/ y 3 a~ W wC 3aln w¢< F- N w O -m-{{N O y C ld Qp \//~~ a ~ o U a waw zma K ~zz Zw V 3 0 W 8 \/\/ ~ p~~~ Q °r~ vl~ Woi N w~NNw C a,o ~a ~\~\\\; ~\ III O~~ Z ~~ww oFZ p~~ ? 1~0~~0 > t N w v // / ~ ` ~ ?vi s~~ a°~ J ~ ~zOU~ ¢ a n v \%\\%% ~ ~ z ~~i ~z° o~a Q a r OOp°i- • ~ 3 m ml \\/\\\~ ~ ~ oa~ rc~~ ~~~ W m=z ~g~0~ •n ~N ~~ \\\/ yi ~ m ~ a O ~ N N~ p N O ~.~j \//\~ Z ~~ UQ Y U W~ =Z~mN P J~ \ o ~z n~Z w~ ~ I-- w N \~\// ~ j ~u ~w Fa ~~m O ~ ° Z Op=NwO mr m I I \~~ o ~ ~ cc~~ b b ~'~ < ~ ~ ~_ as `~w J w~ ~m~~o ~ ~ ° I ~ ~ ~ ,Intl V ~ ~ ~ im ~~ ~<y (n ~ Oz~~~ ~' o 0 W ~ IIIY~I~IY w I m o ~ m~ M N~Zw ~ ° O O \/ III ~ O m ~ ~~ ~~ ~LL O Np~ a p a .~..~\\ ~ J X J F < aZ ~m LL~I` Z~O2> m m I j/ ~ FFQ w~ J ~ o ~o wLL N~< ~O~R°°'~ ~ ~ ~ m ~o W om ~ S" z ~z a~ ~zi° z0~"~'`n~ ~ z ~ o /\\~/~~ ~ ~LL ? a ~ am z? I"G~ Oz~Oz ol:~~ ~~ ~Z c3°v~-i wOUOw~ O ~/ w m ~ O O ~ G LL~-1 N O ~ ~ m z z J „ w ~ s~ ~ s~ ~~4~ .9 .°Z .LI W Nm\ W- ~- Z ~`~u 7 ~ ~~~~~ J ' ii_ ~ o i-m ~ Lt_ o~~ iii h k ~ o°°° /o°°° ~ !r !Y ~~ i~ 3. ~ ~+~ 8~ a W y~1Y ^K' W ~ p, I c~ ~ .ff ~~ C~ z 8 ~ m Q ~'E L ~. 88~ ~ 1~T ~~.C S Q ~~ iI ~a $Y H~ ~ e~~~ ~~ O ~ O ~~ S ~`~ ~ ti8q ~C = 2 F .N Q U -~_-s v a W - f- r ~-w J_ m w- r'LL ~ ~_~ ~- r w ^~ r a~ o °~ O Z ~p W l~ LL .~~~~~J~l ~ 1, ~ h '~`~ ~~~ w Z ~ z Q'I ~~~ ' Z ~~ r ~ ` ~ w Z ,'~. ~ O y~ ~ d ~ as ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~- w ~ ° z W O o° ° ° ° ° ~ tt a 0 U ~ o o o O o°o a By 3 g Q W V 3 ~ ¢ U' uc ry ~' ~ N z ~~ p ~ o ~~ ~ i ~ _ ~ ~ Ga ~ ~ R; _ '~ w m O ¢ ¢ - 4U K Y WJ Ob i n U n 1~ Appendix III r..~ Facility Summary Form ~'~ n r--, V n V Li ~, s 1___r n i l___i ~___1 V V ~, ~' ~, u L~ n I.~ Jr1 U n ~~ U l~J I'i l~ 1 ~J u' n r-~ n U ~~ V 4 U n n U (~ i LJ THURSTON REGION FACILITY SUMMARY FORM Complete one (1) for each facility (detention/retention, coalescing plate filter, etc.) on the project site. Attach 8 1/2 x 11 sketch showing location of facility. Proponent's Facility Name or Identifier (e.g ,Pond A): See Part 6 Name of Road or Street to Access Facility: Tahoma Blvd. SE Hearings Examiner Case Number: Development Rev. Project No./Bldg Permit No.: Parcel Number: 21723410000 To be completed by Utility Staff: Utility Facility Number ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ , Project Number (num) ~~ '" Parcel Number Status: ~-(num, 1 ch) ~ ~ ' - ` 0, Known; 1, Public; 2 Unknown; 3, Unassigned ~ . r Basin and Subbasin: (num, 6ch) ~ , (2ch.for basin, 2ch for subbasin, 2ch future ~ , ~" ~ ` ` - 6 ~~ Responsible jurisdiction: (alpha, lch) ~ '~`~ Part 1 -Project Name and Proponent Project Name: Tahoma Blvd. Extension Project Owner. Tahoma Terra Div 3-8 LLC Project Contact Tahoma Terra Div 3-8 LLC Address: 4200 6 Ave #301 Lacey WA 98503 Phone: (~0,) 923-9655 Project Proponent: (if d fferent) Same Address Same Phone Same Project Engineer: Mark .Steepy, P. F.. Firm: KPFF Phone: ~~) 292-7230 ~1 C C C I~ L~ ~, u C C.JI U I~ U (~ U ~1 U LJ j(~ U ~' LJ Part 2 -Project Location Section Township Range 24 17N IE Part 3 -Type of Permit Application Type of permit (e.g., Commercial Bldg. Other Permits (circle) ^DOF/W HPA ^COE 404 ^COE Wetlands ^DOE Dam Safety ^FEMA ^Floodplain ^Shoreline Mgmt ^Rockery/Retaining Wall ^Encroachment ®Grading ^NPDES ®Other As required by the City of Yelm Other Agencies (Federal, State, Local, etc.) that have had or will review this Drainage Erosion Control Plan: N/A Part 4 -Proposed Proiect Description What stream basin is this project in (e.g., Percival, Woodland): Yelm Creek Project Size, acres 5.90 total Zoning: R-O-W Onsite: Residential Subdivision: Number of Lots: Lot size (average), acres: Building Permit/Commercial Plat : N/A Building(s) Footprint, acres Concrete Paving, acres: Gravel Surface, acres: Lattice Block Paving, acres: Public Roads (including gravel shoulder), acres: 5.80 n lJ C C n ~, LJ U C ~~ n u I~I ~ ~J C C n C' C rl V +~ U LJ Private Roads (including sidewalks), acres . Onsite Impervious Surface Total, acres. Part 5 -Pre-Developed Project Site Characteristics Stream through site, y/n: Name: Thompson Creek DNR Type: 0 O1 Yes Type of feature this facility discharges to (i.e., lake, stream, intermittent stream, pothole, roadside ditch, sheetflow to adjacent private property, etc.): Infiltration to groundwater Swales, Ravines, y/n: Steep slopes, (steeper than I5%) y/n: Erosion hazard, y/n: 100 yr. Floodplain, y/n: Lakes or Wetlands, y/n Seeps/Springs, y/n: High Groundwater Table, y/n: Wellhead Protection or Aquifer Sensitive Area, y/n: No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes u' an u C ~~ U U C I~ U C n C C ~} C I U I~ U C ~' L1 Part 6 -Facility Description -Wet Pond A Total Area Tributary to Facility Including Offsite (acres): Total Onsite Area Tributary to Facility (acres): Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): Design Total Tributary Area to Facility (acres): Enter a one (1) for the type offacility: Wet pond detention Wet pond water surface area, acres Dry pond detention Underground detention Infiltration pond Dry well infiltration Coalescing plate separator Centr~ge separator Other: Outlet type (Enter a one (1) for each type present) Filter Oil water separator Single oriftce Multiple orifices Weir Spillway Pump(s) Other Part 7 -Release to Groundwater Design Percolation Rate to Groundwater (if applicable) 61.74 61.74 23.20 38.54 61.74 1 0.68 1 1 N/A n u U I~I ~ LJ I u ~' n U n U h I U n U r`1 L.J n V C Part 6 - Facilit~Description -Infiltration Pond A Total Area Tributary to Facility Including Offsite (acres): Total Onsite Area Tributary to Facility (acres): Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): Design Total Tributary Area to Facility (acres): Enter a one (1) for the type offacility: Wet pond detention Wet pond water surface area, acres Dry pond detention Underground detention Infiltration pond Dry well infiltration Coalescing plate separator Centrifuge separator Other: Outlet type (Enter a one (1) for each type present) Filter Oil water separator Single orifice Multiple orifices Weir Spillway Pump(s) Other -Infiltration Part 7 -Release to Groundwater Design Percolation Rate to Groundwater (if applicable) 61.74 61.74 23.20 38.54 61.74 1 1 1 20 inches/hour n U n u n ~~ U U In U n U LJ ~~ U C C n LJ n i U n L1 V lJ LI f"`1 U Part 6 -Facility Description -Wet Pond B Total Area Tributary to Facility Including Offsite (acres) ~ 2.41 Total Onsite Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 2.41 Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres) ~ 2.09 Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres) ~ 0.31 Design Total Tributary Area to Facility (acres): 2.41 Enter a one (1) for the type of facility: Wet pond detention 1 Wet pond water surface area, acres 0.08 Dry pond detention 1 Underground detention Infiltration pond Dry well infiltration Coalescing plate separator Centrifuge separator Other. Outlet type (Enter a one (1) for each type present) Filter Oil water separator Single orifice 1 Multiple orifices Weir Spillway Pump(s) Other Part 7 -Release to Groundwater Design Percolation Rate to Groundwater (if applicable) N/A r ~--~ ~--~ u n u n LV n V n V Appendix IV FEMA Firm Map ~' I V ~n l__J I~ U I~ U I~ U II '~ I__J I L~ ^ \ 'N. G \~ . _ ' -_.a,a ~ ~..-...._ n~ ~-.: -' --_.-. ,. ,.,-... rrH.> >_...~, ~~.....-.. .._...~ -...-_... ~:~ .r. . ~ . ~ ~- -e- ~ __ ~^r°4TC~ « ei ~ r'^"-~.-~.' ibatw~ L3I ~-, 4 L~ U n n n U n U I~ U i,vnrvnr~ i ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~+ u"li4 L LJ L ~~ ~~ r-, r-, Appendix V Soils Evaluation Report U n C I(~ L~ i L~ C r SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 1: GENERAL SITE INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra Commercial & Divisions 3-8 SHEET: 1 OF 2 SCA PROJECT NO.: 04104 DATE: 5/25/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. 1. SITE ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Longmire Street SE Yelm, WA 98597 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a commercial and residential subdivision with all associated roadway, utility and landscaping improvements. 3. SITE DESCRIPTION: The eastern portion of the project site is currently developed as Tahoma Terra phase 1 and 2. The proposed commercial portion will occupy an area west of phase 1 and 2 and east of the 100 year floodline for Thompson Creek. Tahoma Terra phase 3-8 will occupy the western highlands adjacent to and west of Thompson Creek. The described project site is currently unoccupied. Site topography east of Thompson Creek is relatively flat with no distinguishing features. Site topography west of Thompson Creek generally consists of a gently sloping, rolling terrain over the central portion of the site. Steep slopes lie immediately west of Thompson Creek except in the area of _the proposed access boulevard. Moderately steep to steep slopes occupy the southern fringes of the site, and sloping terrain is characteristic of the northern fringes of the site. Site vegetafion consists of uncropped pasture grasses. The project site is bounded by Tahoma Terra phase 1 and 2 to the east, and undeveloped property to the north, west and south. On-site soils are generally well drained and formed in glacial outwash. 4. SUMMARY OF SOILS WORK PERFORMED: Nineteen test pits were excavated by trackhoe to a maximum depth of 252" below 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. Falling head percolation tests were completed in test pits #3A at 78" below the existing grade and #6A at 56". Double ring infiltration tests were completed in test pits #7A, #8A and #17A at depths of 12", 210" and 12" respectively. Soil log test pit data sheets, percolation and infiltration test results are included in this report. 5. ADDITIONAL SOILS WORK RECOMMENDED: Additional soils work should not be necessary unless drainage infiltration facilities are located outside the general area encompassed by the soil test pits. 6. FINDINGS: The National Resource Conservation Service (NRSC) of Thurston County mapped the on-site soils as a combination of Nisqually loamy fine sand (74), Everett gravelly sandy loam (33,34), and Yelm fine sandy loam (127). All test pits generally confirmed these designations as mapped with some variations. The area east of Thompson Creek was mapped by the NRSC as a Nisqually series but test pits were dominated by a Spanaway series profile. The Spanaway series is known to occupy small areas mapped as a Nisqually series. Test pits generally revealed gravelly fine sandy loam surface soils, overlying an extremely gravelly and cobbley coarse sand substratum. Substratum soils were moderately loose with few fines present. Winter water table was present in most test pits. The central portion and southwest corner of the site was mapped by the NRSC as a Yelm series. Test pits generally confirmed this designation in the central portion generally revealing a sandy loam stratum underlain by a loam, sandy loam and silt loam substratum. Considerable deviation from the NRSC mapping occurred in the southwest corner of the site. Several test pits immediately west of the southwest property line revealed soil profiles more closely resembling an Everett series and to a much lesser degree a Giles series. Winter water table was present in most test pits. The northwest, northeast (west of Thompson Creek) and southeast corners of the site were mapped by the NRSC as an Everett very gravelly sandy loam. However, previous soil loggings in the northwest and northeast revealed soils more similar to an Alderwood series generally profiling a sandy loam stratum underlain by ablation and basal till. The southeast corner of the site revealed soils but more closely resembling a Giles or Indianola series rather than an Everett series. Falling head percolation and double ring infiltration tests were completed revealing the following infiltration rates: Test pit #3A -144 in/hr, #6A - 1080 in/hr, #7A - 3.75 in/hr, # 8A - 62.6 in/hr, #17A - 6.2 in/hr. Falling head percolation tests were completed utilizing a 6" diameter solid walled PVC pipe to LJ I~I ~ L~ In J_J u r-t LJ IrZ L__s n V U U prevent sidewall collapse. 7. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Spanaway soil series is a somewhat excessively drained soil that formed in glacial outwash. Infiltration rates are generally rapid in the substratum soils. The substratum soils should be targeted for all drainage infiltration facilities. A prevalent winter water table presence requires consideration for all drainage facility designs. A design infiltration rate of 20 in/hr or less would be appropriate for all targeted C-horizon soils as recommended in the attached soil log information sheets. The Yelm soil series is a moderately well drained soil formed in glacial outwash. Infiltration rates are generally moderately rapid in the substratum soils. However, on-site soils contained an above average percentage of fines and soil density resulting in infiltration rates significantly less than average. A winter water table presence precludes utilizing the more coarse deeper horizon soils that generally yield more rapid infiltration rates. A design infiltration rate of 1.5 in/hr or less would be appropriate for all targeted soils as recommended in the attached soil log information sheets. The Everett soil series is a somewhat excessively drained soil that formed in glacial outwash. Infiltration rates are generally rapid in the substratum soils. However, a winter water table presence in the southwest portion of the site precludes utilizing the more coarse, faster infiltrating substratum soils. A design infiltration rate of 2.0 in/hr or less would be appropriate for all targeted soils as recommended in the attached soil log information sheets. During construction, care must be taken to prevent erosion of exposed soils. Drainage facility infiltration surfaces must be properly protected from contamination by the fine-grained upper horizon soils and from compaction by site construction activities. Soils not properly protected will cause drainage infiltration facilities to prematurely fail. I hereby certify that I prepared this report, and conducted or supervised the performance of related work. 1 certify that I am qualified to do this work. I represent my work to be complete an accurate within the bounds of uncertainty inherent a practice of soils science, and to be suitable for its intended use. SIGNED: C~ DATE: S/Z5 lfa6 ~~ `- '~ ~~° - i-= j°" ~ t~~~~®f~A ~~~~~ ~J n L C ~~ V In L~ C I~I U~ n Horz Al A2 C1 C C2 C3 (~ L_ lJ I(~ LJ In LJ SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra Commercial SHEET: 1 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/11/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #1A LOCATION: As per the attached map. 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: None Nisqually (74) Terrace 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: Glacial outwash & volcanic ash GROUP: Unknown B 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Level Greater than bottom of hole Greater than bottom of hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Slight Slow Minimal 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Use a design infiltration rate of 20 in/hr or less for drainage infiltration facilities located in the C2 and C3 horizon soils at 68" or greater below the existing ground surface. Depth Color Texture 0"- 24" 10YR2/1 GrFSaLm 24"- 44" 10YR4/6 LmFSa 44"- 63" 10YR4/4 SaLm 63"- 85" 10YR5/1 ExGrC-MSa 85"-192" 10YR5/1 ExGr&Cob CSa Soils Strata Description Soil Log #1A %CL %ORG CF STR <20 <5 <1 Gr <10 - <1 SG <20 - <1 Mas <1 - <80 SG <1 - <95 SG MOT IND CEM ROO <X> FSP - - - ff 2-6 2 - - - ff 6-20 6 - - - ff 2-6 2 - - - - >20 >40 - - - - >20 >40 n U L~ f-t U 1 IJ Horz A Bw C1 C2 r~ C3 I ~~ C4 ~~ SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra Commercial SHEET: 2 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/11/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #2A LOCATION: As per the attached 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 & volcanic ash GROUP: 90" B 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Level 120" Greater than bottom of hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Slight Slow Minimal 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Soils were heavily mottled at 90" -117" below the existing grade and moderately mottled at 117"+. Water seepage was present at 120" with standing water at 126". Use a design infiltration rate of 20 in/hr or less for drainage infiltration facilities located in the C1 horizon soils. Soils Strata Description Soil Log #2A Death Color Texture 0"- 30" 10YR2/1 GrFSaLm 30"- 39" 10YR4/6 ExGrLmSa 39"- 78" 10YR5/4 ExGrCSa 78"- 86" 10YR5/1 GrFSa 86"-117" 10YR5/1 ExGrCSa 11T'-148" 10YR5/2 VGrC-MSa %CL %ORG CF STR MOT <20 <5 <5 Gr - <10 - <70 SG - <1 - <85 SG - <5 - <20 SG - <1 - <95 SG M3P <2 - <60 SG C2D IND CEM ROO <X> FSP - - ff 2-6 2 - - ff 6-20 8 - - - >20 >40 - - - 6-20 - - - - >20 - - - - >20 - Imo' U n Ire l_ ~1 n I~I LJ I II~ L~~ L, Horz ~ A Bw ~1 C1 C2 C3 C4 (-1 1 U 4' U I~ U ~~ SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra Commercial SHEET: 3 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/11/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #3A LOCATION: As per the attached map. 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: Falling Head Percolation Test Spanaway Gravelly Sandy Terrace Loam (110) 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: Glacial outwash & volcanic ash GROUP: Unknown B 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Level 119" Greater than bottom of hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Slight Slow Minimal 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Soils were heavily mottled at 119" below the existing grade. Static water level was present at 119". A falling head percolation test completed at 78" below the existing grade yielded an infiltration rate of 144 iNhr. Use a design infiltration rate of 20 in/hr or less for drainage infiltration facilities located in the C2 horizon soils. Soils Strata Description Soil Log #3A Depth 0"- 20" 20"- 27" 27"- 52" 52"- 96" 96"-119" 119"-156" Color Texture 10YR2/1 VGrFSaLm 10YR4/6 ExGrSaLm 10YR5l6 ExGrMSa 10YR5/1 ExGrC-MSa 10YR5/1 GrMSa 10YR5/2 ExGr&CobSa %CL %ORG CF STR MOT IND CEM ROO <X> FSP <20 <5 <50 Gr - - - ff 2-6 2 <20 - <70 SG - - - ff 6-20 4 <1 - <75 SG - - - - >20 >40 <1 - <80 SG - - - - >20 >40 <3 - <20 SG - - - - >20 - <5 - <85 SG M3P - - - >20 _ rr~ ~J n ~~ ~~ I'~ U' ~I i U L~~ C Horz A ~t Bw C1 C2 C3 C4 LJ I~ 1__1 SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra Commercial SHEET: 4 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/11/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #4A LOCATION: As per the attached 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 & volcanic ash GROUP: 62^+ B 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Level 74" Greater than bottom of hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Slight Slow Minimal 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Soils were moderately mottled at 62" below the existing grade. Static water level was present at 74". Soils Strata Description Soil Log #4A Depth 0"- 6" 6"- 19" 19"- 32" 32"- 44" 44"- 78" 78"- 96" Color Texture 10YR2/1 VGrFSaLm 5YR3/4 ExGrSaLm 10YR4/6 ExGrLmSa 10YR5/1 ExGrCSa 10YR5/1 CSa 10YR5/2 ExGrSa %CL %ORG CF <20 <5 <40 <20 - <65 <10 - <65 <1 - <80 <1 - <70 <3 - <85 STR MOT IND CEM ROO <X> FSP Gr - - - ff 2-6 1 SG - - - ff 6-20 4 SG - - - ff 6-20 8 SG - - - - >20 >40 SG C2D - - - >20 - SG - - - - >20 - G ~~ L~ n '. ~~ (-1 lJ C 1 Horz J~ A I ' ~ Bw l C1 ' C2 L~ C3 `~~, C4 IU,1 C5 ~l L_v ( 1 ~1 SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra Commercial SHEET: 5 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/11/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #SA LOCATION: As per the attached 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 & volcanic ash GROUP: Unknown B 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Level 124" 90"-112" 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Slight Slow Minimal 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Static water level was present at 124. Use a design infiltration rate of 20 in/hr or less for drainage infiltration facilities located in the C1 and CZ horizon soils. Soils Strata Description Soil Log #5A Depth Color Texture %CL %ORG CF STR MOT IND CEM ROO <X> FSP 0"- 20" 10YR2/1 VGr&CobFSa <20 <5 <50 Gr - - - ff 2-6 2 Lm 20"- 26" 10YR4/6 ExGrLmMSa <10 - <45 SG - - - ff 6-20 8 26"- 49" 10YR5/6 ExGrMSa <1 - <70 SG - - - - >20 >40 49"- 84" 10YR5/1 ExGrCSa <1 - <85 SG - - - - >20 >40 84"- 90" 10YR5/1 ExGrC-MSa <3 - <75 SG - - - - >20 >40 90"-112" 10YR6/2 ExGrLm(Till) <20 - <75 Mas F1 F Wk Wk - - - 112"-144" 10YR5/2 ExGrCSa with <7 - <85 SG - - - - >20 - SiCl~ackets n n I~ ~.JI rt 1J f~ 1-i i~ ~~ S"~ I, U U U 1~ u Horz A ew C1 C2 C3 C4 I~ 1__1 ~~ U i~ I SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra Commercial SHEET: 6 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/11/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #6A LOCATION: Asper the attached map. 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: Falling Head Percolation Spanaway Gravelly Sandy Terrace Loam (110) 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: Glacial outwash & volcanic ash GROUP: 93°~+ B 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Level 108" Greater Than Bottom Of Hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Slight Slow Minimal 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Soils were heavily mottled at 93" below the exisfing grade. Static water level was present at 108". A falling head percolation test completed at 56" below the existing grade yielded an infiltration rate of 1080 in/hr. Use a design infiltration rate of 20 in/hr or less for drainage infiltration facilities located in the C1 and C2 horizon soils. Soils Strata Description Soil Log #6A Depth Color Texture 0"- 18" 10YR2/1 VGrFSaLm 18"- 22" 10YR4/6 ExGrLmSa 22"- 48" 10YR5/6 ExGrC-MSa 48"- 76" 10YR5/1 ExCobCSa 76"- 96" 10YR5/2 GrFSa 96"-136" 10YR6/1 ExGr&Cob CSa %CL %ORG CF STR MOT <20 <5 <40 Gr - <10 - <65 SG - <1 - <80 SG - <1 - <90 SG - <5 - <35 SG M3P <1 - <95 SG M3P IND CEM ROO <X> FSP - - ff 2-6 2 - - ff 6-20 8 - - - >20 >40 - - - >20 >40 - - - >20 - - - - >20 - r~ ~1 ~~ ~1 ~~ n 1 U ~~ ~I~ 1~ U Horz I~ Ap U Bw1 Bw2 LJ C1 C2 C3 1~ 1__1 In 1__t II ;' SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra (Division 3-8) SHEET: 7 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/11/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #7A LOCATION: As per the attached map. 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: Double Ring Infiltration Yelm Fine Sandy Loam Terrace (127) 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: Glacial outwash & volcanic ash GROUP: Unknown C 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Level 108" Greater Than Bottom Of Hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Slight Slow Moderate 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Soils were heavily mottled at 48" - 62" below the existing grade. Static water level was present at 108". A double ring infiltration test completed at 12" below the existing grade yielded an infiltration rate of 3.75 in/hr. Use a design infiltration rate of 1.5 in/hr or less for drainage infiltration facilities located in the Bw1 horizon soils. Soils Strata Description Soil Log #7A Depth Color Texture 0"- 6" 7 5YR3/2 FSaLm 6"- 30" SYR3/4 FSaLm 30"- 48" 2.5Y4/4 LmVFSa 48"- 62" 2 5Y5/2 Si 62"-102" 2 SY5/4 Si 102"-144" 2.SY5/1 VFSa %CL %ORG CF STR MOT <20 <5 <5 1 SBK - <20 - <5 1 SBK - <15 - <1 SG - <10 - <1 2SBK M3P <10 - <1 Mas F1F <10 - <1 Mas C2D IND CEM ROO <X> FSP - - ff 2-6 1 - - ff 2-6 3 6 - - - 2-6 4 - - - 2-6 - n LI ~i I~ i~ n C u ~~ Horz C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 ~~ 1~ SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORM14TION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra (Division 3-8) SHEET: 8 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/11/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #8A LOCATION: As per the attached map. 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: Double Ring Infiltration Indianola Loamy Sand (47) Terrace 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: Sandy Glacial Drift GROUP: A Greater Than Bottom Of Hole 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Nearly Level Greater Than Bottom Of Hole Greater Than Bottom Of Hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Moderate Slow Minimal 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: The stratum soils were previously removed. The C1 horizon was stratified with 1/4"-1/2" thick LmFSa lenses 12" apart. A double ring infiltration test completed at 210" below the existing grade yielded an infiltration rate of 62.6 in/hr. Use a design infiltration rate of 20 in/hr or less for drainage infiltration facilities located in the C5 horizon soils. Soils Strata Description Soil Log #8A Death Color Texture 0"- 71" 10YR5/1 FSa with LmFSa lenses 71 "- 84" 10YR5/4 LmVFSa 84"-123" 10YR5/1 FSa 123"-204" 2.5Y6/2 VFSa 204"-252" 2 5Y5/1 MSa %CL %ORG CF STR MOT IND CEM ROO <X> FSP <10 - <1 SG - - - - 6-20 8 <10 - <1 SG - - - - 6-20 6 <5 - <1 SG - - - - >20 >20 <7 - <1 Mas - - - - 6-20 8 <1 - <1 SG - - - - >20 62 6 n t~ n 1? ~, U Horz u A Bw1 ` Bw2 Bw3 C1 1J C2 C3 C4 1(~ C5 J-) U cn L.l SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra (Division 3-8) SHEET: 9 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/15106 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #9A LOCATION: 400' north and 125' west of the southwest property co mer 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: None Yelm Fine Sandy Loam Terrace (127) 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: GlacialOutwash GROUP: C Unknown 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Nearly Level 90" Greater Than Bottom Of Hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Moderate Slow Moderate 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Soils were saturated at 90" with standing water at 156. Soils Strata Description Soil Log #9A Depth Color Texture 0"- 4" 10YR3/2 SaLm 4"- 14" 10YR4/4 SaLm 14"- 24" 2 5Y5/2 GrS~Lm 24"- 52" 2.5Y5/4 SiLm 52"- 66" 2 5Y5/2 Lm 66"- 76" 2.SY6/2 SiLm 76"-135" 2.5Y6/2 Lm 135"-156" 2 5Y5/3 Si & Lm lenses 156"-204" 2 5Y5/1 ExGrSa %CL %ORG CF STR MOT <20 <5 <5 1 SBK - <20 - <15 1SBK - <28 - <25 2SBK - <2g - <1 2SBK F1F <28 - <1 2SBK F1 F <28 - <1 2SBK C2D <28 - <1 Mas - <28 - <1 PI C2D <10 - <75 SG - IND CEM ROO <X> FSP - - mf 2-6 2 - - fm 2-6 2 - - fm 6-2.0 0 5 - - ff .6-2 0 0.5 - - - .6-2 0 1 - - - .6-2 0 0.5 - - - .6-2.0 - - - - .6-2 0 - - - - >20 - U 1J n 1~ U (-1 l~ lu Horz ~1 A 1._I Bw1 Bw2 C1 C2 C3 C4 U C5 L) ((~ L1 SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra (Division 3-8) SHEET: 10 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/15/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #10A LOCATION: 550' north and 165' west of the southwest property co rner 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: None Yelm Fine Sandy Loam Terrace (127) 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: GlacialOutwash GROUP: C Unknown 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Nearly Level 170° Greater Than Bottom Of Hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Moderate Slow Moderate 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Soils were wet at 75" with standing water at 170". Depth Color Texture 0"- 12" 10YR3/2 VCobSaLm 12"- 40" 10YR4/4 GrSaLm 40"- 54" 2.5Y5/2 Lm 54"- 71" 2 5Y5/1 SiLm 71 "-128" 2 5Y5/2 Lm 128"-170" 2.5Y6/2 SiLm 170"-180" 2.SY4/1 MSa 180"-236" 2.SY5/2 Si Soils Strata Description Soil Log #10A %CL %ORG CF STR MOT <20 <5 <50 1SBK - <20 - <25 1 SBK - <28 - <1 2SBK - <28 - <1 Mas - <28 - <1 Mas - <28 - <1 Mas - <3 - <15 SG - <10 - <1 Mas - IND CEM ROO <X> FSP - - ff 2-6 2 - - ff 2-6 2 - - ff 6-2.0 1 - - - .6-2 0 0.5 - - - .6-2 0 - - - - >20 - - - - 6-2 0 - n ~~ ~J U ~~ Horz A Bw1 Bw2 v C1 ~--I C2 r`1 LJ SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra (Division 3-8) SHEET: 11 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/15/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #11A LOCATION: 100' north of station 31+00 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: None Yelm Fine Sandy Loam Terrace (127) 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: GlacialOutwash GROUP: C Unknown 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: " LAYER: Nearly Level 126 Greater Than Bottom Of Hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Moderate Slow Moderate 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Soils were wet at 96" with standing water at 126". Depth Color Texture 0"- 9" 10YR4/2 Lm 9"- 27" 10YR4/4 SaLm 27"- 59" 2.SY5/3 Lm 59"-132" 2.SY6/2 Lm 132"-168" 2 5Y4/1 FSa Soils Strata Description Soil Log #11A %CL %ORG CF STR MOT <28 <5 <5 2SBK - <20 - <10 1 SBK - <28 - <1 25BK - <28 - <1 Mas - <10 - <t SG - IND CEM ROO <X> FSP - - ff .6-2.0 1 - - ff 2-6 2 - - ff 6-2.0 1 - - - .6-2.0 1 - - - 6-20 - L. 1~ i! Horz a A Bw1 C1 C2 C3 L' SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra (Division 3-8) SHEET: 12 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/15/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #12A LOCATION: 75' north of station 33+00 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: None Yelm Fine Sandy Loam Terrace (127) 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: GlacialOutwash GROUP: C Unknown 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Nearly Level 200" Greater Than Bottom Of Hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Moderate Slow Moderate 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Sods were wet at 110" with standing water at 200". Depth Color Texture 0"- 3" 10YR5/2 SiLm 3"- 24" 7.SYR4/4 Lm 24"- 84" 2.SY5/2 SiLm 84"-168" 2.5Y6/2 Lm 168"-220" 2.SY6/1 VFSa Soils Strata Description Soil Log #12A %CL %ORG CF STR MOT <28 <5 <5 1 SBK - <28 - <5 1 SBK - <15 - <1 Mas - <28 - <1 Mas - <10 - <1 Mas - IND CEM ROO <X> FSP - - ff .6-2.0 0.5 - - ff 6-2 0 1 - - - .6-2 0 0.5 - - - 6-2 0 - - - - 6-20 - r II(~' ~J n U L~ T~ LJ 1- ~~ ff~ L~ ~J L} Horz A Bw1 ~.J BC n C1 ~J LJ SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra (Division 3-8) SHEET: 14 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/15/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #15A LOCATION: 117' north and 150' west of the southwest property corner 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: None Everett Very Gravelly Sandy Terrace Loam (33) 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: GlacialOutwash GROUP: A Unknown 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Gently Sloping 48" Greater Than Bottom Of Hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Moderate Slow Moderate 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Static water level was at 48" below the existing grade. Faint mottles were visible at 36"-48". Assume infiltration will occur at 12" below the existing grade 15' north of this test pit. Soils Strata Description Soil Log #15A Depth Color Texture 0"- 3" 10YR3/3 GrLm 3"- 12" 10YR5/2 VGrLm 12"- 48" 2.5YM4 VGrSaLm 48"- 72" 2 SYS/1 ExGrSa %CL %ORG CF STR MOT <28 <5 <20 1 SBK - <28 - <45 1 SB K - <20 - <50 SG F1 F <10 - <70 SG - IND CEM ROO <X> FSP - - ff .6-2 0 0.5 - - fm .6-2 0 1 - - fm 2-6 4 - - - >20 - u n U Imo` U n ~~ 1~~ ~' u (`~ Horz A Bw1 BC C1 n i U n u JJ n U n LJ SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra (Division 3-8) SHEET: 15 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/15/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #16A LOCATION: 45' north and 30' west of the southwest property corner 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: None Everett Very Gravelly Sandy Terrace Loam (33) 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: GlacialOutwash GROUP: A 43"+ 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Gently Sloping 96" Greater Than Bottom Of Hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Moderate Slow Moderate 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Seepage was present at 96" below the existing grade. Soils were saturated at 80"+. Heavy mottles were visible at 43"+. Fine roots were present to 52". Soils Strata Description Soil Log #16A Depth Color Texture 0"- 5" 10YR3/3 GrLm 5"- 28" 10YR4/3 VGrLm 28"- 64" 10YR4/3 ExGrLm 64"-105" 2 SY5/2 ExGrLmFSa %CL %ORG CF STR MOT <28 <5 <15 1SBK - <28 - <45 1 SBK - <28 - <70 1SBK M3P <10 - <80 Mas M3P IND CEM ROO <X> FSP - - ff .6-2 0 0.5 - - mm .6-2 0 1 - - ff .6-2.0 - - - - >20 - I U n (-1 i~ n L~ n LJ 11(~ ~J I~ U li L~ y(~ `" Horz In A LJ Bw1 BC ((~ C1 L_J C2 I~ L__1 n r~ u SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra {Division 3-8) SHEET: 16 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5115/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #17A LOCATION: 140' north and 112' west of the southwest property corner 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: Double Ring Infiltration Everett Very Gravelly Sandy Terrace Loam (33) 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: GlacialOutwash GROUP: A 61"+ 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Gently Sloping 77" Greater Than Bottom Of Hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Moderate Slow Moderate 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Static water level was present at 77" below the existing grade. Moderate mottles were visible at 61 "+. Fine roots were present to 61 ". A double ring infiltration test completed at 12" below the existing grade yielded an infiltration rate of 6.2 in/hr. Use a design infiltration rate of 2 in/hr or less for drainage infiltration facilities located in the Bw1 horizon soils. Soils Strata Description Depth Color Texture 0"- 9" 10YR3/2 Lm 9"- 20" 10YR3/3 GrBCobSaLm 20"- 36" 10YR413 VGrSaLm 36"- 62" 2 5Y512 ExGrLmFSa 62"-103" 2.5Y5/2 ExGrLmFSa Soil Log #17A %CL %ORG CF STR MOT <28 <15 <10 1SBK - <20 - <30 1 SBK - <28 - <45 1 SBK - <10 - <80 Mas M3P <10 - <80 Mas M3P IND CEM ROO <X> FSP - - ff .6-2.0 0.5 - - mm 2-6 6 2 - - fm 2-6 - - - - >20 - - - - >20 - (~ Lt I U I[~ 1__I 1 ~~ ~--~ ~~ Horz {~, A IU` Bw1 r..~ BC C1 C2 i~ C3 n ~, L~ {n U LJ SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra (Division 3-8) SHEET: 17 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/15/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #18A LOCATION: 200' north and 104' west of the southwest property corner 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: None Everett Very Gravelly Sandy Terrace Loam (33) 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: GlacialOutwash GROUP: A 61"+ 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Gently Sloping 96" Greater Than Bottom Of Hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Moderate Slow Moderate 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Static water level was present at 96"below the existing grade. Moderate mottles were visible at 52"+. Heavy manganese staining was present at 72"-96". Fine roots were present to 62". The Use a design infiltration rate of 2 in/hr or less for drainage infiltration facilities located in the Bw1 horizon soils. The C3 horizon was moderately dense. Soils Strata Description Soil Log #18A Depth Color Texture 0"- 8" 10YR3/2 Lm 8"- 20" 10YR3/6 GrSaLm 20"- 56" 10YR4/6 GrSalm 56"- 64" 2.SY4/1 MSa 64"- 78" 2.5Y5/6 ExGrMSa 78"-116" 2 5Y4/1 ExGCSa %CL %ORG CF STR MOT <28 <15 <10 1SBK - <20 - <15 1 SBK - <20 - <25 1 SBK - <3 - <10 SG C1 F <3 - <65 SG - <10 - <90 Mas M3P IND CEM ROO <X> FSP - - ff 6-2.0 0.5 - - mm 2-6 4 - - mm 2-6 4 - - ff >20 - - - - >20 - - - - >20 - (n U n, Lt C u (~ r V U n r~ ~, ~, U Horz A Bw1 Bw2 ((~ C 1 U f`1 LJ ~' Ll n l___? I U SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: Tahoma Terra (Division 3-8) SHEET: 18 OF 19 PROJECT N0.:04104 DATE: 5/15/06 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #19A LOCATION: 150' north and 210' west of the southwest property co rner 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: None Giles Silt Loam Terrace (39) 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: GlacialOutwash GROUP: B Unknown 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH LAYER: Gently Sloping Greater Than Bottom Of Hole Greater Than Bottom Of Hole 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Moderate Slow Moderate 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Faint mottling was present at 49"-60" below the existing grade. Soils were wet at 82"+. Soils Strata Description Soil Log #19A Death Color Texture °kCL %ORG CF STR MOT IND CEM ROO <X> FSP 0"- 5" 2 5Y3/2 SiLm <2g <5 <5 1 SBK - - - ff .6-2.0 0 5 5"- 20" 2 5Y4/4 SiLm <28 - <5 1 SBK - - - fm .6-2 0 0 5 20"- 49" 2.5Y5/6 SiLm <28 - <5 2SBK - - - ff 6-2 0 0.5 49"- 84" 2 SYS/1 Si <10 - <5 Mas F1 F - - - 6-2 0 25 r--, n n f~ ~1 n ~, I_-1 ~, U n V~ n i n V Abbreviations Textural Class (Texture) Structure (STR) Grades of Structure Cobble -Cob Granular - Gr Stron - 3 Stoney - St Blocky - Blky Moderate - 2 Gravelly - Gr Platy - PI Weak - 1 Sand - Sa Massive - Mas Loamy - Lm Single Grained - SG Silt - Si Sub-An ular Block - SBK Clayey - CI Coarse - C Ve - V Extremely - Ex Fine - F Medium - M Induration ~ Cementation (IND) (CEM) Weak - Wk Moderate -Mod Strong - Str Mottles (MOT) 1 Letter Abundance 1st Number Size 2nd Letter Contrast Few - F Fine - 1 Faint - F Common - C Medium - 2 Distinct - D Many - M Coarse - 3 Prominent - P Roots (ROO) 1st Letter Abundance 2nd Letter Size Few - f Fine - f Common - c Medium - m Many - m _.,_ Coarse - c ~~~ - ~enerauzea range of mtiltration rates from SCS soil survey (<X>) FSP -Estimated Field Saturated Percolation rate based on horizon specific factors. ~' V Li 1~ U ~i U~ LJ C n Li L.~ TAHOMA TERRA COMMERCIAL FALLING HEAD PERCOLATION TEST Test Date : 5/11/2006 SCA Job #04104 Note Tests comnlPtari with R" riiamctor cnlirl . -.Ile.1 D\/!~ .. ., a,... _a _.~_..._u - - rr_ ... r .. ...... .. ...........,.....,.... F,.,~, FALLING HEAD PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS Test Hole # 3A (test completed at 78" below existing ground surface ) Start Sto Ela sed Time Total Dro Infiltration Rate ( Min) (Min) (Min) (Inches) (In/Hr ) 0 1' 15" 1' 15" 6 1' 15" 2' 45" 1' 30" g 2' 45" 4' 15" 1' 30" 6 4' 15" g' 00" 1' 45" g 6' 00" 7' 45" 1 ~ 45~' 6 7' 45" g' 45" 2' 00" 6 9' 45" 11' 45" 2' p0" g 11' 45" 14' 00" 2' 15" 6 14' 00" 16' 15" 2' 15" 6 16' 15" 18' 30" 2' 15" g 18' 30" 20' 45" 2' 15" 6 20' 45" 23' 00" 2' 15" 6 23' 00" 25' 15" 2' 15" 6 25' 15" 27' 45" 2' 30" g 27' 45" 30' 15" 2' 30" 6 30' 15" 32' 45" 2' 30" 6 144 FALLING HEAD PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS Test Hole # 6A (test completed at 56" below existing ground surface ) Start Sto Ela sed Time Total Dro Infiltration Rate ( Min) (Min) (Min) (Inches) (In/Hr ) 0 15" 15~' 6 Soaking Period 10' 35" 10' S5" 20" g 10' 55" 11' 10" 15" g 11' 10" 11' 25" 15" g 11' 25" 11' 45" 20" g 11' 45" 12' 00" 15" g 12' 00" 12' 20" 20" g 12' 20" 12' 35" 15" 6 12' 35" 12' 55" 20" g 12' S5" 13' 10" 15" g 13' 10" 13' 30" 20" g 13' 30" 13' S0" 20" g 13' 50" 14' 10" 20" g 14' 10" 14' 30" 20" g 14' 30" 14' 50" 20" 6 1080 (~ ~J !~ n U n TAHOMA TERRA (Division 3-8) DOUBLE RING INFILTRATION TEST Test Date : 5/16/2006 SCA Job #041 n4 DOUBLE RING INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Test Hole # 7A (test completed at 12" below existing ground surface ) Start Sto Ela sed Time Total Dro Infiltration Rate ( Min) (Min) (Min) (Inches) (In/Hr ) 0 57' 00" 57' 00" 6 6.3 Soaking Period 3: 26' 00" 4: 26' 00" 1:00' 00" 4.5 4.5 4: 26' 00" 5: 50' 00" 1:24' 00" 5 3.6 5: 50' 00" 6: 42' 00" 52' 00" 3.25 3.75 6: 42' 00" 7: 42' 00" 1:00' 00" 3.75 3.75 7: 42' 00" 8: 42' 00" 1:00' 00" 3.75 3.75 TAHOMA TERRA (Division 3-8) DOUBLE RING INFILTRATION TEST Test Date : 5/11/2006 SCA Job #04104 DOUBLE RING INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Test Hole # 8A (test completed at 210" below existing ground su rface ) Start Sto Ela sed Time Total Dro Infiltration Rate ( Min) (Min) (Min) (Inches) (In/Hr ) 0 5' 45" 5' 45" 6 5' 45" 11' 30" 5' 45" 6 11' 30" 17' 30" 6' 00" 6 17' 30" 23' 00" 5' 30" 6 23' 00" 28' 30" 5' 30" 6 28' 30" 34' 00" 5' 30" 6 34' 00" 39' 45" 5' 45" 6 39' 45" 45' 30" 5' 45" 6 45' 30" 51' 15" 5' 45" 6 51' 15" 57' 00" 5' 45" 6 57' 00" 1:02' 45" 5' 45" 6 62.6 n U TAHOMA TERRA (Division 3-8) DOUBLE RING INFILTRATION TEST Test Date : 5/16/2006 SCA Job : #na~na r `~ U n V In L__i C n V U ~, U n Ll n ,u ~' V DOUBLE RING INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Test Hole # 17A (test completed at 12" below existing ground surface ) Start Sto Ela sed Time Total Dro Infiltration Rate ( Min) (Min) (Min) (Inches) (In/Hr ) 0 45' 00" 45' 00" g g Soaking Period 2: 28' 00" 3: 22' 30" 54' 30" 6 6.6 3: 22' 30" 4: 19' 30" 57' 00" 6 6.3 4: 19' 30" 5: 17' 30" 58' 00" 6 6.2 5: 17' 30" 6: 15' 30" 58' 00" 6 6.2 (~ I U n 1J SOILS LOG U Project : Tahoma Terra Site Address : Longmire Road St SE, Yelm TPN :21724330000, 21723440000, 21723410000, 21724320000 Completed :1/24 - 1/25/05 V ' n #14 0" - 32" 32" - 66" Olive Brown Loamy Very Fine Sand Olive Brown Fine Sand 66" -144" Olive Brown Loamy Very Fine Sand C #15 0" - 32" Brown Loamy Fine Sand 32" - 60" Olive Brown Loamy Fine Sand 60" - 72" Grayish Brown Loam 72" -144" Light Gray Silt Loam with Silt Lenses C Roots to 84" C #16 0" - 19" 19" - 36" Olive Brown Silt Loam Olive Gray Silt Loam 36" - 60" Light Gray Silt 60" -120" Light Gray Silty Clay , " " #17 0 - 6 Dark Brown Loam 6" - 20" Light Brown Sandy Loam 20" - 36" Olive Brown Silt Loam 36" - 72" Olive Gray Silt 72" -105" Olive Gray Silt Loam n 105" -120" Olive Gray Very Fine Sand I `~ #18 0" - 5" Dark Brown Silt Loam C 5" = 53" 53" - 65" Olive Brown Silt Gray Fine Sand 65" 94" Grayish Brown Very Fine Sand 94" -144" Dark Gray Extremely Gravelly Medium-Fine Sand, moderately dense, no fines " " #19 0 - 48 Dark Reddish Brown Silt Loam 48" - 58" Olive Gray Silt 58" -108" Olive Gray Loamy Very Fine Sand C 108" -144" Gray Fine-Very Fine Sand #20 0" - 54" 54" - 84" Grayish Brown Silt Loam Gray Silt 84" -148" Gray Silt Loam ~.J~ ~' L.1 C 1 V U ~` LJ u V n ~, U ~..J U n LJ U #21 0" - 14" 14" - 36" 36" - 62" 62" - 92" 92" -116" 116" -148" Dark Brown Loam Dark Yellowish Brown Loamy Very Fine Sand Olive Brown Loamy Very Fine Sand Gray Extremely Gravelly Medium-Fine Sand Olive Gray Very Gravelly Fine Sand Gray Extremely Gravelly Fine Sand #22 0" - 24" Yellowish Brown Sandy Loam 24" - 76" Olive Brown Very Gravelly Loamy Very Fine Sand 76" -104" Dark Gray Extremely Gravelly Fine Sand 104" -156" Dark Gray Very Gravelly Fine Sand #23 0" - 33" Brown Sandy Loam 33" - 86" Gray Fine Sand 86" -116" Olive Brown Loamy Fine Sand 116" -144" Gray Very Gravelly Fine-Loamy Fine Sand #24 0" - 34" Reddish Brown Sandy Loam 34" - 60" Olive Brown Very Gravelly Loamy Fine Sand 60" - 84" Olive Brown Extremely Gravelly Loamy Fine Sand 84" -126" Gray Extremely Gravelly and Cobbley Fine Sand, some fines #25 0" - 10" Dark Brown Loam 10" - 72" Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy Loam 72" -103" Dark Gray Medium-Fine Sand 103" -125" Olive Brown Gravelly Loamy Fine Sand 125" -144" Olive Gray Very Gravelly Fine Sand #26 0" - 4" Dark Brown Silt Loam ~~ 4" - 10" Brown Silt Loam ~ 10" - 56" Olive Brown Silt Loam 56" -120" Olive Brown Silt 120" -150" Gray Fine Sand R. #27 0" - 4" Vv Black Loam 4" - 20" Yellowish Brown Gravelly Sandy Loam 20" - 42" Olive Brown Very Gravelly Sandy Loam 42" -108" Olive Brown Silt 108" -120" Gray Fine Sand 120" -160" Gray Fine Sand with Fine Sand Lenses seepage at 108, standing water at 132" #28 0" - 8" Black Gravelly Loam 8" - 34" Yellowish Brown Gravelly Sandy Loam 34" - 57" Grayish Brown Very Gravelly Coarse-Fine Sand 57" - 64" Olive Gray Very Gravelly Fine Sand 64" -103" Olive Brown Extremely Gravelly Loamy Coarse-Medium Sand 103" -110" Reddish Brown Extremely Gravelly Coarse-Fine Sand, very dense and compacted standing water at 98" #29 0" - 8" Black Silt Loam 2 C 8" - 26" Brown Sdt Loam C 26" -132" Light Gray Silt 132" -156" Gray Silt and Fine Sand lenses saturated at 96" n I l~ #30 0" - 6" Black Silt Loam 6" - 30" Yellowish Brown Gravelly Loam n 30" -138" Olive Gray Silt 138" -150" Olive Gray Very Fine Sand n #31 0" - 10" Dark Brown Loam IU 10" - 53" Yellowish Brown Loamy Fine Sand 53" -156" Gray Fine Sand n #32 0" - 8" Dark Brown Silt Loam 8" - 90" Brownish Gray Silt 90" -156" Gray Very Fine Sand U #33 0" - 12" Dark Brown Silt Loam 12" - 24" Yellowish Brown Silt Loam C 24" -168" Olive Gray Silt #34 0" - 9" Dark Brown Loam 9" - 24" Dark Yellowish Brown Loamy Very Fine Sand C 6" O~ive Brown Silt Loam ~~ 36" -1 68 Gay Fme Sand n 1 #35 0" -12" Brown Very Gravelly Loamy Medium Sand LJ 12" -108" Olive Gray Gravel with Medium-Fine Sand binder, very loose #36 0" - 6" Black Silt Loam U 6" - 30" Brown Gravelly Silt Loam 30" - 94" / Light Olive Gray Silty Clay 94" -150" Dark Olive Brown Extremely Gravelly Fine Sand C seepage at 108" ____ ~ ~ (,t ~ C #37 0" - 2" 2" - 24" Black Silt Loam Yellowish Brown Gravelly Loam 24" - 48" Gray Very Gravelly Loamy Fine Sand 48" - 84" Yellowish Brown Very Gravelly Clay Loam C 84" -120" Dark Gray Gravelly Loamy Medium-Fine Sand extreme seepage at 48" r' #38 0" - 60" Brown Very Gravelly Sandy Loam (J 60" -132" Olive Brown Extremely Gravelly Loam ~ #39 0" - 36" Brown Very Gravelly Sandy Loam 36" -168" Olive Brown Extremely Gravelly Coarse-Fine Sand n IU " " #40 0 -12 Yellowish Brown Very Gravelly Sandy Loam 12" - 24" Olive Brown Very Gravelly Silt ~J C 3 24" -106" C 106" -118" 118" -172" #41 0" - 72" C 72" -168" Gray Extremely Gravelly Coarse Sand and Very Gravelly Very Fine Sand lenses Olive Brown Loam Gray Fine Sand Black Loam Fill with concrete chunks, bricks, and wood debris Yellowish Brown Gravelly Loam #42 0" - 8" 8" - 24" Dark Brown Sandy Loam Brown Sandy Loam uuu 24" - 78" Olive Brown Loamy Very Fine Sand 78" -156" Gray Fine Sand, some fines C " " #43 0 - 10 Black Silt Loam 10" - 36" Olive Brown Silt Loam C 36" - 60" Olive Gray Silt 60" -106" Olive Gray Loamy Fine Sand, some Medium Sand lenses 106" -136" Gray Fine Sand, some Silt lenses C 136;; -156" Gray Silt, some fine sand lenses #44 0 -10 Dark Brown Loam C 10" - 48" 48" - 63" Brown Loamy Very Firte Sand Olive Gray Gravelly Loamy Very Fine Sand, some Coarse-Medium Sand lenses 63" - 88" Gray Fine Sand 88" -144" Gray Silt C 144" -180" Gray Loamy Very Fine Sand, some thiFk Silt lenses #45 0" - 7" Black Silt Loam 7" -144" Light Gray Sitt, some Gravels #46 0" - 13" Brown Loam C l 13" - 40" 40" -132" Olive Brown Loam Olive Brown Loamy Very Fine Sand with moderately dense Reddish Brown Loamy Fine Sand lenses 132" -168" Light Gray Silt C " " #47 0 - 6 Dark Brown Silt Loam 6" - 36" Yellowish Brown Loam 36" - 48" Olive Brown Silt Loam C 48" - 78" Olive Brown Silt 78" -163" Light Olive Gray Silt fs - 163" -188" Olive Gray Loamy bery Fine Sand i `- #48 0" -12" Brown Silt Loam C 12" - 36" 36" -125" Gray Silt Gray Silty Clay 125" -175" Gray Loamy Very Fine Sand C #49 0" - 3" Dark Brown Silt Loam 3" - 58" Grayish Brown Silty Clay Loam 58" -146" Olive Brown Silt (~ 146" -180" Gray Loamy Very Fine Sand #50 0" -12" Dark Brown Silt Loam 12" - 24" Brown Silt Loam ~1 C 24" - 46" Olive Brown Sdt 46" - 75" Olive Brown Sdt Loam LJ 75" -147" Light Olive Gray Silt 147"-186" Light Olive Gray Loamy Very Fine Sand Cj #51 0" - 6" Dark Brown Sdt Loam 6" - 47" Olive Brown Silt 47" - 80" Olive Brown Silt Loam C 80" -180" Olive Gray Silt Loam #52 0" - 4" Dark Brown Silt Loam C 4" - 36" Olive Brown Silt Clay Loam 36" - 50" Light Gray Silt 50" - 86" Olive Brown Silt 86" -167" Olive Gray Silt #53 0" - 4" Dark Brown Silt Loam 4" - 20" Yellowish Brown Silt Loam G 20" - 44" Olive Brown Silt Loam 44" -140" Olive Gray Extremely Gravelly and Cobbley Loamy Coarse-Fine Sand, some Stones ~ moderate -very dense " " #54 0 - 3 Dark Brown Silt Loam 3" - 21" Reddish Brown Silt Loam 21" - 56" Olive Brown Silt ~1 56" -130" Olive Brown Extremely Gravelly Loamy Coarse-Fine Sand, moderately dense 130" -140" Olive Brown Extremely Gravelly Loamy Coarse-Fine Sand with Silty Clay Jackets am', moderately dense l U #55 0" - 40" Reddish Brown Gravelly Silt Loam C' 40" - 48" 48" - 72" Gray Tdl, moderately-strongly indurated Dark Olive Brown Extremely Gravell Coarse-Fine S d f y an , some ines, moderately dense 72" -108" Gray Till, strongly indurated, weakly-moderately cemented #56 0" - 22" Yellowish Brown Gravelly Loam 22" - 57" Gray Till, strongly indurated and cemented C #57 0" - 21" Reddish Brown Silt Loam 21" - 52" Yellowish Brown and Gray Silty Clay 52" -104" Gray Silty Clay 104" -108" Cobbles with Silty Sand binder C 108" -120" Gray Very Gravelly Loamy Coarse-Fine Sand 120" -140" Gray Very Gravelly Loamy Very Fine Sand C n seepage at 138" #58 0 - 28 Reddish Brown Silty Clay Loam 28" - 40" Olive Gray Silt C 40" - 60" Brown Extremely Gravelly Coarse-Fine Sand, very dense 60" - 66" Gray Till, strongly indurated and cemented C #59 0" - 28" Reddish Brown Gravelly Loam 28" - 48" Brown Silt Loam lJ (~ 48" - 84" Grayish Brown Extremely Gravelly Loamy Very Fine Sand '~ 84" - 98" Gray Extremely Gravelly Loamy Medium-Fine Sand L1 98" -120" Gray Extremely Gravelly Loamy Very Fine Sand #60 0" - 41" Olive Brown Sdt Loam 41" - 64" Olive Brown Very Gravelly Loamy Medium-Fine Sand 64" - 78" Olive brown Till, strongly indurated and cemented C #61 0" - 22" Brown Silt Loam 22" - 60" Gray Silt C 60" -108" Olive Brown Loamy Very Fine Sand 108" -162" Gray Extremely Gravelly Loamy Coarse-Fine Sand, some silt pockets #62 0" - 28" Reddish Brown Silt Loam I~ 28" - 57" Olive Brown Silt U 57" - 70" Olive Brown till,Modertaely indurated and cemented 70" - 90" Olive Gray Extremely Gravelly Coarse-Medium Sand, some fines, moderately dense C 90" -115" Gray Till, strongly indurated and cemented #63 0" - 24" Reddish Brown Loamy Very Fine Sand 24" - 77" Olive Brown Loamy Very Fine Sand 77" -104" Gray Loamy Fine Sand 104"-122" Yellowish Brown Cobbley Silt Loam 122;; -168" Gray Fine Sand 'u #64 0 - 28 Brown Silt Loam 28"- 62" Olive Brown Silt Loam C 62"- 82" Olive Gray Very Fine Sand with Loamy Very Fine Sand lenses 82"-112" Gray Fine Sand 112"-132" Dark Gray Gravelly Medium Sand 132"-156" Gray Gravelly Fine Sand C 156"-163" Olive Gray Very Gravelly Silt Loam, very dense #65 0"- 24" Reddish Brown Silt Loam C 24"- 46" Olive Gray and Brown Silt 46"- 60" Gray Silt 60"-148" Olive Gray Loamy Very Fine Sand 148"-160" Gray Gravelly Loamy Very Fine Sand, moderately-strongly indurated #66 0"- 36" Reddish Brown Silt Loam C 36"- 52" Olive Gray and Brown Silt 52"- 68" Gray Silt 68"- 82" Olive Gray Loamy Very Fine Sand 82"-104" Gray Till, moderately-strongly indurated C-'~ J #67 0" - 24" Brown Gravel) Silt Loa y m 24" - 48" Olive Gray Very Gravelly Loamy Coarse-Medium Sand ~ (f C, 48"- 64" Grayish Brown Extremely Gravelly Loamy Coarse-Medium Sander ' 64"- 72" Gray Till, strongly indurated and cemented } r U ~ / #68 0" - 24" Brown Gravelly Sandy Loam V 24" - 52" Gray Till, strongly indurated and cemented C C C #69 0" - 31" Brown Gravelly Sandy Loam 31" - 48" Gray Till, strongly indurated and cemented #70 0" - 24" Brown Gravelly Loam 24" - 44" Gray Weathered Till, very broken 44" - 60" Gray Till, strongly indurated and cemented C #71 0" - 31" Olive Gray Silty Clay 31" - 52" Olive Brown Silty Clay C 52" - 86" " " Gray Till, strongly indurated, weakly cemented #72 0 -16 Dark Brown Sdt Loam 16" - 42" Yellowish Brown Silty Clay Loam ~ 42" - 96" 96" 100" Dark Gray Silt G T l - ray i l, strongly indurated, moderately cemented #73 0" - 24" Dark Brown Silt Loam 24" - 43" Yellowish Brown Silty Clay Loam 43" -148" Dark Gray Silt #74 0" - 24" Dark Brown Silt Loam U 24" - 48" Yellowish Brown Silt Loam 48" - 63" Gray Cobbley Silt 63" - 72" Gray Till, strongly indurated, moderately cemented #75 0" - 32" Brown Loam 32" - 50" " " Gray Very Gravelly Loamy Coarse-Fine Sand 50 - 70 Gray Till, strongly indurated, moderately cemented ~ I U C C ~' C l~ C 7 ,'.~ 1 %~ ~ ! ~ aa~na a~.vaurw ~ ~~ {, ` .R , '/ f / ~i ~~~/Iiii:/ i1 ~ 1 A Mini -- ~..: -- -rte. ~-^ \ .3y M \ / ~, % ////~/~/// .~ ~'`) ~~~'/ -~\•~`\``, ~ ~ ~ ~, ill,~~r~ l ~. I ~ /i - - -- - --_ _- ""'_- :~' -- - _-=_ =- -_----- -- - _ - ---- -- - .~/' \ i~'-} I +~~~~~;:~.~~ ~`• - ~~:•` \\'~ '`~\ 111' M - ~ ": w- ---- - -_-----__ -__ - _ - =,1),:'-/• (/ ~. ~~ /..rte ; `\\\ ~~\\\\~ ii I~i(l);•/\`~•l~~I ~ ~I `I`~!. ~OO~ - - - - r i' - ~ - - - ~-%i'~- `~"-^''`' ''~~,i~~~~i' i'•.. / 1 ''\ i/ ` t~~~• ice;: ~ ~I ~~Ii II' 8 ~ 8. ~i ~ 9 ~~, _ . ~;~ ',r.' .tom ~ / i/, i 7 -~, C, A t I ~ -, ..% ! ~\`• ~/+ ')I 1 f ~rl~ ~1Ir1 ,,\ •\pC ~~\ 1' \,\,`, /_~ I~ 1 "~-`~=:-,i, ! +A /'~;' ~ I ~ ~ r. _. J ! ` ~ r„~~ Jjl ~l}}~i~l ~., \~~~~\~\ ' ~ ' ~~ \~ ~ ;~~~ ~ ~ ~~, ° ~ ' ~) j r' " % ~ ' 111 ~ ~ ~!~' ~`' - ~ >>'~' i''I ^ y ~' ~'• ~~s tra` N _ ~~~ Iii ~ ~ `-' _ ' _~.~, ,~ ;}+Ir.';'!. \~~\;;;~:'•~ ~ -I~II;:~ s ~ ~ I I ~ I /` YR •~ .~ ~ 11I \ \°. 1 \ \;~` ~~::; ~''1~ 111 I l 1``\ I C "~ 1 `' B 7 y\ ,, It jS i ~ `\ ~ R ~ ~~•_ \^ (. / l C / j~\\~ ,~ `\\ ~ i{ 11~~\ .. J i~~,: ~~>.'~I'~11 \ I~ ' 91 ~~ 3r ~_ ` ~\ \ `~ a- ), r ,R. w \.L` `, 1 '•1~„•,, ,7111/l~a /~ C d `~ 1 a I I ` !~. i ' 6 - \ - .$, t - ~ 1 1 t ,•r - :: /'!t/ M I , s \ x a a ~; a ( ~ I -- f ,i i (c., ~ ~/ /j ~ p / , .- ~.~ a..--=-a-~ ~ ~ ~. ' !'; i- ~_ _ S \\ ~ - 'r i for .-~__ '~ ~/ \ `' `~ ..~ d ~ I ~ ~/, I~ 1 ~{~ f',/' I ~ 1 .~ ~ I to 'H 731 S 8 $ a 8 ii S \ ` %.'' / ~ , • ', '' I ~^~ l/ r,' /1 '~/ ;: ~ ~ ,~ ~ a I ~ -s e s s s •s a c - ~ J ~ '~I 1 ~ ~.' ' , ;!'' q5, ' ~~\ `~ ~, .~ z ~ ~~ R I ~\ h ,~•, ; /' Vii'',, f'°y;, g ~ ~-- _ rl ~~y. 30Vd9 N3d0 \ Y ,-_ 0-,i 'i >i V'' / ` r~i' ~' /•'~/,~t~rr ,/r l _ , I 7 ~, I a ~ ~ r, ~ ~ $S li 1R '>3 ~ I ,, .\' , it A ~„ " `£ \!r a""~ I ~ ~ L _ ~ _ ~ a ~` ~ d ~ an & R• d R ~ I ~ - , , I ~ \I ~~ i$ z I `I ~-~~`. ~ - Y! ', (`; Ir:l„ ~; rill,/ l -.-" - 1 ' ~1 ~~ 1~ ~~ I 6 ' / T- ' M:~\; 111 ~ ~ ^ ~~ I ~ \ ~ ~__ N ' '-.'~ ~n=(,,, J \`~, ~'/ I I ,I ~ _ _ I ,~I $ sue. ~~ ~I,,/.,,• •, ! /` • \ ~\ ~`r _ ~1 ~ C 1 \ Q I!!I/r''' // ( ,i,i, !\ \\ \ =~ __^/'1~(l~l~lrll~-"~j'/% - _, ~' X13 `, 1~', i 1l j~\I I {/ ~~~ 1t1 1 ~ I \\./~ ) i, \"~~i)) ~l J•r''illi ~•/~ \ \~\~ '\\1 ,~ # 1 '~~ ..• /. 1 It 1 II 1'1 ~ 1' '~ I 1 / ,'1 ~~~ { ~`\ \` ~ 1 '~,,~ -i~ ~/,'~%/~,~ ) \^..u+.;` \\` ~_ J ` ~i' ` ~ / // ! I ~ ~ I I i/I I ~ I I lI'r ~ ~'I !, l // i /~ I i ~ \\~l` l`am' '~ ~._ ~~~-----~/ %C~:~'~~%~i~)\)`--';._~1 ,~ I ~, \ \ { t ; L~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u u r~ 1___i (~ U Li ~i V ~' V n ~' u n V (-' U Appendix VII Vicinity Map n U n ,~-_~___~ cn ~U ~ z In L~ n V (~' ~ }S uoilli~i J W } H U I I ~ I I I ~~ ~ I ~6~ o~ n I I ~~ I I ~ I 'ul J0 i P ~ (n ~~\~ I m ~ ++ u ~ I _ _ _ ~ }S }uo~nQ ~ I ~' ~ I m I ~ ~ ~ I I a I ~ _ D I ~ I I 0 ~ N ( ~_ n I ~ ~ I rr ~ J I .. n I ~ I e Gt e I o ~ ~ ~- ~ -~ _ _ - --- --- o m H ao - ~ ~ M 1 ~ _ p I = O ~ ~ I a ~ Q V I ~ n I I U I --- -----L---- J~ ~ -~Q'\ GJ~~~ /J0 -- ~s - -~ cos i I a ~ I ~ 6 ~'S' z o ~ ,, ~ ~ z ~ '~s w --w -- - o J I m o~ ~Q I a~ ~ ' ---I-- I ~ -~ I I I I n U u n n U c U II '' 1~.J +~ u U C U I~ I~ l.__J ~: 1 ~ C~ I' I ~ h - - - .ii,%-,. ~ I~~~ i , ~ I _ - ~ ~~I 1J-~ ~ ~ x l` x ~ ~ I E-- -~j I C_ --i ~ Cl ~ ~ ~' ~ .X x , -r _,~ \ ` (~ ~~~~ ,, ~ =L1LI J L~ ~ '~ / x x r ~ " ~~ ~~ ~ x~ x x , x. .~ :~. ,^~~ x x x x a x' / x x T x x 5~ ~ , - / x x i~ -- -- //" ~~-~x~r~x x x x x x x ~ ~_ _ --~ x x Q x x x x x x ^J x x x x Z x x x x Z x x x Q '~'I x ~ x x x O~y~ Jx '--`--' x x W x ~ ~ ~x x ~ x x ~ w~ ~ x x o x 3r-~ x J z -- -- - x x x Q x x x M ~ x x x x x x F-~~ F-,~x~ x x x~ Q ~ x~` x x ,fix W x ~-- X-x x Q W x x x x x x x X~ X x x x x ~ ' ' x -- --- - - x x fx - x -- - -~^ _-- x ----X x x x ' H x x x x i x ~ x x x %x x x x . x Q x x xx x_ x x x s s !1 x x x x a x_x x nn,, 3 x x t~ x •- ~ x x x x ~ . x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx- ._ ____. ___ _ x x x xx x _x _ _ x x x _ _ -- x - x x x U +n U n ~', V r~ L.~ L~ Appendix IX Maintenance Agreement ,~ n V l___i ~ RESIDENTIAL AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN STORM WATER FACILITIES AND IMPLEMENT A POLUTION SOURCE PLAN BY AND BETWEEN L~ TAHOMA TERRA LLC THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, OR ASSIGNS f~ (HEREINAFTER "DEVELOPER") IJ AND n CITY OF YELM iJ (HEREINAFTER "CITY") ~ The upkeep and maintenance of stormwater facilities and the implementation of pollution source control best management practices (BMPs) is essential to the protection of water resources. The DEVELOPER is expected to conduct business in a manner that promotes environmental protection. This Agreement contains specific r' LJ provisions with respect to maintenance of stormwater facilities and use of pollution source control BMPs. ~i U n ~~ !!n L~ n L, ~,~ ~J LJ f~ LJ ~' V LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcels in the City of Yelm No. 21723410000, 21724320000, 21734310100, 21723440000, 21724330000, 21724340100 In Thurston County Washington Whereas, the DEVELOPER has constructed improvements, including but not limited to, buildings, pavement, and stormwater facilities on the property described above. In order to further the goals of the CITY to ensure the protection and enhancement of water resources, the CITY and the DEVELOPER hereby enters into this Agreement. The responsibilities of each party to this Agreement are identified below. The DEVELOPER shall: (1) Implement the stormwater facility maintenance program included herein as Attachment .,A.. (2) Implement the pollution source control program included herein as Attachment "B". (3) Maintain a record (in the form of a logbook) of steps taken to implement the programs referenced in (1) above. The logbook shall be available for inspection by appointment with DEVELOPER. The logbook shall catalog the action taken, who took it, when it was done, how it was done, and any problems encountered or follow-on actions recommended. Maintenance items ("problems") listed in Attachment "A" shall be inspected as specified in the attached instructions or more often if necessary. The DEVELOPER is encouraged to photocopy the individual checklists in Attachment "A" and use them to complete its inspections. These completed checklists would then, in combination, comprise the logbook. ~ (4) Submit an annual report to the CITY regarding implementation of the programs n LU If'~ U n L_.J ~.J n ~J n U n V LJ In U' V ~' V referenced in (1)) above. The report must be submitted on or before May 15 of each calendar year and shall contain, at a minimum, the following: (a) Name, address, and telephone number of the businesses, the persons, or the firms responsible for plan implementation, and the person completing the report. (b) Time period covered by the report. (c) A chronological summary of activities conducted to implement the programs referenced in (1) above. A photocopy of the applicable sections of the log book, with any additional explanation needed, shall normally suffice. For any activities conducted by paid parties, include a copy of the invoice for services. (d) An outline of planned activities for the next year. (5) I execute the following periodic major maintenance on the subdivision's stormwater facilities: Sediment removal from the bio-infiltration swales, and the infiltration galleries. The CITY shall: (1) Provide technical assistance to the DEVELOPER in support of its operation and maintenance activities conducted pursuant to its maintenance and source control programs. Said assistance shall be provided upon request and as CITY time and resources permit. (2) Review the annual report and conduct a minimum of one (1) site visit per year to discuss performance and problems with the DEVELOPER. REMEDIES: (1) If the CITY determines that maintenance or repair work is required to be done to the storm water facilities located on the owner/homeowners association property, the CITY shall give owner/association of the property notice of the specific maintenance and/or repair required. The CITY shall set a reasonable time in which such work is to be completed by persons who were given notice. If the above required maintenance and/or repair is not completed within the time set by the CITY, written notice will be sent to persons who were given notice stating the CITY's intention to perform such maintenance and bill owner/homeowners association for all incurred expenses. The CITY may also revoke stormwater utility rate credits if required maintenance is not performed. (2) If at any time the CITY determines that the existing system creates any imminent threat to public health or welfare, the CITY may take immediate measures to remedy said threat. However the City shall also take reasonable steps to immediately notify either the property owner or the person in control of said property of such imminent threat in order to enable such owner or person in control to take such immediate measures either independently or in cooperation with the City. (3) The DEVELOPER grant limited authority to the CITY for access to any and all stormwater system features for the purpose of performing maintenance or repair or inspection pursuant to the terms of this agreement. ~; U f"1 i' U n U STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ~ ~ ss COUNTY OF THURSTON ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that C (is/are) the person(s) who appeared before me and said person(s) acknowledged that (he/she/they) signed this agreement and acknowledged it to be C (his/her/their) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. n U IIn ~J V In u I~ U I~ U n ~1 n V n U Given under my hand and official seal this day of , 200_. STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF THURSTON Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in My commission expire ss On this day and year above personally appeared before me, to be known to be the Public Works Director of the City of Lacey. A Municipal Corporation, who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledge the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said Municipal Corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned and on oath states he is authorized to execute the said instrument. Given under my hand and official seal this day of , 200_. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing APPROVED AS TO FORM: My commission expires n i, u