Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L93-0072 - CITY OF TUKWILA - INTERURBAN TRAIL PHASE I SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTl93-0072 east of west valley highway west of unoin pacific railroad interurban trail phase i CITY OF TUKWILA, INTERURBAN TRAIL February 25, 1994 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Interurban Trail: Project #92 PK01 - Phases I & 11 #92 PK03 - Phase III 2. Name of applicant: City of Tukwila, Parks and Recreation Dept. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98188 Contact Person: Don Williams, Director of Parks and Recreation Department. (206) 433 -1843 4. Date checklist prepared: February 25, 1994 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The Interurban Trail will be constructed by the City in four sections (Phases I, II, III and IV), and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will construct a fifth portion of the trail, (DOT Phase). This checklist • specifically addresses Phases I, II and III only. Phase IV will be addressed under a separate application, and the DOT Phase will be addressed under the DOT project application. All phases are proposed to be constructed during 1994. R EC L. MAR 1994 COMM t'( DEVELOPMENT City of Tukwila Interurbai r '1 Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 2 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This checklist discusses Phases. I, II, and Ill only. Phase IV will be addressed under a separate application. DOT will prepare a separate application for the DOT Phases. No additional phases or expansions are proposed. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. * Wetland Analysis Report; B- twelve Associates Inc. See Addendum A. * Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hong West & Associates, Inc. See . Addendum C. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. In Phase I, an application is pending for construction of a Taco Bell to the north of Jack -in- the -Box on Strander Blvd. The parking lot for the NW Expo Center, proposed by McLeod Development, is also adjacent to Phase I. Phase II will be coordinated with projects being proposed for the expansion of the Embassy Suites parking lot. Phase III and the DOT Phase will be coordinated with the expansion of the HOV lanes of 1-405. Phase IV will be coordinated with the intersection revision of Grady Way and Interurban Ave., as well as the widening of the Interurban Bridge and the construction of the Green River Trail. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Phases I, II, and III are City of Tukwila Capital Improvement Projects without structures, therefore, no building permits are required. City of Kent has no applicable permit for the section of trail in Kent. "1/t-- The DOT Phase will be designed by DOT and receive design review by the City. City of Tukwila Interurban i rail Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 3 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The project consists of construction of a paved bicycle /pedestrian trail. The trail will extend from the northern end of the Interurban Trail in Kent, north • approximately two miles to connect with the Green River Trail on the north side of the Green River just east of Interurban Ave. The trail will be constructed in five sections. The majority of the trail will be constructed on a 15 foot wide easement located within Puget Sound Power & Light right -of -way, utilizing the existing maintenance and access road. This narrow easement places severdimitations on trail widths as well as trail alignment, construction slopes, and landscaping opportunities. The trail width varies from a maximum of 15 feet to as narrow as 12 feet where power poles are located along the western edge of the easement. Fencing is proposed along the western edge of the trail adjacent to existing businesses generally between station 38 + 30 north to the Embassy Suites property. See "Interurban Trail Site Plans" for specific chain heights and locations. Phase I will begin at the northern c6nnection with the existing trail in Kent, approximately 200 feet south of S 180th Street. The trail will be constructed on an existing power line access road owned by Puget Power. Trail users will consist of cyclists and walkers, however, Puget Power vehicles will continue to use the trail for maintenance. The trail will extend north from the end of the existing trail in the City of Kent to S 180th Street. At the southern right -of -way of S 180th, trail users will be directed by signs to dismount and walk westerly to _ ___the- intersection of 72i A S. They will then cross S 180th at the crosswalk with the exist-in crossing light The trail users will then walk to the east on the sidewalk on the north side—o- 180th to the trail access in the Puget Power right - of -way. They will then remount and continue to the north. From the north side of S 180th Street, the trail continues to the north on the - access road until it reaches a point approximately parallel with the east end of Strander Boulevard (behind Jack in the Box restaurant). At this point trail users will have the choice of crossing West Valley Highway, crossing to the north side of Strander Boulevard and then following Strander Boulevard west to the Christensen Trail; or, proceeding along the east side of West Valley Highway north to the Green River trail at approximately Southcenter Boulevard. Phase II will begin on the power line access road at the northern end of Phase I at approximately Strander Blvd. The trail will generally follow the access road and will connect to a portion of the trail being constructed through the existing and new parking lots of the Embassy Suites Hotel. The trail will cross S 158th with a crosswalk and rejoin the Puget Power right -of -way road, and occupy part of Nelsen Place right -of -way on the north side of S 158th. The trail will continue north along the power line road just south of the southern right -of -way of 1 -405 ending where the DOT Phase will begin "ramping up" to the 1 -405 Phase. r. City of Tukwila Interurban._ rail Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 4 The DOT Phase of the trail will be constructed mostly within the DOT right -of- way proceeding to the east to the highway overpass. The trail will then proceed north under the overpass to the northern right -of -way line of 1 -405. Phase III will begin at the northern end s : DOT phase and continue to the west along Tukwila owned right -of -way for Gr' i y ' ay to the intersection with Interurban Ave. 1Da 10cvat4 S ` The alignment ofatrarDwill be determined during the design phase for that section of the trail. The trail will end at the connection with the existing Green River Trail. 12. Location of the proposal. Phases I, 11, & 111 of the Interurban Trail are located to the east of West Valley Hwy and west of the Union Pacific Railroad right -of -way extending roughly between S 181st (if extended) on the south and Grady Way on the north. See Exhibit A: Vicinity Map. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Phase I of the project lies within an area designated as "open space" (wetland #12) on the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. However, there is no Open v Space designation in the Zoning Code. The Zoning map shows all phases being designated as "M -1 " (Light Industry). All portions of Phase I, II, & III lie outside the 200 foot setback of the Shoreline jurisdiction area. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The site is generally flat. Phase I and 11 will be constructed on an old railr bed (the Interurban) or through existing pasture and parking The DOT Phase will constructed along the slope of 1 -405, supported by retaining walls. Phase III will be constructed across road fill and existing pavement. ee Exhibit B: Trail Plans b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slopes for the trail will not exceed 5%. The maximum slopes in the vicinity of the trail do not exceed 10% except along the toe of the slope of 1 -405. City of Tukwila Interurban ci ail Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 5 c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soils for the project are generally urban due to the use of the railroad bed, existing roads and fill areas. A short section of Phase II due north of Strander Boulevard is still in active pasture. According to the Geotechnical Investigation (See Addendum C). prepared by Hong West & Associates for Horton Dennis, the project alignment is generally blanketed with undocumented soil fill material, ranging to approximately 8 feet in thickness. The fill is highly variable, ranging from loose to medium dense, silty, sandy gravel with cobbles to clayey, sandy silt. A surficial layer of 2 to 6 inches of dark brown organic topsoil was observed in about one -third of the test pits. Both the Wetland Analysis Report and Soils Report address speck soil conditions for Phase I and II. See Addenda A & B. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No indications of unstable soils are known in the project site. Addendum A: See Soils Report. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Minimal grading is proposed for Phase I and most of Phase II, as the existing grade is suitable for construction of the trail. Some areas will require construction fill of 6 inches of gravel and 4 inches of crushed rock. Other areas will only require 4 inches of crushed rock. The entire path will be paved with a 3 inch layer of asphalt concrete pavement. Additional fill and grading may be required for the portion of the trail within the 1 -405 right -of -way. See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase I sheets A -1 through C -12 and El & E2. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Minor erosion could result from grading work during construction and it is possible that sediment could enter wetlands surrounding the access road in Phase I. However, protective measures will be taken, such as installation of siltation fences or staked haybales, erosion blankets etc. ..� Similar protective measures will be employed for the remaining phases of the project. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan will be prepared for construction of the bridge. (See Section B -1 -h). g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? City of Tukwila Interurban \.ail Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 6 The proposed trail is to be 16 feet wide, consisting of a 12 foot paved, asphalt path with a 2 foot wide gravel shoulder on each side. See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase 1 Sheets A -1 through C -10. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impact to the earth, if any: Standard erosion control measures such as silt fencing and /or staked haybales and mulch will be used. In addition, construction adjacent to wetland areas will be timed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation when risk of erosion is highest. Exposed areas will be mulched or seeded to stabilize disturbed areas. A site specific erosion control plan will be prepared for the Wetland Mitigation Site. See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase I Sheets El -E2. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. Minor amounts of dust and exhaust can be anticipated during the construction phase of the project. Following construction, no emissions are expected to be produced at the site. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. 3. Water a. Surface 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The majority of Phase I is bounded by wetlands on both sides of the existing roadbed. The US Army COE has determined that these wetland are adjacent to the Green River. See Addendum D. City of Tukwila Interurban'..ai1 Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 7 No wetlands or streams are located adjacent to Phases II, III. See Addendum B: Wetland Analysis Report. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Construction of Phase I will include some intrusion into wetlands that parallel the existing power line road. Construction within these wetland has been determined to lie more than 200 feet beyond the Green River and Springbrook Creek. See Addendum B: Wetland Analysis Report and attached plans. Phases II and III, a �� e OT Phase lie outside the Shoreline of the Green River and pringbrook ' eek and do not include intrusion into wetlands.. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from the surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. In Phase I, minor amounts of fill will be placed within wetlands as part of the widening of the existing road bed. Maximum fill width is proposed to be approximately six feet in several } C)-5 locations. Estimated . total fill for the length of the trail is approximately ,11,589 s.f.. The fill will be imported from off-site. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. 0)6°- No. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. ases I, II, III, and"th&DOT Phase e outside the 100 year floodplains of Springbrook Creek and the Green River. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. City of Tukwila Interurban Trail Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 8 b. Ground Water 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the systems are expected to serve. No waste materials will be generated or discharged from the use of the proposed trail. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other water? If so, describe. Storm water runoff will flow off the trail toward the surrounding uplands and wetlands. Since a dirt road (hard packed) already exists in the proposed location of the trail, no change is expected in the amount of runoff directed to the wetlands or uplands. A reduction in sediment transport can be anticipated as a result of paving over this sediment source. Adjacent to wetlands, storm water will sheet flow from the trail to the wetlands. In non - wetland areas, the trail will slope to one side and storm water will be collected in an infiltration trench under the shoulder of the trail. 2. Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No waste material will be generated by the project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff wad -- pactany: terurban Trail Phase I Sh See Horton Dennis Associates Site Plans. City of Tukwila Interurban`.. ail Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 9 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous trees: alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen trees: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass x pasture x crops or grains x wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, other x water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, x other . x other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The majority of Phases I and II will be on an existing dirt access road. No vegetation will be disturbed in these areas, however a portion of the access road is overgrown with invasive Reed Canary Grass and Blackberry which will be removed. North of Stander Boulevard approximately 200 feet of trail will be constructed through an existing pasture. No trees or shrubs will be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species a wn to use the site. Species observed near the site are listed in enaum- A.DWetland Analysis Report, Addendum El and E2, and Exhibit 07-Natural Heritage Letter. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Planting of native vegetation will occur in Phase 1 in conjunction with the mitigation planting area for wetland fill. A wetland mitigation site has been identified and a mitigation plan is proposed to compensate for wetland fill. Mitigation is proposed on Puget Power property to the east of the trail generally lying to the south of the railroad spur behind Cello Bag Co.. Existing upland area adjacent to wetlands will be regraded to create additional wetland area. In the vicinity of the mitigation area, the buffer and the wetland will be planted with native ground covers and shrubs to improve the functions and values of the area. To avoid conflict . with the existing power line, trees are not proposed for the mitigation site. Mitigation will meet the minimum compensatory standards set forth in the Critical Areas Ordinance. In additon vegetation will be planted in the upland area provide buffer enhancement for the wetland. Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase I Sheets E1 -2. City of Tukwila Interurbaa•. rail Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 10 Additional ornamental planting along the trail may be included in some areas. However, space available for planting is extremely limited. See Sections A -11 "Background Project Description" and B -10 (a) "Environmental Elements Aesthetics " for a discussion of opportunities and limitations. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawks, heron, eagle, songbird, other: See Addendum A: Wetland Analysis Report Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: See Addendum A: Wetland Analysis Report Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: None. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to use the site, see Addendum E1 & E2: letters from Washington Dept. of Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program. However, eagles and heron are known to use the Green River so that observations would be expected in the vicinity of the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The Green River is part of migratory waterfowl routes. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: At the wetland mitigation site in Phase I, enhancement of existing wetland, newly created wetland and new buffer areas will be achieved through planting of fruit and nut bearing tree and shrub species. Ground covers in the wetland and buffer will provide additional food source, nesting and sheltering areas for wildlife. The proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan incorporates wildlife habitat enhancement as a design goal. See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase 1 Sheets El & E2. Due to the highly industrialized nature of the area and existing access road, no existing habitat will be lost. City of Tukwila Interurban rail Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 11 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Diesel fuel and gasoline will be required for equipment during construction. The trail will not require energy use except for long -term maintenance requirements. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Minor risks of petroleum product spills typical to construction are possible. No long term hazards are expected. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Railroad traffic, commercial, private, and helicopter aircraft traffic noise, and noise from West Valley Highway will affect the trail. City of Tukwila Interurban- rai : l Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 12 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. During construction noise is expected from equipment operation. No long term noise is expected. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The area is already highly impacted by railroad traffic, industrial and aircraft generated noise. No measures are proposed to reduce these impacts. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Phase I of the trail is on an existing gravel road utilized by Puget Power as an access to the powerlines. Adjacent properties to the west are commercial and light industrial uses. Adjacent properties to the east are primarily wetlands and the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern railroad tracks. Phase II will be adjacent to commercial properties for approximately 3W feet, it will move to the east of the power line road through an active pasture for approximately 200 feet. The trail will then pass through the Embassy Suites Hotel parking lot and continue northerly between commercial properties to the 1-405 right of way. per$ �i - -L — The DOT Phase will be located inside 1 -405 right -of -way, with C. • commercial properties to the south, and the railroad on the east. Phase III will be inside of Grady Way right -of -way and adjacent to businesses and several residences. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Only a small portion of Phase II is located in agricultural land. c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No City of Tukwila Interurban ..ail Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 13 e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? According to the City of Tukwila Interurban Special Review Area zoning map (revised 6 -92), the proposed trail will be located in areas zoned M- 1 (light industry) to the south of 1 -405. North of 1 -405, the trail will be in an area mapped as "Interurban Special Review Area". This area is also zoned M -1. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Open space. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Phases I, II, & III and the DOT Phase are located outside the Shoreline designation. Phase IV is located in the Tukwila Shoreline Area and will require review under the Shoreline Program at the time of project application. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify: Wetlands are located to the east and west through the majority of Phase I. This area is identified as Wetland #12 in the City of Tukwila Wetlands Inventory. See Addendum A: Wetland Analysis Report. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The use of the site as a recreational facility is compatible with the open space designation of the site. City of Tukwila Interurban-. rail Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 14 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated. Indicate whether high, middle or low- income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas? What is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable. b. What view in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The project will include a wetland mitigation area to the east of the trail in Phase I. See Section B -4 (d) "Environmental Elements- Plants" for a detailed discussion of the proposed mitigation area and goals. Normally, a trail of this nature will include edge plantings to improve the aesthetics of the corridor for the users. In this project, much of the trail will pass through industrial areas and areas of high vehicular traffic, and is adjacent to active railroad lines. However, the trail is also being developed within a trail easement granted to King County and Tukwila. The proposed trail section is 15 feet wide in an easement that is only 15 feet wide. Thus, the trail is occasionally reduced in width, shoulders are the minimum allowable to accommodate fill slopes, and landscaping area is not available. In addition, many businesses abutting the trail have land use agreements with Puget Power which make landscaping outside the easement areas not feasible North of the power sub - station the trail has been reduced to 12 feet in some areas. A third limitation is the presence of power lines within the Puget Power right -of -way. Power lines are located along the western edge of the Puget Power right -of -way. Two sets of lines extend along the center line City of Tukwila Interurban(-..‘ail Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 15 and eastern edge of the right -of -way. Use agreements severely limit the height of vegetation allowable within the Puget Power right -of -way so that screening opportunities may be restricted to eye- height shrubs. The project also is required to provide fencing adjacent to the west side of the easement. The fencing extends generally from approximately Station 38 + 30 (in Phase I) north to Embassy Suites and will include replacement of existing fences in some locations. The fence further restricts area available for landscape planting. With these limitations in mind the applicant is exploring the opportunities for landscaping with Puget Power. Possible areas for landscape screening include: * Kent (Project Start to S 180th: Shrubs and low trees on both sides of the trail within a 5 foot stri p, where available. * North of S 180th to Strander Blvd: Planting opportunities are extremely limited within Phase I. Most of the west side of the trail is within wetland. However, if Puget Power will permit planting outside the trail, some shrub groupings could be placed in upland areas. The east side of the trail is restricted by the proximity of the trail to the high power transmission lines, towers and poles, however, some limited planting may be feasible in this area. * North of Strander, the trail lies along the western property line, completely limiting planting to easements on private properties. To the east of the trail existing private use agreements with Puget Power would need to be rewritten to enable landscape easements. * In Phase IV landscaping will be coordinated with the improvements to Grady Way, the Interurban Bridge, and the connection to the Green River Trail. * Some landscape groupings may be feasible at road crossing entrances, provided agreements could be reached with Puget Power and adjacent property owners. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? No lighting is proposed for the majority of the trail. However, lighting will be provided for the portion of Phase III which passes under the Grady Way bridge. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. City of Tukwila Interurban—ail Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 16 c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None are known d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The Christensen Trail is located to the west of Phase I from Strander Boulevard along the west bank of the Green River. Phase IV will connect the Interurban Trail to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts of recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The proposed project will create a recreational corridor in an area where none currently exists. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None are known to exist on -site. See Addendum F. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. City of Tukwila Interurban-. rail Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 17 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on -site plans, if any. The trail will connect to the existing Interurban Trail from Auburn and Kent. Access to the trail will also be available from 180th Ave. SE, Strander Boulevard, S 156th St. , S 158th St. (Longacres Way), Grady Way, Interurban Ave., and Green River Trail at Southcenter Blvd. See Exhibit A: Vicinity Map. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Bus routes are located on West Valley Highway, Interurban Avenue and S 180th. The nearest stop is approximately 500 feet to the west of the trail. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? No parking areas are planned for the trail system. No parking spaces will be lost. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No street or road improvements are required for Phases I, II, or the DOT Phase. A portion of Phase III will include improving Nelsen Place north of S 158th Street. In this area the trail will be constructed within portions of the Nelsen Place right -of -way and the Puget Power right -of- way. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The proposed trail is located just west of the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern railroad tracks. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No vehicular trips will be generated by the trail. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable. City of Tukwila InterurbaL.ail Rev. February 25, 1994 Page 18 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Some minor increase in police and emergency services may be required for trail use. No other services are expected. b. Proposed measure to reduce or control direct impacts of public services, if any: None are proposed. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse services, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electrical service will be required for Phase III.pl b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electrical connections will be required for the lighted portions of Phase III. c. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature i� Don Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation Mares 7) / ?99 Date Submitted CITY OF TUKWILA, INTERURBAN TRAIL DECEMBER 1, 1993 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Interurban Trail: Project #92 PK01 - Phases I & II #92 PK03 - Phase III 2. Name of applicant: City of Tukwila, Parks and Recreation Dept. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98188 Contact Person: Don Williams, Director of Parks and Recreation Department. (206) 433 -1843 4. Date checklist prepared: December 1, 1993 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The Interurban Trail will be constructed by the City in four sections (Phases I, II, III and IV), and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will construct a fifth portion of the trail, (DOT Phase). This checklist specifically addresses Phases I, II and III only. Phase IV will be addressed under a separate application, and the DOT Phase will be addressed under the DOT project application. All phases are proposed to be constructed during 1994. RECEIVED DEC: 1993 COMVIMUNIT`f_ . DEVELOPMEN F City of Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job 1192 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 2 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This checklist discusses Phases I, II, and III only. Phase IV will be addressed under a separate application. DOT will prepare a separate application for the DOT Phases. No additional phases or expansions are proposed. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. * Wetland Analysis Report; B- twelve Associates Inc. See Addendum A. * Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hong West & Associates, Inc. See Addendum C. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. In Phase I, an application is pending for construction of a Taco Bell to the north of Jack in the Box on Strander Blvd. The parking lot for the NW Expo Center, proposed by McLeod Development, is also adjacent to Phase I. Phase II will be coordinated with projects being proposed for the expansion of the Embassy Suites parking lot. Phase III and the DOT Phase will be coordinated with the expansion of the HOV lanes of 1 -405. Phase IV will be coordinated with the intersection revision of Grady Way and Interurban Ave., as well as the widening of the Interurban Bridge and the construction of the Green River Trail. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Phases I, II, and III are City of Tukwila Capital Improvement Projects without structures, therefore, no building permits are required. City of Kent has no applicable permit for the section of trail in Kent. The DOT Phase will be designed by DOT and receive design review by the City. City of Tukwila Interurban- i rail /SEPA Job #92 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 3 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The project consists of construction of a paved bicycle /pedestrian trail. The trail will extend from the northern end of the Interurban Trail in Kent, north approximately two miles to connect with the Green River Trail on the north side of the Green River just east of Interurban Ave. The trail will be constructed in five sections. The majority of the trail will be constructed on a 15 foot wide easement located within Puget Sound Power & Light right -of -way, utilizing the existing maintenance and access road. Phase I will begin at the northern connection with the existing trail in Kent, approximately 200 feet south of S 180th Street. The trail will be constructed on an existing powerline access road owned by Puget Power. Trail users will consist of cyclists and walkers, however, Puget Power vehicles will continue to use the trail for maintenance. The trail will extend north from the end of the existing trail in the City of Kent to S 180th Street. At the southern right -of -way of S 180th, trail users will be directed by signs to dismount and walk westerly to the intersection of 72nd. Ave. S. They will then cross S 180th at the crosswalk with the existing crossing light. The trail users will then walk to the east on the sidewalk on the north side of 180th to the trail access in the Puget Power right - of -way. They will then remount and continue to the north. From the north side of S 180th Street, the trail continues to the north on the access road until it reaches a point approximately parallel with the east end of Strander Boulevard (behind Jack in the Box restaurant). At this point trail users will have the choice of crossing West Valley Highway, crossing to the north side of Strander Boulevard and then following Strander Boulevard west to the Christensen Trail; or, proceeding along the east side of West Valley Highway north to the Green River trail at approximately Southcenter Boulevard. Phase II will begin on the powerline access road at the northern end of Phase I at approximately Strander Blvd. The trail will generally follow the access road and will connect to a portion of the trail being constructed through the existing and new parking lots of the Embassy Suites Hotel. The trail will cross S 158th with a crosswalk and rejoin the Puget Power right -of -way road, and occupy part of Nelsen Place right -of -way on the north side of S 158th. The trail will continue north along the powerline road just south of the southern right -of -way of 1 -405 ending where the DOT Phase will begin "ramping up" to the 1 -405 Phase. The DOT Phase of the trail will be constructed mostly within the DOT right -of- way proceeding to the east to the highway overpass. The trail will then proceed north under the overpass to the northern right -of -way line of 1 -405. Phase 111 will begin at the northern end of the DOT phase and continue to the west along Tukwila owned right -of -way for Grady Way to the intersection with Interurban Ave. City of Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job #92 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 4 The alignment of Phase IV will be determined during the design phase for that section of the trail. The trail will end at the connection with the existing Green River Trail. 12. Location of the proposal. Phases I, II, & III of the Interurban Trail are located to the east of West Valley Hwy and west of the Union Pacific Railroad right -of -way extending roughly between S 181st (if extended) on the south and Grady Way on the north. See Exhibit A: Vicinity Map. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Phase I of the project lies within an area designated as "open space" (wetland #12) on the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. However, there is no Open Space designation in the Zoning Code. The Zoning map shows all phases being designated as "M-1" (Light Industry). All portions of Phase I, II, & III lie outside the 200 foot setback of the Shoreline jurisdiction area. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The site is generally flat. Phase I and II will be constructed on an old railroad bed (the Interurban) or through existing pasture and parking lots. The DOT Phase will be constructed along the slope of 1 -405, supported by retaining walls. Phase III will be constructed across road fill and existing pavement. See &hibit B: Trail Plans b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slopes for the trail will not exceed 5%. The maximum slopes in the vicinity of the trail do not exceed 10% except along the toe of the slope of 1 -405. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soils for the project are generally urban due to the use of the railroad bed, existing roads and fill areas. A short section of Phase II due north of Strander Boulevard is still in active pasture. City of Tukwila Interurban►• frail/SEPA Job //92 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 5 According to the Geotechnical Investigation (See Addendum C). prepared by Hong West & Associates for Horton Dennis, the project alignment is generally blanketed with undocumented soil fill material, ranging to approximately 8 feet in thickness. The fill is highly variable, ranging from loose to medium dense, silty, sandy gravel with cobbles to . clayey, sandy silt. A surficial layer of 2 to 6 inches of dark brown organic topsoil was observed in about one -third of the test pits. Both the Wetland Analysis Report and Soils Report address specific soil conditions for Phase I and II. See Addenda A & B. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No indications of unstable soils are known in the project site. Addendum A: See Soils Report. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Minimal grading is proposed for Phase I and most of Phase 11, as the existing grade is suitable for construction of the trail. Some areas will require construction fill of 6 inches of gravel and 4 inches of crushed rock. Other areas will only require 4 inches of crushed rock. The entire path will be paved with a 3 inch layer of asphalt concrete pavement. Additional fill and grading may be required for the portion of the trail within the 1 -405 right -of -way. See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase I sheets A -1 through C -12 and El & E2. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Minor erosion could result from grading work during construction and it is possible that sediment could enter wetlands surrounding the access road in Phase 1. However, protective measures will be taken, such as installation of siltation fences or staked haybales, erosion blankets etc. Similar protective measures will be employed for the remaining phases of the project. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan will be prepared for construction of the bridge. (See Section B -1 -h). About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The proposed trail is to be 16 feet wide, consisting of a 12 foot paved, asphalt path with a 2 foot wide gravel shoulder on each side. See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase 1 Sheets A -1 through C -10. g. City of Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job #92 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 6 Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impact to the earth, if any: Standard erosion control measures such as silt fencing and /or staked haybales and mulch will be used. In addition, construction adjacent to wetland areas will be timed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation when risk of erosion is highest. Exposed areas will be mulched or seeded to stabilize disturbed areas. A site specific erosion control plan will be prepared for the Wetland Mitigation Site. See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase I Sheets El-E2. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e: dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. Minor amounts of dust and exhaust can be anticipated during the construction phase of the project. Following construction, no emissions are expected to be produced at the site. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. 3. Water a. Surface 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The majority of Phase I is bounded by wetlands on both sides of the existing roadbed. The US Army COE has determined that these wetland are adjacent to the Green River. See Addendum D. No wetlands or streams are located adjacent to Phases 11, III. See Addendum B: Wetland Analysis Report. City of Tukwila Interurban�rrai• l /SEPA Job 1192 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 7 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Construction of Phase I will include some intrusion into wetlands that parallel the existing power line road. Construction within these wetland has been determined to lie more than 200 feet beyond the Green River and Springbrook Creek. See Addendum B: Wetland Analysis Report and attached plans. Phases 11 and III, and the DOT Phase lie outside the Shoreline of the Green River and Springbrook Creek and do not include intrusion into wetlands.. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from the surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. In Phase I, minor amounts of fill will be placed within wetlands as part of the widening of the existing road bed. Maximum fill width is proposed to be approximately six feet in several locations. Estimated total fill for the length of the trail is approximately 11,589 s.f. The fill will be imported from offisite. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Phases I, II, III, and the DOT Phase lie outside the 100 year floodplains of Springbrook Creek and the Green River. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground Water 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. City of Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job #92 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 8 • 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the systems are expected to serve. No waste materials will be generated or discharged from the use of the proposed trail. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other water? If so, describe. Storm water runoff will, flow off the trail toward the surrounding uplands and wetlands. Since a dirt road (hard packed) already exists in the proposed location of the trail, no change is expected in the amount of runoff directed to the wetlands or uplands. A reduction in sediment transport can be anticipated as a result of paving over this sediment source. Adjacent to wetlands, storm water will sheet flow from the trail to the wetlands. In non- wetland areas, the trail will slope to one side and storm water will be collected in an infiltration trench under the shoulder of the trail. 2. Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No waste material will be generated by the project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if. any: See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase I Sheets Al - C -12. See Horton Dennis Site Plans. City of Tukwila Interurban- i rail /SEPA Job #92 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 9 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous trees: alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen trees: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass x pasture x crops or grains x wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, other x water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, x other x other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The majority of Phases I and II will be on an existing dirt, access road. No vegetation will be disturbed in these areas, however a portion of the access road is overgrown with invasive Reed Canary Grass and Blackberry which will be removed. North of Stander Boulevard approximately 200 feet of trail will be constructed through an existing pasture. No trees or shrubs will be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to use the site. Species observed near the site are listed in Addendum A: Wetland Analysis Report, Addendum El and E2, and Exhibit C: Natural Heritage Letter. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: No landscaping is proposed along the trail. However, planting of native vegetation will occur in Phase I in conjunction with the mitigation planting area for wetland fill. A wetland mitigation site has been identified and a mitigation plan is proposed to compensate for wetland fill. Mitigation is proposed on Puget Power property to the east of the trail. Existing upland area adjacent to wetlands will be regraded to create additional wetland area. In the vicinity of the mitigation area, the buffer and the wetland will be planted with native ground covers and shrubs to improve the functions and values of the area. To avoid conflict with the existing power line, trees are not proposed for the mitigation site. Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase I Sheets E1 -2. it...- City of Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job #92 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 10 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawks, heron, eagle, songbird, other: See Addendum A: Wetland Analysis Report Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: See Addendum A: Wetland Analysis Report Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: None. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to use the site, see Addendum El & E2: letters from Washington Dept. of Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program. However, eagles and heron are known to use the Green River so that observations would be expected in the vicinity of the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The Green River is part of migratory waterfowl routes. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: At the wetland mitigation site in Phase I, enhancement of existing wetland, newly created wetland and new buffer areas will be achieved through planting of fruit and nut bearing tree and shrub species. The proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan incorporates wildlife habitat enhancement as a design goal. See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase I Sheets El & E2. Due to the highly industrialized nature of the area and existing access road, no habitat will be lost. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Diesel fuel and gasoline will be required for equipment during construction. The trail will not require energy use except for long -term maintenance requirements. City of Tukwila Interurbad-: rail /SEPA Job #92 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 11 b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Minor risks of petroleum product spills typical to construction are possible. No long term hazards are expected. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Railroad traffic, commercial, private, and helicopter aircraft traffic noise, and noise from West Valley Highway will affect the trail. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. During construction noise is expected from equipment operation. No long term noise is expected. City of Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job x/92 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 12 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The area is already highly impacted by railroad traffic, industrial and aircraft generated noise. No measures are proposed to reduce these impacts. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Phase I of the trail is on an existing gravel road utilized by Puget Power as an access to the powerlines. Adjacent properties to the west are commercial and light industrial uses. Adjacent properties to the east are primarily wetlands and the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern railroad tracks. Phase 11 will be adjacent to commercial properties for approximately 300 feet, it will move to the east of the power line road through an active pasture for approximately 200 feet. The trail will then pass through the Embassy Suites Hotel parking lot and continue northerly between commercial properties to the 1 -405 right of way. The DOT Phase will be located inside 1 -405 right -of -way, with commercial properties to the south, and the railroad on the east. Phase III will be inside of Grady Way right -of -way and adjacent to businesses and several residences. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Only a small portion of Phase II is located in agricultural land. c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? According to the City of Tukwila Interurban Special Review Area zoning map (revised 6 -92), the proposed trail will be located in areas zoned M- 1 (light industry) to the south of 1 -405. North of 1 -405, the trail will be in an area mapped as "Interurban Special Review Area". This area is also zoned M -1. City of Tukwila Interurban -i rail /SEPA Job #92 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 13 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Open space. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Phases I, II, & III and the DOT Phase are located outside the Shoreline designation. Phase IV is located in the Tukwila Shoreline Area and will require review under the Shoreline Program at the time of project application. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify: Wetlands are located to the east and west through the majority of Phase I. This area is identified as Wetland #12 in the City of Tukwila Wetlands Inventory. See Addendum A: Wetland Analysis Report. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The use of the site as a recreational facility is compatible with the open space designation of the site. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated. Indicate whether high, middle or low- income housing. Not applicable. City of' Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job #92 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 14 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas? What is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 11. Not applicable. b. What view in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The project will include a wetland mitigation area to the east of the trail in Phase 1. No landscape planting is proposed for the project. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? No lighting is proposed for the majority of the trail. However, lighting will be provided for the portion of Phase III which passes under the Grady Way bridge. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None are known d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. City of Tukwila Interurbil irail/SEPA Job #92 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 15 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The Christensen Trail is located to the west of Phase I from Strander Boulevard along the west bank of the Green River. Phase IV will connect the Interurban Trail to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts of recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The proposed project will create a recreational corridor in an area where none currently exists. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None are known to exist on -site. See Addendum F. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on -site plans, if any. The trail will connect to the existing Interurban Trail from Auburn and Kent. Access to the trail will also be available from 180th Ave. SE, Strander Boulevard, S 156th St. , S 158th St. (Longacres Way), Grady s City of Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job #92 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 16 Way, Interurban Ave., and Green River Trail at Southcenter Blvd. See Exhibit A: Vicinity Map. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Bus routes are located on West Valley Highway, Interurban Avenue and S 180th. The nearest stop is approximately 500 feet to the west of the trail. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? No parking areas are planned for the trail system. No parking spaces will be lost. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, ' not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No street or road improvements are required for Phases I, II, or the DOT Phase. A portion of Phase 11I will include improving Nelsen Place north of S 158th Street. In this area the trail will be constructed within portions of the Nelsen Place right -of -way and the Puget Power right -of- way. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The proposed trail is located just west of the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern railroad tracks. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No vehicular trips will be generated by the trail. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Some minor increase in police and emergency services may be required for trail use. No other services are expected. r� City of Tukwila Interurbah -frail /SEPA Job #92 -117 Rev. December 1, 1993 Page 17 1M b. Proposed measure to reduce or control direct impacts of public services, if any: None are proposed. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse services, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electrical service will be required for Phase III. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility - providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electrical connections will be required for the lighted portions of Phase III. c. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my kaiowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature Don Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation Date Submitted I MORANDUM TO: Bob Giberson, PW Sonior Engineer FROM: Gary Schulz, DCD Urban Environmentalist DATE: November 29, 1993 SUBJECT: Interurban Trail - Wetland Mitigation Review On November 19, 1993 I met with B -12 Associates to discuss potential changes to the Interurban Trail mitigation plan that was submitted for review. After a telephone discussion with the landscape designer, it was apparent that the two plan sheets given to me to review were not the current drawings intended for submittal to the City. Since the plan will be re- submitted, we reviewed the planting plan for possible revisions. For your information, I have listed a,few of the details that we discussed at the meeting. For the most part, these are my recommendations and ideas to improve the plan. 1) The planting plan does not include a significant amount of trees and should not be referred to as a "forest community ". We agreed that Puget Power would probably prefer a shrub dominated planting plan. 2 3 The hydrology of the area.proposed for wetland mitigation has not been assessed. To insure successful mitigation there are some factors that may change the current planting plan. Most of the new wetland area is to be planted with emergent species that depend on a significant amount of standing water or soil saturation. I suggested changing the plan to include more seasonal wetland shrubs that tolerate dryer conditions. More planting diversity with shrubs could be placed in the wetland bottom than in the buffer. The elevation of the wetland edge and proposed wetland bottom cannot be an elevation of 18.5 feet. The emergent areas, in particular, need to be over - excavated in pockets that will guarantee adequate wetland hydrology. I requested a cross - section be included to demonstrate where water levels are expected across the width of the new wetland. Hydrology will be discussed in the written plan. Because there is no topographic survey data within the mitigation site, an accurate cross - section will be difficult to prepare. The existing wetland bottom elevation adjacent to the mitigation site would also be useful for determining the limits of excavation and grading. . � .., »...... Interurban Trail Memo November 29, 1993 Page 2 4) The number of monitoring points in the wetland will be re- evaluated. Monitoring and the overall performance standard may be changed depending on•the final plan. There were certain notes on the E -2 plan sheet that were not appropriate for this project. As an example, willow cuttings, .in Section 2.0 E., will probably not be used as a substitution for containerized plants. There may be some other items discussed not mentioned here, but I thought I should give you an idea of my review and the meeting. Let me know if there are any questions. cc: Denni Shefrin Don Williams o Wed 1 -19 -94 6:21p DENNI FOSTERVTEW • Wed 1 -19 -94 4:07p DENNI re: Intl irban Trail meeting eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee£ 0 >Date: 19- Jan -94 10:25 tt m >From: GARY - SCHULZ (GARY SCHULZ) tt m >To: DENNI (DENNI SHEFRIN) 0 >Subject: Interurban Trail meeting tt 0 >I think it is necessary for me to provide a summary memo of the 1/18 tt u> meeting for all team members of this project. I will attempt to complete the m>memo before this Friday. � tt mfor inclusion in your meeting summary (feel free to edit if you recall more orm ttsomething different): tt u 01. SEPA Checklist Addenda to include in both the description section and under1 maesthetics: landscaping will be installed for screening purposes adjacent to 0 aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedY { aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Press <Esc> to quit reading. <ALT > -F -F to toggle message folding. FlHelp F2 F3Exit F4SavposF5ConfigF6ChgUsrF7ScreenF8Block F9ExportFOMenu (DENNI) Electronic Mail 1 -21 -1994 3:59p Desktop File Edit Compose Read! Reply Forward Options Window Help a aaaaaaaOaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aOaaaaaaaoaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Obb 0 &$ Date aaa$aa$a Time Imp From aaaeaaeaaaaa Subject eaai3aaaaaa Box {NEW} &$fib ° Wed 1 -19 -94 6:21p DENNI FOSTERVIEW ° Wed 1 -19 -94 4:07p DENNI re: Interurban Trail meeting ° eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee£ ' 31. SEPA Checklist Addenda to include in both the description section and underm )aesthetics: landscaping will be installed for screening purposes adjacent to o nfollowing parameters: where width allows for plantings; planting heights as tt magreed to by Puget Power & Light so that tree heights will not be in conflict o mwith utility lines. Vegetation other than trees can be used for screening. tt 02. Drawings should show the greatest amount of detail possible including tt mbuilding footprints; vegetation; fencing and other structures (existing & prop u3. Phase III: it is recognized that the only data available is that prepared tt ttby DOT. This is acceptable. m4. Landscape Plan:A landscape plan will accompany the revised checklist. tt UDrawings will included vegetation where feasible based upon No. 1 above. & eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeM aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Press <Esc> to quit reading. <ALT > -F -F to toggle message folding. FlHelp F2 F3Exit F4SavposF5ConfigF6ChgUsrF7ScreenF8Block F9ExportFOMenu ° ad! Reply Forward Options Window Help Oaa Date aaaaaaae Time Imp From Aadaadaaaaea Subject a &a &aA &aa& Box {NEW} a w ° Wed 1 -19 -94 6:21p DENNI FOSTERVIEW ° Wed 1 -19 -94 4:07p DENNI re: Interurban Trail meeting ° eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee£ 1Date: 18- Nov -93 11:33 tt )From: GARY - SCHULZ (GARY SCHULZ) tt gTo: BOB -G z� uCopies -to: DENNI,DON gSubject: Interurban Trail Project tt ttMessage -id: 9B5DEB2C01AEAEAE ttI spoke with Sue B. of B -12 Associates this morning so she understood my X11/12/93 memo. Her comments indicated that she assumed a trail landscape plantt Zwas to be included with this project. However, she will adjust the checklist tt 3to indicate the "buffer enhancement plantings" are associated with the wetlands Umitigation plan. zs 0I am meeting with her staff tomorrow morning to discuss the details of the tt aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeY aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Press <Esc> to quit reading. <ALT > -F -F to toggle message folding. FlHelp F2 F3Exit F4SavposF5ConfigF6ChgUsrF7ScreenF8Block F9ExportFOMenu (DENNI) Electronic Mail 1 -21 -1994 3:58p Desktop File Edit Compose Read! Reply Forward Options Window Help aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaOMMOa aaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaa)OWOOMO Oaa Date aaaae$$i Time Imp From aaaeaeeaaaia Subject aaaeeaaeaa Box {NEW} & &u ° Wed 1 -19 -94 6:21p DENNI FOSTERVIEW ° Wed 1 -19 -94 4:07p DENNI re: Interurban Trail meeting ° eddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee£ gTo: BOB -G tt UCopies -to: DENNI,DON gSubject: Interurban Trail Project gMessage -id: 9B5DEB2CO1AEAEAE ttI spoke with Sue B. of B -12 Associates this morning so she understood my 011/12/93 memo. Her comments indicated that she assumed a trail landscape plants tswas to be included with this project. However, she will adjust the checklist tt )to indicate the "buffer enhancement plantings" are associated with the wetlandts gmitigation plan. tt gI am meeting with her staff tomorrow morning to discuss the details of the g ttmitigation plan. If you have any comments for me, I'll be meeting them in o tstheir office at about 9:30 in the morning. aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Press <Esc> to quit reading. <ALT > -F -F to toggle message folding. FlHelp F2 F3Exit F4SavposF5ConfigF6ChgUsrF7ScreenF8Block F9ExportFOMenu (DENNI) Electronic Mail 1 -21 -1994 3:59p Date: 2- Feb -94 12:32 From: DENNI (DENNI SHEFRIN) To: GARY - SCHULZ Copies -to: DENNI Subject: re: Interurban Trail wetland mitigation. Message -id: 4F9D4F2D01AEAEAE In- reply -to: B9954F2D01AEAEAE >Date: 2- Feb -94 11:59 >From: GARY - SCHULZ (GARY SCHULZ) >To: DENNI (DENNI SHEFRIN) >Subject: Interurban Trail wetland mitigation. >Yesterday, Bob G. and I had a short meeting on the site with B- twelve >Associates' staff. They have developed a concept drawing for mitigation with >and without the road crossing for pole access. This plan has accurate >topography and a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio should be achieved including a buffer >area. >Now that the new wetland bottom can be determined a re- designed plan drawing >will be completed. The revised plan will consider hydrology since it is more >evident now and may incorporate more shrubs. I asked Lauch Bethune to >include details of determining costs and actions that may be needed for a >contingency plan if the wetland growth has problems after the first year. >Don Williams and I are supposed to meet today to discuss the pole access and >costs associated with wetland mitigation performance and monitoring. THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE. I HOPE TO BE ABLE TO RETURN SUSAN'S CALL TODAY. WERE ANY QUESTIONS RAISED YESTERDAY CONCERNING THE SEPA PROCESS? SHOULD I ASSUME THE MITIGATION PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE UPDATED CHECKLIST SO THAT I BECOMES PART OF THE PROPOSAL RATHER THAN REQUIRED MITIGATION? (JUST REFRESHING MY OWN MEMORY...). LASTLY, THE WETLAND MITIGATION PERFORMANCE AND MONITORING SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED SO THAT IT BECOMES PART OF THE OVERALL MITIGATION PLAN (I SUSPECT YOU HAD THIS IN MIND TOO...). Date: 2- Feb -94 11:59 From: GARY - SCHULZ (GARY SCHULZ) To: DENNI Copies -to: GARY - SCHULZ Subject: Interurban Trail wetland mitigation. Message -id: B9954F2D01AEAEAE Yesterday, Bob G. and I had a short meeting on the site with B- twelve Associates' staff. They have developed a concept drawing for mitigation with and without the road crossing for pole access. This plan has accurate topography and a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio should be achieved including a buffer area. Now that the new wetland bottom can be determined a re- designed plan drawing will be completed. The revised plan will consider hydrology since it is more evident now and may incorporate more shrubs. I asked Lauch Bethune to include details of determining costs and actions that may be needed for a contingency plan if the wetland growth has problems after the first year. Don Williams and I are supposed to meet today to discuss the pole access and costs associated with wetland mitigation performance and monitoring. Date: 2- Feb -94 16:32 From: DENNI (DENNI SHEFRIN) To: GARY - SCHULZ Copies -to: BOB- G,DENNI Subject: re: Interurban Tr -..1 wetland mitigation. Message -id: 82D54F2D01AEAEAE In- reply -to: B9954F2D01AEAEAE >Date: 2- Feb -94 11:59 >From: GARY - SCHULZ (GARY SCHULZ) >To: DENNI (DENNI SHEFRIN) >Subject: Interurban Trail wetland mitigation. >Yesterday, Bob G. and I had a short meeting on the site with B- twelve >Associates' staff. They have developed a concept drawing for mitigation with >and without the road crossing for pole access. This plan has accurate >topography and a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio should be achieved including a buffer >area. >Now that the new wetland bottom can be determined a re- designed plan drawing >will be completed. The revised plan will consider hydrology since it is more >evident now and may incorporate more shrubs. I asked Lauch Bethune to >include details of determining costs and actions that may be needed for a >contingency plan if the wetland growth has problems after the first year. >Don Williams and I are supposed to meet today to discuss the pole access and >costs associated with wetland mitigation performance and monitoring. ANOTHER UPDATE:ON PAGE 3 OF YOUR LETTER TO SUSAN BURGEMEISTER DATED 27 JAN ITEM NO. 4) STATES THAT THE CITY EXPECTS SUBMITTAL OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN. I MISINTERPRETED MY EARLIER NOTES, AND CONCSEQUENTLY MISINFORMED YOU. IN ESSENCE, NO PLAN IS EXPECTED, BUT MODIFICATIONS TO THE SEPA CHECKLIST AS IT RELATES TO LANDSCAPING, ARE. I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH SUSAN B. WHO ALSO INDICATED THAT THEY HAVE DETERMINED THERE IS NO AVAILABLE AREA WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR LANDSCAPE MATERIALS. SHE HAS IDENTIFIED STATION LOCATIONS WHERE, THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS W/ PUGET POWER, THERE MAY BE OPPORTUNITIES. I INDICATED THIS IS ACCEPTABLE. THANKS. Date: 24- Jan -94 12:05:12 From: RICK (RICK BEELER) To: ANN,DENNI, DIANA - P,JACK,MOIRA,REBECCA,VERNON Subject: GMA - New King County Council Message -id: 78B9432D01000000 The Mayor reported today that at last week's meeting of the new County Council he got the impression that this very conservative Council will be making significant changes to the Countywide Planning Policies. He senses they will be substantially reducing mitigation in order to foster economic development, and will likely move the Urban Growth Boundary eastward. Boeing, for example, is still waving the Everett $50 million mitigation experien around in the air, campaigning for regulatory and GMA reform /revisions. The "other side of the story" is that Boeing willingly gave that money - they demand a quick answer from Everett on the total cost, regardless of amount. Boeing wanted so much to get under construction that they accepted the cost in order to expedite the permits. They left argument about the amount to after construction was completed. (Recognize the strategy ?) Jack and I are preparing a summary of our Boeing Programmatic EIS experience to counter some of that bad press. But damage is already done. We can expect the legislature to pass some land use reforms this year, regardless of the Governor's Task Force. I don't think that reform of State regulations is the prime target. Instead, I think the initial focus is local government processes. I ht e a product from the Washi gton Planning Directors that I'll pass around for your info. End of info update. Date: 20- Jan -94 16:45 From: MOIRA (MOIRA BRADSHAW) To: DENNI Subject: re: employment targets Message -id: ODB53E2D01AEAEAE In- reply -to: EE9B3E2D01AEAEAE >Date: 20- Jan -94 13:35 >From: MOIRA (MOIRA BRADSHAW) >To: DENNI (DENNI SHEFRIN) >Subject: employment targets >Rick attended a meeting of the pop /emp committee who recommended to the >planning and public works directors, who endorsed to the GMPC a population >target of 21,500 new employees for the City by the year 2010. Rick feels >that the allocation is 10,000 to the urban center, 10,000 to the manuf /ind >center and 1500 elsewhere in the City. This is a rough endorsement >guess of where growth in the City is likely. >The PSRC forecast is much lower than this and I am working with Kim on >retrieving the numbers. >Date: 20- Jan -94 14:57 >From: DENNI (DENNI SHEFRIN) >To: MOIRA (MOIRA BRADSHAW) >Subject: re: employment targets >thanks. What did Rick base his numbers on, especially for the manuf. /ind. >center? what Boeing told him? Date: 2- Feb -94 11:59 From: GARY - SCHULZ (GARY SCHULZ) To: DENNI Copies -to: GARY - SCHULZ Subject: Interurban Trail wetland mitigation. Message -id: B9954F2D01AEAEAE Yesterday, Bob G. and I had a short meeting on the site. with B- twelve Associates' staff. They have developed a concept drawing for mitigation with and without the road crossing for pole access. This plan has accurate topography and a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio should be achieved including a buffer area. Now that the new wetland bottom can be determined a re- designed plan drawing will be completed. The revised plan will consider hydrology since it is more evident now and may incorporate more shrubs. I asked Lauch Bethune to include details of determining costs and actions that may be needed for a contingency plan if the wetland growth has problems after the first year. Don Williams and I are supposed to meet today to discuss the pole access and costs associated with wetland mitigation performance and monitoring. )(Subject: INTERURBAN TRAIL )(Message -id: 5CAA3F2D01AEAEAE rt )(I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE:PHASE III. THERE IS NO TRAIL DETAIL ON THE )(PLAN SHEET ENTITLED "ALIGNMENT FOR P3 -4A ". I NEED TO KNOW WHETHER HDA DOES )( HAVE MORE INFORMATION, & WHAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINS. OTHERWISE, I DON'T )( )(KNOW HOW PHASE III CAN BE INCLUDED IN THIS SEPA DETERMINATION. IF IT CANNOT )( BE INCLUDED IN THIS DETERMINATION, HOW WILL THAT EFFECT THE GRANT? ANOTHER )( )(ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE THAT AS A SEPA CONDITION, I COULD SUGGEST TO RICK THAT )( )(DETAILED DRAWINGS WILL BE PROVIDED WHEN TRAIL DETAIL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE )( )(WHICH MAY RESULT IN FURTHER MITIGATION. SEPA ALLOWS FOR FUTURE; SkUDIES, )( )(ETC., THE DIFFICULTY HERE IS THAT NO PERMITS ARE ISSUED WITH THIS PROJECT, )( )(THEREFORE, IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO TIE FUTURE SUBMITTALS TO NONEXISTENT )( )(PERMITS. )( aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedY bb bbbbbebbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb Press <Esc> to quit reading. <ALT > -F -F to toggle message folding. FlHelp F2 F3Exit F4SavposF5ConfigF6ChgUsrF7ScreenF8Block F9ExportFOMenu eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee66 -- )(Date: 21- Jan -94 10:11 )( )(From: DENNI (DENNI SHEFRIN )( )(To: BOB -G )( )(Copies -to: DENNI,GARY - SCHULZ )( )(Subject: INTERURBAN TRAIL )( )(Message -id: 5CAA3F2D01AEAEAE )( 0 iX )(I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE:PHASE III. THERE IS NO TRAIL DETAIL ON THE )( )(PLAN SHEET ENTITLED "ALIGNMENT FOR P3 -4A ". I NEED TO KNOW WHETHER HDA DOES )( HAVE MORE INFORMATION, & WHAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINS. OTHERWISE, I DON'T tt )(KNOW HOW PHASE III CAN BE INCLUDED IN THIS SEPA DETERMINATION. IF IT CANNOT )( BE INCLUDED IN THIS DETERMINATION, HOW WILL THAT EFFECT THE GRANT? ANOTHER )( )(ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE THAT AS A SEPA CONDITION, I COULD SUGGEST TO RICK THAT )( )(DETAILED DRAWINGS WILL BE PROVIDED WHEN TRAIL DETAIL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE )( •� V L' i ..�i'�i1f�G00000�6l1i�i�i�:: :.. _ - - - - • . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. •..�t�.+n • A...� �. •. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. VEAS A 1*1 C\IkR% DATE: I/Zi MON TUE WED THU DAY: FRI SAT SUN FOR OFFICE USE ONLY TIME: 5 YPE: Conference LI Telephone— 0 Incoming 0 Outgoing Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you: Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.) Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: (SUMMARY: \' A) ov\aN.,. A Naat !IL • -- \,.Ao (2..E7a2xro 6.) e.;"5, ....f5c cDm tR ro4),c-- rive, ).7,±) ) ' Signature: Title: Date: CONVEASATION RECORL TYPE: 0 Visi1Conference E Telephone— 0 Incoming 0 Outgoing Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you: Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.) Location of Visit/Conference: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY C3ta) 61 &Poi c>-/-1-1145- kavy6 vim Y._ _Lad jkyve - Telephone No.: SUBJECT: (, r1_,(/ r:-L7DtPs) SUMMARY: ) \--\_))12 , eeDy\ f)... 1;-g.-1) •i---ci'A (i.pie_I-CY1 o'L- 1.0-12--',...-1 -,0 ) 6 4L-1A l' ) Y1 .,r)--:-------a,"*.iz_' ,)t;t-in, fi-5.,-.--,,---Y&I- ky, (......, 0, t.--. • C1/4))0-4-.-}- -- Nol•c,=-1.73 -b5 ) ) )\ .37 __. c--(1.,..( ::,, ; A .,,,r Vki it\ 10 r1') *CA' , _...-%-- r ov.c..0-‘ \ ,` \ '._ ' ‘ 6 r , : 1 _Ai., i -7•,----' ) ''' .--) (AU , , 4 1,( ' cL ) 0 Cif_•\A.).) ) .;, --, • I Y) 4:20.I. /"C,) •PC<-1- -rAT f ?)\ u,\)tt Signature: Title: Date: )) )5g2_ , CONVEASATION RECORD._ DATE: \-4/ DAY: AVN TUE TNU FRI SA SUN TIME: '- TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference ❑ Telephone— OIncoming Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you: 0 Outgoing FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.) Telephone No.: Location of Visit /Conference: SUBJECT: * tg v lokv Z1 SUMMARY: J .' ,(),Dv`'(/64 Signature: Title: Date: >topography and a 1.5:1 mi\.Lgation ratio should be ach,..ved including a buffer >area. >Now that the new wetland bottom can be determined a re- designed plan drawing >will be completed. The revised plan will consider hydrology since it is more >evident now and may incorporate more shrubs. I asked Lauch Bethune to >include details of determining costs and actions that may be needed for a >contingency plan if the wetland growth has problems after the first year. >Don Williams and I are supposed to meet today to discuss the pole access and >costs associated with wetland mitigation performance and monitoring. ANOTHER UPDATE:ON PAGE 3 OF YOUR LETTER TO SUSAN BURGEMEISTER DATED 27 JAN ITEM NO. 4) STATES THAT THE CITY EXPECTS SUBMITTAL OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN. I MISINTERPRETED MY EARLIER NOTES, AND CONCSEQUENTLY MISINFORMED YOU. IN ESSENCE, NO PLAN IS EXPECTED, BUT MODIFICATIONS TO THE SEPA CHECKLIST AS IT RELATES TO LANDSCAPING, ARE. I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH SUSAN B. WHO ALSO INDICATED THAT THEY HAVE DETERMINED THERE IS NO AVAILABLE AREA WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR LANDSCAPE MATERIALS. SHE HAS IDENTIFIED STATION LOCATIONS WHERE, THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS W/ PUGET POWER, THERE MAY BE OPPORTUNITIES. I INDICATED THIS IS ACCEPTABLE. THANKS. Date: 2- Feb -94 12:32 From: DENNI (DENNI SHEFRIN) To: GARY - SCHULZ Copies -to: DENNI Subject: re: Interurban Trail wetland mitigation. Message -id: 4F9D4F2D01AEAEAE In- reply -to: B9954F2D01AEAEAE >Date: 2- Feb -94 11:59 >From: GARY - SCHULZ (GARY SCHULZ) >To: DENNI (DENNI SHEFRIN) >Subject: Interurban Trail wetland mitigation. >Yesterday, Bob G. and I had a short meeting on the site with B- twelve >Associates' staff. They have developed a concept drawing for mitigation with >and without the road crossing for pole access. This plan has accurate >topography and a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio should be achieved including a buffer >area. >Now that the new wetland bottom can be determined a re- designed plan drawing >will be completed. The revised plan will consider hydrology since it is more >evident now and may incorporate more shrubs. I asked Lauch Bethune to >include details of determining costs and actions that may be needed for a >contingency plan if the wetland growth has problems after the first year. >Don Williams and I are supposed to meet today to discuss the pole access and >costs associated with wetland mitigation performance and monitoring. THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE. I HOPE TO BE ABLE TO RETURN SUSAN'S CALL TODAY. WERE ANY QUESTIONS RAISED YESTERDAY CONCERNING THE SEPA PROCESS? SHOULD I ASSUME THE MITIGATION PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE UPDATED CHECKLIST SO THAT I BECOMES PART OF THE PROPOSAL RATHER THAN REQUIRED MITIGATION? (JUST REFRESHING MY OWN MEMORY...). LASTLY, THE WETLAND MITIGATION PERFORMANCE AND MONITORING SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED SO THAT IT BECOMES PART OF THE OVERALL MITIGATION PLAN (I SUSPECT YOU HAD THIS IN MIND TOO...). Date: 2- Feb -94 16:32 From: DENNI (DENNI SHEFRIN) To: GARY - SCHULZ Copies -to: BOB- G,DENNI 1 Press <Esc> to quit reading. <ALT > -F -F to toggle messLye folding. FlHelp F2 F3Exit F4SavposF5ConfigF6ChgUsrF7ScreenF8Block F9ExportFOMenu (DENNI) Electronic Mail 1 -12 -1994 11:19a Desktop File Edit Compose Readl Reply Forward Options Window Help dad Date &aaaaaaa Time Imp From a &AAAaada &aa Subject aaaaaaaa$a Box {NEW} adU o Mon 1 -03 -94 2:56p DENNI fosterview ° o Mon 1 -03 -94 11:32a GARY - SCHULZ Interurban Trail - wetland mitig° eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeef =Date: 9- Dec -93 10:05 0 =From: GARY - SCHULZ (GARY SCHULZ) Xx =To: BOB -G 0 =Copies -to: DENNI tt =Subject: Interurban Trail and 104th Street Bank repair tt =Message -id: 63F8062D01AEAEAE tt =I looked for you this morning and I should be here most of the day. To tt =answer your E -Mail question regarding Interurban Trail, you are correct in n that Denni and I were to work on a landscape concept to incorporate tree tt =planting. I think both of us were not able to spend time on this before the n =Thanksgiving week. I am willing to work on this now and before the SEPA tt =determination is completed. Is it a feasible part of the plan? tt aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedY aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Press <Esc> to quit reading. <ALT > -F -F to toggle message folding. FlHelp F2 F3Exit F4SavposF5ConfigF6ChgUsrF7ScreenF8Block F9ExportFOMenu Date: 17- Nov -93 12:37 uFrom: BOB -G (BOB GIBERSON) )To: DENNI,GARY - SCHULZ uCopies -to: DON uSubject: INTERURBAN TRAIL uMessage -id: F11AEA2C01AEAEAE � u )HDA /B -12 SAYS THEY WILL HAVE THE REVISED SEPA CHECKLIST AND WETLAND zY uMITIGATION REPORT TO ME BY TOMORROW (11/18). I WILL FORWARD THEM TO DENNI uIMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT AND ENTERING IT INTO SIERRA. � u u � aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeY aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaMaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Press <Esc> to quit reading. <ALT > -F -F to toggle message folding. FlHelp F2 F3Exit F4SavposF5ConfigF6ChgUsrF7ScreenFBBlock F9ExportFOMenu (DENNI) Electronic Mail 1 -12 -1994 11:18a Deskto File Edit Compose Read! Reply Forward Options Window Hel aaaaaaaaoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaaaaaaaabaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Eaaaa oaa Date aaaaaaaa Time Imp From aaaaaaaaaaaa Subject aaaaaaaaaa Box {NEW} aau • Mon 1 -03 -94 2:56p DENNI fosterview • Mon 1 -03 -94 11:32a GARY - SCHULZ Interurban Trail - wetland mitig° eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee£ uDate: 17- Nov -93 12:37 uFrom: BOB -G (BOB GIBERSON) u uTo: DENNI,GARY- SCHULZ )Copies -to: DON Subject: INTERURBAN TRAIL u 3ZMessage -id: F11AEA2C01AEAEAE )HDA /B -12 SAYS THEY WILL HAVE THE REVISED SEPA CHECKLIST AND WETLAND tt 0MITIGATION REPORT TO ME BY TOMORROW (11/18). I WILL FORWARD THEM TO DENNI uIMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT AND ENTERING IT INTO SIERRA. u � � u u � aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedY aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaMaaaaaaaaaaaa Press <Esc> to quit reading. <ALT > -F -F to toggle message folding. FlHelp F2 F3Exit F4SavposF5ConfigF6ChgUsrF7ScreenF8Block F9ExportFOMenu (DENNI) Electronic Mail 1 -12 -1994 11:18a Desktop File Edit Compose Read! Reply Forward Options Window Help baa Date aaaaaaaa Time Imp From aaaaaaaaaaaa Subject aaaaaaaaaa Box {NEW} aau o Mon 1 -03 -94 2:56p DENNI fosterview ° • Mon 1 -03 -94 11:32a GARY - SCHULZ Interurban Trail - wetland mitig° eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee£ uMessage -id: 4E3AE72C01AEAEAE 0 )In- reply -to: 2567E32C01AEAEAE u u u >Date: 9- Nov -93 10:37 tt u >From: BOB -G (BOB GIBERSON) u >To: DENNI (DENNI SHEFRIN) 0 u >Subject: INTERURBAN TRAIL SEPA tt> xz ° >FYY, THE ENVIRONMENTAL kr:VIEW FORM SAYS THE SEPA CO.LRS PHASES I AND II tt 0 >ONLY, HOWEVER THE SEPA CHECKLIST COVERS PHASES I, II AND III ONLY. PHASE tt 0 >IV WILL BE AMENDED TO THIS APPLICATION IN 1994. ALSO THE ROUTING FORM SHOWS n 0 >THE PROJECT LIMITS FROM SOUTH OF 18TH TO I -405. IT SHOULD READ FROM "SOUTH u 0 >OF S 180TH ST TO NORTH OF I- 405 ". tt . ............................................................................................................................. ............................... aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeY aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Press <Esc> to quit reading. <ALT > -F -F to toggle message folding. FlHelp F2 F3Exit F4SavposF5ConfigF6ChOsrF7ScreenF8Block F9ExportFOMenu (DENNI) Electronic Ma'1 1 -12 -1994 11:19a Desktop File Edit Compose Read! Reply Forward Options Window Help oda Date aaaaaaaa Time Imp From aaaaaaaaa &a- Subject aaaaaaaaaa Box {NEW} adU ° Mon 1 -03 -94 2:56p DENNI fosterview o Mon 1 -03 -94 11:32a GARY - SCHULZ Interurban Trail - wetland mitig° eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee= eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee£ 0 >I have found some discrepancies in the sepa checklist and i am considering n 0 >re- resubmitting a checklist to eliminate so e contradictory and confusing tt n >language. what is your review status and d• i have time to re- resubmit the tt 0> checklist itself? u A> 1 0 >Date: 12- Nov -93 10:36 tt 0 >From: DENNI (DENNI SHEFRIN) tt 0 >To: BOB -G (BOB GIBERSON) n 0> Subject: re: INTERURBAN TRAIL SEPA n X >I HAVE REQUESTED A MEETING WITH DON WILLIAM AND GARY TUES. NOV. 16 AT 2 P.M.tt 0 >TO DISCUSS THE TRAIL. YOU ARE WELCOME. DON D GARY NEED TO CONFIRM. THANKS. X 0 01 have marked it in my calendar, thanks. tt aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee= eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedY aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa• aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Press <Esc> to quit reading. <ALT > -F -F to toggle message folding. FlHelp F2 F3Exit F4SavposF5ConfigF6Chg srF7ScreenF8Block F9ExportFOMenu (DENNI) Electronic Ma '1 1 -12 -1994 11:19a Deskto File Edit Com ose Read! Re 1 Forward O tions Window Help aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaa$ aa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Oaa Date aaaaaaaa Time Imp From aaaaaaaaaaa: Subject aaaaaaaaaa Box {NEW} aaa� o Mon 1 -03 -94 2:56p DENNI fosterview ° o Mon 1 -03 -94 11:32a GARY - SCHULZ Interurban Trail - wetland mitig° eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee: eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee£ 0To: DENNI,DON,GARY- SCHULZ tt nCopies -to: BOB -G n )Subject: INTERURBAN TRAIL PROJECT tt mMessage -id: FEE9FD2C01AEAEAE u 0FYI. I JUST RECEIVED (FINALLY) THE REVISED EPA CHECKLIST AND WETLAND tt 0MITIGATION PLAN AND THE NEW WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT. n mI HAVE A BIT OF PHOTOCOPYING TO DO THEN WILL TRY TO RESUBMIT THIS INFO TODAY. u UHAS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN ISSUE BEEN FOLLOWED U ON SINCE WE ALL LAST MET? A 000RRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I LEFT THE MEET NG WITH THE UNDERSTANDING tt 0THAT DENNI OR GARY WOULD HIGHLIGHT AREAS ON HE PLAN WHERE LANDSCAPING n 0WOULD BE DESIRABLE AND AN ACCEPTABLE TYPE D AMOUNT OF PLANTS LISTED. tt aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee• eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee88Y a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa teti (DENNI) Electronic Mail 1 -12 -1994 11:17a Desktop File Edit Compose Read! Reply Forward Options Window Help bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb Oda Date aaeaaaaa Time Imp From aaaaaaaaaaaa Subject aaaaaaaaaa Box {NEW} aaa� • Tue 1 -11 -94 11:50a BOB -G re: INTERURBAN TRAIL ° o Tue 1 -11 -94 11:12a DENNI re: INTERURBAN TRAIL ° eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee£ m> m 0 >Date: 11- Jan -94 10:34 o 0 >From: BOB -G (BOB GIBERSON) n 3 >To: DENNI (DENNI SHEFRIN) o n >Subject: re: INTERURBAN TRAIL m m> o n >Public Works and Parks are proceeding ahead with getting the Puget Power o 0 >easement for the wetland, and with taking care of Gary's concerns about o J >the wetland mitigation plan. We need to get the landscape screening o n >issue rolling in order to decide on the best alternative and turn it into o >an acceptable plan. The project is on hold until we get a SEPA determination >and the Puget Power easement. We would like to get both of these issues o 0 >cleared up ASAP. Thanks. n o> o aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedY bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb Press <Esc> to quit reading. <ALT > -F -F to toggle message folding. FlHelp F2 F3Exit F4SavposF5ConfigF6ChgUsrF7ScreenF8Block F9ExportFOMenu (DENNI) Electronic Mail 1 -12 -1994 11:18a Desktop File Edit Compose Read! Reply Forward Options Window Help bb bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb eee Date eeeeeeee Time Imp From eeeeeeeeeeee Subject eeeeeeeeee Box {NEW} eee£ O Mon 1 -03 -94 2:56p DENNI fosterview tt O Mon 1 -03 -94 11:32a GARY - SCHULZ Interurban Trail - wetland mitigtt O Mon 1 -03 -94 10:27a HI JANE Tentative schedule of upcoming pU O Wed 12 -29 -93 9:06a DENNI FOSTERVIEW STREET VACATION n O Tue 12 -28 -93 1:29p DENNI MCLEOD tt O Tue 12 -28 -93 9:18a DENNI HEARINGS SCHEDULE o O Tue 12 -21 -93 11:26a DENNI INTERURBAN TRAIL o O Thu 12 -09 -93 10:05a GARY - SCHULZ Interurban Trail and 104th Streen O Tue 12 -07 -93 3:31p DENNI FOSTERVIEW m O Thu 12 -02 -93 1:13p BOB -G INTERURBAN TRAIL PROJECT o O Thu 11 -18 -93 11:33a GARY - SCHULZ Interurban Trail Project o O Wed 11 -17 -93 12:37p BOB -G INTERURBAN TRAIL m O Mon 11 -15 -93 8:14a BOB -G re: INTERURBAN TRAIL SEPA o O Tue 11 -09 -93 3:53p BOB -G re: INTERURBAN TRAIL SEPA n O Mon 11 -01 -93 3:24p MOIRA Manufacturing Industrial Center 0 Aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee6eeeeeeeeeY bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb Press <Enter> to read, <Ins> to compose, <Del> to delete, <Space> to tag FlHelp F2 F3Exit F4SavposF5ConfigF6ChgUsrF7ScreenF8 F9 FOMenu (DENNI) Electronic Mail 1 -12 -1994 11:18a Desktop File Edit Compose Read! Reply Forward Options Window Help bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbObbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb b.& Date $a & &aaa& Time Imp From $ &$aaaaaaa &$ Subject as &ae$AA && Box {NEW} $a,u • Mon 1 -03 -94 2:56p DENNI fosterview ° o Mon 1 -03 -94 11:32a GARY - SCHULZ Interurban Trail - wetland mitig° CONV RSATION RECOR DATE: \ �o) l� � MON TUE W /ED DAY: FRI SAT SUN TIME: A.M. P.M TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference ❑ Telephone— Olncoming 0Outgoing Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you: Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY T 1ePhone No.: Location of Visit /Conference: SUBJECT: 53--t SUMMARY: co1� oku,v-t tap• MI 1u? U,r�- S� 1 C\I\CA +�) l `t-.• K;)InNi 4,\17uk \QQJ .0) 1?)) 64, /\-0 tp ? \ nmr.MD • 4 —U —b7 Title: Date: )Z-)1/4.5 yi-v\ c_ArNA, +cD l'a co) leRco( 0\mxiAxtr ehtga),-) --orra04 . httk. (ITW gRri — utc\fXv•- kNIOEIC 3< CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: \) / 1 TYPE: ❑ Visit A*DN r.0 WED 7HU SAT SUN TIME: 3 P. nference ❑ Telephone — 0 Incoming 0 Outgoing Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.) Telephone No.: Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: iKkitr-.) SUMMARY: 1_11t/to p„vO QG,;is-siaArc1c4V fr re/ ■ tiO2a9 'cc) >-Tc3i° v)Orn'In/ Lan /S-r) i%0CkAWiata. vAiNb- Ci CRLA L t - 9-2 r7 M • Pl o- 1 ,A W • G 0 oa P2 • • eLev 41M 1u ilk 6--- _- ■luv,Ok) We-Yt 44/&) ), e arm —5)\/\ K .v ,- 21 FOJN 4 - ( ��Pi i1 — �L 1^11 Cs � Signature: Title: Date: °I 3 00'19, RECEIVED SEP 2 01993 CUM v}UNrry DEVELOPMENT CITY OF TUKWILA, INTERURBAN TRAIL SEPTEMBER 1993 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Interurban Trail: Project #92 PK01 - Phases I &.1I #92 PK03 - Phase III #92 PK04 - Phase IV 2. Name of applicant: • City of Tukwila, Parks and Recreation Dept. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98188 Contact Person: Don Williams, Director of Parks and Recreation Department. (206) 433 -1843 4. Date checklist prepared: August, 1993 .... City of Tukwila Interurban Trail/SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 2 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of 71ukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The Interurban Trail will be constructed by the City in four sections (Phases 1, II, 111 and IV), and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will construct a fifth portion of the trail, (DOT Phase). Phase 1 is proposed for construction during the fall of 1993. Phase 11 is proposed for construction in spring 1994: Phases III and IV are proposed for construction during summer 1994: and the DOT Phase in 1994. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No additional phases or expansions are proposed. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. * Wetland Analysis Report; B- twelve Associates Inc. See Addendum A. * Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hong West & Associates, Inc. See Addendum C. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. City of Tukwila Interurbac -- rail /SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 3 In Phase I, at this time an application is pending for construction of a Taco Bell to the north of Jack in the Box on Strander Blvd. The parking lot for the NW Expo Center, proposed by McLeod Development, is also adjacent to Phase L Phase II will be coordinated with projects being proposed for the expansion of the Embassy Suites parking lot. Phase 111 and the DOT Phase will be coordinated with the expansion of the HOV lanes of 1 -405. Phase IV will be coordinated with the intersection revision of Grady Way and Interurban Ave. , as well as the widening of the Interurban Bridge and the construction of the Green River Trail. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Phases I, II, and III are City of Tukwila Capital Improvement Projects without structures, so that no building permits are required. City of Kent has no applicable permit for the section of trail in Kent. The DOT Phase will be designed by DOT and receive design review by the City. Phase IV will require a Substantial Shoreline Development Permit, a Washington Dept. of Fisheries permit, a US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit. Structural permits will also be required for the bridge and associated retaining wall. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The project consists of construction of a paved bicycle /pedestrian trail. The trail will extend from the northern end of the Interurban Trail in Kent, north approximately two miles to connect with the Green River Trail on the north side of the Green River just east of Interurban Ave. The trail will be constructed in City of Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 4 five The majority of the trail will be constructed on a 15 foot easements located within Puget Sound Power & Light right -of -way, utilizing the existing maintenance and access road. Phase 1 will begin at the northern connection with the existing trail approximately 200 feet south of S 180th Street. The trail will be constructed on an existing powerline access road owned by Puget Power. Trail users will consist of cyclists and walkers, however, Puget Power vehicles will continue to use the trail for maintenance. The trail will extend north from the end of the existing trail to S 180th Street. At this point trail users will follow the sidewalk west along S 180th Street to 72nd Ave. S. A crosswalk will be located at the traffic light to allow trail users to safely cross S 180th Street. Trail users will then proceed along the sidewalk on the north side of S 180th Street back to the trail. From the north side of S 180th Street, the trail continues to the north on the access road until it reaches a point approximately parallel with the east end of Strander Boulevard (behind Jack in the Box restaurant). At this point trail users will have the choice of crossing West Valley Highway, and crossing to the north side of Strander Boulevard and then following Strander Boulevard west, to the Christensen Trail; or, proceeding along the east side of West Valley Highway north to the Green River trail at approximately Southcenter Boulevard. Phase 11 will begin on the powerline access road at the northern end of Phase 1 at approximately Strander Blvd. The trail will generally follow the access road and will connect to a portion of the trail being constructed through the existing and new parking lots of the Embassy Suites Hotel. The trail will cross S 158th with a crosswalk and rejoin the Puget Power right -of -way road, and occupy part of Nelsen Place right -of -way on the north side of S 158th. The trail will continue north along the powerline road just south of the southern right -of -way of 1 -405 ending where the DOT Phase will begin "ramping up" to the 1 -405 Phase. The DOT Phase of the trail will be constructed mostly within the DOT right -of- way proceeding to the east to the highway overpass. The trail will then proceed north under the overpass to the northern right -of -way line of 1 -405. City of Tukwila Inteturbal. Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 5 Phase III will begin at the northern end of the DOT phase and continue to the west along Tukwila owned right -of -way for Grady Way to the intersection with Interurban Ave. Phase IV of the trail will begin at Grady Way and will proceed north within the eastern right -of way of Interurban Ave to the east of the existing curbing. A separate bridge may be constructed for the trail across the Green River to the east of the Interurban Ave. Bridge, if finding for widening the Interurban Avenue Bridge to include trail falls out. The trail will end at the connection with the existing Green River Trail. 12. Location of the proposal. The trail is located to the east of West Valley Hwy and west of the Union Pack Railroad right -of -way extending roughly between S l81st (if extended) on the south and Southcenter Boulevard on the north. See Exhibit A: 'Vicinity Map. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Phase I of the project lies within an area designated as "open space" (wetland #12) on the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. However, there is no Open Space designation in the Zoning Code. The Zoning map shows all phases being designated as "M-1" (Light Industry). City of Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 6 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The site is generally flat. Phase I and II will be constructed on an old railroad bed (the Interurban) or through existing pasture and parking lots. The DOT Phase will be constructed along the slope of 1 -405, supported by retaining walls. Phase III will be constructed across road fill and existing pavement. Phase IV will be constructed along existing road fill and across the Green River. See Exhibit B: Trail Plans b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slopes for the trail will not exceed 5 %. The maximum slopes in the vicinity of the trail do not exceed 10% except along the toe of the slope of 1 -405. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soils for the project are generally urban due to the use of the railroad bed, existing roads and fill areas. A short section of Phase 11 due north of Strander Boulevard is still in active pasture. According to the Geotechnical Investigation (See Addedum C). prepared by Hong West & Associates for Horton Dennis, the project alignment is generally blanketed with undocumented soil fill material, ranging to approximately 8 feet in thickness. The fill is highly variable, ranging from loose to medium dense, silty, sandy gravel with cobbles to clayey, City of Tukwila Interurbak_,.aii /SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 7 sandy silt. A surficial layer of 2 to 6 inches of dark brown organic topsoil was observed in about one -third of the test pits. Both the Wetland Analysis Report and Soils Report address specific soil conditions for Phase I and II. See Addenda A & B. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No indications of unstable soils are known in the project site. Addendum A: See Soils Report. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Minimal grading is proposed for Phase I and most of Phase II, as the existing grade is suitable for construction of the trail. Some areas will require construction fill of 6 inches of gravel and 4 inches of crushed rock. Other areas will only require 4 inches of crushed rock. The entire path will be paved with a 3 inch layer of asphalt concrete pavement. Additional fill and grading may be required for the portion of the trail within the 1 -405 right -of -way. In addition, a new trail base will need to be constructed for the majority of Phase IV. The surface will be the same for all phases. Approximately 11,500 s.f. of wetland fill will be required. See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase I sheets A -1 through C- l2andEl & E2. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Minor erosion could result from grading work during construction and it is possible that sediment could enter wetlands surrounding the access road in Phase I. However, protective measures will be taken, such as installation of siltation fences or staked haybales, erosion blankets etc. City of Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 8 • [41117" t4 ff'i,(} r ,a4t,a vl.. ati Ed: g. h. 2. Air a. Similar protective measures will be employed for the remaining phases of the project. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan will be prepared for construction of the bridge. (See Section B -1 -h). About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The proposed trail is to be 16 feet wide, consisting of a 12 foot paved, asphalt path with a 2 foot wide gravel shoulder on each side. See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase 1 Sheets A -1 through C -10. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impact to the earth, if any: Standard erosion control measures such as silt fencing and /or staked haybales and mulch will be used. In addition, construction will be timed to avoid periods of heavy preitafion when risk of erosion is highest. Exposed areas will be mulched or seeded to stabilize disturbed areas. A site specific erosion control plan will be prepared for the Wetland Mitigation Site. See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase I Sheets E1 -E2. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. Minor amounts of dust and exhaust can be anticipated during the construction phase of the project. Following construction, no emissions are expected to be produced at the site. City of Tukwila Intern:bab__ rail /SEPA Job N92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 9 b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. 3. Water a. Surface 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The majority of Phase I is bounded by wetlands on both sides of the existing roadbed. The US Army COE has determined that these wetland are adjacent to Springbrook Creek. See Addendum D. No wetlands or streams are located adjacent to Phases II, Ili, and the majority of Phase IV. Phase IV will cross the Green River east of Interurban Ave. See Addendum B: Wetland Analysis Report. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. City of Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 10 Construction of Phase I will include some intrusion into wetlands that parallel the existing power line road. Construction within these wetland has been determined to lie more than 200 feet beyond the Green River and Springbrook Creek. See Addendum B: Wetland Analysis Report and attached plans. Phases II and III, and the DOT Phase lie outside the Shoreline of the Green River and Springbrook Creek and do not include intrusion into wetlands.. Construction of portions of Phase IV including the bridge across the river will be within 200 feet of the Green River. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from the surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. In Phase I, minor amounts of fill will be placed within wetlands as part of the widening of the existing road bed. Maximum fill width is proposed to be approximately six feet in several locations. Estimated total fill for the length of the trail is approximately 11,500 s.f. The bridge across the Green River will be a clear span. Abutments will be constructed above the ordinary high water line of the river. No encroachment is proposed into the river. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. City of Tukwila Inter- .rail /SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 11 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Phases I, II, III, and the DOT Phase lie outside the 100 year floodplains of Springbrook Creek and the Green River. The bridge in Phase IV will be constructed abovetear flood elevation. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground Water 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the systems are expected to serve. No waste materials will be generated or discharged from the use of the proposed trail. City of Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job N92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 12 c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other water? If so, describe. ptiA-P -2 t W- ig; °; d. 4. Plants a. Stormwater runoff will flow off the trail toward the surrounding uplands and wetlands. Since a dirt road (hard packed) already exists in the proposed location of the trail, no change is expected in the amount of runoff directed to the wetlands or uplands. A reduction in sediment transport can be anticipated as a result of paving over this sediment source. SWEcr Adjacent to wetlands, storm water will. but ow from the trail to the wetlands. In non- wetland areas, the trail will slope to one side and storm water will be collected in an infiltration trench under the shoulder of the trail. 2. Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No waste material will be generated by the project. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase I Sheets Al - C -12. See Horton Dennis Site Plans. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: City of Tukwila InterurbaL iail /SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 13 x deciduous trees: alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen trees: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass x pasture x crops or grains x wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, other x water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, x other x other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The majority of Phases I and II will be on an existing dirt, access road. No vegetation will be disturbed in these areas, however a portion of the access road is overgrown with invasive Reed Canary Grass and Blackberry which will be removed. North of Stander Boulevard approximately 200 feet of trail will be constructed through an existing pasture. No trees or shrubs will be removed. In Phase IV, some trees and shrubs may be removed along the eastern right -of -way of Interurban Ave. Clearing along the banks of the Green River will be limited to the construction zone for the bridge abutments. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. N No threatened or endangered species are known to use the site. Species observed near the site are listed in Addendum A: Wetland Analysis Report, Addendum El and E2, and Exhibit C. Natural Heritage Letter. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: City of Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 14 Where disturbance of wetland &l er occurs, revegetation and enhancement plantings will be installed to increase the functional value of these areas. A wetland mitigation site has been identified and a mitigation plan is proposed to compensate for wetland fill. Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase I Sheets E1 -2. Where space allows, landscaping will be added to the trail. See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase I Sheets LI -L11. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawks, heron, eagle, songbird, other: See Addendum A: Wetland Analysis Report Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: See Addendum A: Wetland Analysis Report Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: None. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to use the site, see Addendum El & E2: letters from Washington Dept. of Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program. However, eagles and heron are known to City of Tukwila Inter.._rail /SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 15 c. use the Green River so that observations would be expected in the vicinity of the site. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The Green River is part of migratory waterfowl routes. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Enhancement of buffer areas will be achieved through planting of fruit and nut bearing tree and shrub species where applicable. The proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan incorporates wildlife habitat enhancement as a design goal. See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase I Sheets El & E2. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Diesel fuel and gasoline will be required for equipment during construction. The trail will not require energy use except for long -term maintenance requirements. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: City of Tukwila Interurban Trail/SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 16 Not applicable. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Minor risks of petroleum product spills typical to construction are possible. No long term hazards are expected. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Railroad traffic, commercial, private, and helicopter aircraft traffic noise, and noise from West Valley Highway will affect the trail. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long -term basis (for City of Tukwila lnterurba.,, rail /SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 17 example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. During construction noise is expected from equipment operation. No long term noise is expected. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The area is already highly impacted by railroad traffic, industrial and aircraft generated noise. No measures are proposed to reduce these impacts. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Phase I of the trail is on an existing gravel road utilized by Puget Power as an access to the powerlines. Adjacent properties to the west are commercial and light industrial uses. Adjacent properties to the east are primarily wetlands and the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern railroad tracks. Phase II will be adjacent to commercial properties for approximately 300 feet, it will move to the east of the power line road through an active pasture for approximately 200 feet. The trail will then pass through the Embassy Suites Hotel parking lot and continue northerly between commercial properties to the 1 -405 right of way. The DOT Phase will be located inside I -405 right -of -way, with commercial properties to the south, and the railroad on the east. Phase 111 will be inside of Grady Way right -of -way and adjacent to businesses and several residences. City of Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 18 Phase IV will be constructed to the east of Interurban Ave. and west of a small undeveloped property. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Only a small portion of Phase II is located in agricultural land. c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? According to the City of Tukwila Interurban Special Review Area zoning map (revised 6-92), the proposed trail will be located in areas zoned M- 1 (light industry) to the south of 1 -405. North of 1 -405, the trail will be in an area mapped as "Interurban Special Review Area". This area is also zoned M -1. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. Open space. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Phases I, II, & III and the DOT Phase are located outside the Shoreline designation. Phase IV is located in the Tukwila Shoreline Area. City of Tukwila Interurb,_ rail /SEPA Job N92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 19 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify: Yes, wetlands are Located to the east and west through the majority of Phase 1. This area is identified as Wetland #12 in the City of Tukwila Wetlands Inventory. See Addendum A: Wetland Analysis Report. Phase IV will cross the Green River. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The use of the site as a recreational facility is compatible with the open space designation of the site. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether- -high, middle, or low- income housing. Vo.,,ir..9rrlC11.P( ..51lvx City of Tukwila Interurban Trail /SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 20 Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated. Indicate whether high, middle or low- income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas? What is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable. b. What view in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The trail will include a landscape plan to introduce some trees and shrubs to the area. See Exhibit B: Interurban Trail Phase I Sheets L1- L11. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? City of Tukwila Interurban_ rail /SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 21 No lighting is proposed for the majority of the trail. However, lighting will be provided for the portion of Phase Ill which passes under the Grady Way bridge. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None are known d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The Christensen Trail is located to the west of Phase I from Strander Boulevard along the west bank of the Green River. Phase IV will connect the Interurban Trail to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. City of Tukwila Interurban Trail/SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 22 • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts of recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The proposed project will create a recreational corridor in an area where none currently exists. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None are known to exist on site. See Addendum F. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14. Transportation Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on -site plans, if any. City of Tukwila Interurbs _..rail /SEPA Job #92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 23 The trail will connect to the existing Interurban Trail from Auburn and Kent. Access to the trail will also be available from 180th Ave. SE, Strander Boulevard, S 156th St., S 158th St. (I,ongacres Way), Grady Way, Interurban Ave., and Green River Trail at Southcenter Blvd. See Exhibit A: Vicinity Map. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Bus routes are located on Interurban Avenue and 180th. The nearest stop is approximately 500 feet to the west of the trail. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? No parking areas are planned for the trail system. No parking spaces will be lost. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No street or road improvements are required for Phases I, II, IV or the DOT Phase. A portion of Phase III will include improving Nelsen Place north of S 158th Street. In this area the trail will be constructed within portions of the Nelsen Place right -of -way and the Puget Power right -of- way. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The proposed trail is located just west of the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern railroad tracks. City of Tukwila Interurban Trail/SEPA Job N92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 24 g. How many vehicular trips per clay would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No vehicular trips will be generated by the trail. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Some minor increase in police and emergency services may be required for trail use. No other services are expected. b. Proposed measure to reduce or control direct impacts of public services, if any: None are proposed. 16. Utilities a. Circle . utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse services, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electrical service will be required for Phase III. City of Tukwila Interurb1 : rai /SEPA Job N92 -117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. September 1993 Page 25 Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or • in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electrical connections will be required for the lighted portions of Phase III. c. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I.understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Don Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation Date Submitted F 4.Dq.Y, SEPrEM15qC 3, /q93 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City of Tukwila . , • John W. Rants, Mayor DATE: Department of Public Works • M E M O R A N D U M Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner Bob Giberson, Senior Engineer Ross A. Earnst, P. E., Director RECFIVFfl NOV _, L 1993 DEVELOPMENT Interurban Trail - SEPA Checklist, L93 -0072 Project Nos. 92 -PK01, 92 -PK02 and 92 -PK03 October 27, 1993 Based on your memo and our discussions on October 15, 1993, I am submitting the following additional information so that the SEPA Checklist and plans can be routed for review and comment: 1. Revised SEPA Checklist describing the project in only three phases (the fourth phase will be amended to this SEPA in 1994 when the River trail crossing design is established. Previously acknowledged attachments are included. 2. Attached is your memo dated July 10, 1992 stating that a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit would not be required for this segment of trail as shown. It does not specifically state the phase of trail, only that the "segment of trail as shown" would not require a Shoreline permit. However, based on the memo attachments, Phases I, II and III are all greater than 200 feet from any shoreline of the State. 3. Letters from the Washington State Department of Wildlife the National Heritage Program have been inserted as attachments to the revised SEPA checklist. 4. Sheets L1 -L11, profile sheets and detail sheets are no longer referenced in the checklist, nor are they included with the revised SEPA checklist. Attachments as noted 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433-0179 • Fax (206) 431-3665 , :, City of Tukwila Department of Community Development M E M O R A N D U M TO: Bob Giberson FROM: Denni Shefrin g DATE: July 10, 1992 SUBJECT: Interurban Trail, Project No. 92 -PK01 q'z - P, /- John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director Substantial developments as defined in the Shoreline Act within 200 feet of any shoreline of the State which is not exempt by the Act or shoreline regulations, must receive a shoreline substantial development permit. Because the proposed trail improvements fall outside the 200 -foot dimension according to DRAWING NO. 91240RA prepared by Horton Dennis & Associates, Inc., a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit would not be required for this segment of trail as shown. C. Sve, Fo rue meis- r/ /2 He vi Y1 Its 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATE: iETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFANCE (MDNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCT A PAVED BICYCLE /PEDESTRIAN TRAIL. THE TRAIL WILL EXTEND FROM THE NORTHERN END -E3F THE INTERURBAN TRAIL IN KENT, NORTH APPROXIAMATELY TWO MILES TO CONNECT WITH THE GREEN RIVER TRAIL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF INTERSTATE 405 JUST EAST OF INTER- URBAN AVENUE (SEE MAP ATTACHED). PROPONENT: CITY OF TUKWILA - PARKS DEPARTMENT LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: PARCEL NO: SEC /TWN /RNG: E OF W VALLEY HY & W OF UNION PAC. RR R -O -W BET. S 181 ST LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: L93 -0072 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The conditions to this SEPA Determination are attached. Th i s_.. DNS p issued u der 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by . The lead agency will not act on this r••os- 5 days from the date below. . - ick Beeler, Responsible Official City of Tukwila, (206) 431 -3680 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above signature date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Department of Community Development. CITY TUKWILA CONDITIONS Address: Applicant: CITY OF TUKWILA-PARKS DEPT. Status: PENDING Permit No L93 -0072 Applied: 09/21/1993 Type: P -SEPA ;Approved: Location: E OF W VALLEY HY & W OF UNION PAC. RR R -O -W BET. S 181 ST Parcel #: Zoning: *********************************************** * * * * ** * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 1. THIS SEPA DETERMINATION COVERS PHASES :I, II: AND .:III ;:OF THE INTERURBAN TRAIL. THE PROPOSED TRAIL WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN AN EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY OWNED BY PUGETPOWER. PHASE I IS GENERALLY BOUNDED BY WETLANDS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE;`` ,EXISTING ROADBED. SOME INTRUSION INTO THESE WETLANDS WILL RESULT FROM TRAIL CONSTRUCTION. ..A REVISED WETLAND ANALYSIS AND PLAN DRAWINGS DATED 6/4/93 AND A WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT AND PLAN DRAWINGS DATED 3/8/94 HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. A FINAL WETLAND MITIGATION .AND .MONITORING PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. B- twelve Associates, Inc. INTERURBAN TRAIL, CITY OF TUKWILA REVISED WETLAND ANALYSIS REPORT PREPARED FOR CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD TUKWILA WASHINGTON 98188 BY B- TWELVE ASSOCIATES INC. 521 SOUTH WASHINGTON AVE. KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 June 4, 1993 (Job #92 -117) 521 South Washington Ave. • Kent. WA 98032 • 206/850 -0515 • Fay: 206/852-4732 B- twelve Associates, Inc. INTERURBAN TRAIL, CITY OF TUKWILA REVISED WETLAND ANALYSIS REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION The site is located primarily within the City of Tukwila, however, a small portion is located within the City of Kent (see Exhibit A). The proposed trail will be constructed within an existing right -of -way owned by Puget Power. There were no wetlands identified in the Kent portion of the site. The right -of -way consists of a 100 foot wide path starting from a point approximately 800 feet to the south of S. 180th Street. The easement continues in a northerly direction along the Puget Power maintainence road until it meets with State Route 405. The site generally consists of a power line access road constructed of historic fill placed in or through the edge of wetlands. Since the road has been in place for many years, the exact nature of the original wetlands is unclear. In most places, wetlands run along both sides of the access road up to Strander Boulevard. The hydrology of the wetlands has been separated by fill in several places along the route. This fill consists of soil, demolition debris, crushed rock, and in the vicinity of Stoneway Concrete Plant, poured concrete. Wetlands are separated by fill in several locations and as a result, drainage is very poor throughout the wetland complex. 2.0 FIELD METHODS Ed Sewall, Esther Howard and Terry Sullivan marked the wetland boundary on March 26 and April 3, 1992. A combination of field indicators (including vegetation, soils, topography, and hydrology) were used to determine wetland edges. The wetlands on site were identified using methodology in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). This is the methodology currently recognized by the City of Tukwila for wetland determinations and delineations. It should be noted that due to the abrupt change in topography along most of the wetlands, the wetland edge would be identical using the methodology described in Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Please note that professional interpretation of the wetland edge may vary depending on seasonal differences and long -term climatic conditions (i.e. drought or flood). Each point on the edge was marked with lime glow and blue flagging or surveyor's stakes and numbered sequentially. The wetland edge was flagged to the edge of the easement. The points were subsequently surveyed by Horton Dennis & Associates, Inc. (see Exhibit B /Wetland Edge Plans). 521 South Washivun Ave. • Kcnt. \VA 98031 • 106/85Q-0515 • 121\: 206/852-4732 City of Tukwila/Tukwila Interurban /Job 1192 -117 B- Twelve Associates, Inc June 4, 1993 Page 2 3.0 OBSERVATIONS 3.1 Uplands The topography of the site is generally flat, with steep fill banks dropping into the wetlands along the rights -of -way. The upland portions of the site consist of railroad tracks on gravel fill, paved surfaces, buildings and other structures, and garbage dump areas containing some pioneer and invasive plant species. The dominant plant in upland areas is Blackberry (Rubus discolor). Other common species found within the uplands consist of Cherry (Prunus emarginata), Red Alder (Alnus rubra), Willows (Salix spp.), Black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea), Thistle (Cirsium spp.), Yarrow (Achillea spp.), Bracken Fern (Pteridium aquilinum), Mullein (Verbascum thapsus), Tansy (Tanecetum vulgare), Rose (Rosa spp.) and Stinging Nettle (Urtica dioica). The remaining buffer surrounding the wetlands within the study area has been heavily impacted by development. Very little vegetated buffer exists within the study area, and that remaining is in very poor condition. 3.2 Soils There are five major soil types mapped for the study area according to the Soil Survey of King County; Urban Land (Ur), Woodinville silt loam (Wo), Puyallup fine sandy loam (Py), Puget silty clay loam (Pu), and Newberg silt loam (Ng) (see Exhibit C). The Woodinville and Puget soil series are considered Hydric soils according to the publication Hydric Soils of the United States. The Puyallup and Newberg soils are well drained, and like the other soil types mapped for this area, formed in alluvium. With few exceptions, soils within the wetlands in the study area were either fill or inundated with 1 foot or more of water and could not be observed. 3.3 Hydrology Most of the wetlands within the study area contained significant amounts of standing water. The water regime for these wetlands appears to be seasonally flooded for the scrub -shrub and forested areas, and semipermanently flooded for the emergent wetlands. Some, such as portions of wetland "3 ", appear to be constructed for stormwater detention. These constructed wetlands are generally exempt from regulation according to the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The wetlands located to the west of the access road are hydrologically connected to those located to the east through a 48" culvert located at the north end of wetland #2. The ditch in Wetland #3 does appear to receive water from the detention pond portion of the wetland (see Exhibit B). Water appears to enter the ditch only when water levels within the detention pond are high enough to overflow the shallow berm. In general, the wetlands to the west appear to be constructed, and function as stormwater detention areas. Section 3.3.1 (Taken from B- twelve's report entitled "Southeast CBD Drainage Basin Study - City of Tukwila Wetland Analysis Report" dated December 16, 1992 ") details the surficial hydrology of the wetland complex surrounding the proposed Trail location. 3.3.1 Existing surficial hydrology. Most of the wetlands within the study area appear to retain large quantities of stormwater. To assist in identifying locations of culverts, station numbers are used. These stations are from the HDA survey for the Tukwila Interurban Trail. Following rainfall on 4- 30 -92, Wetland "3" City of Tukwila/Tukwila Interurban /Job #92 -117 B- Twelve Associates, Inc June 4, 1993 Page 3 was observed to have an increased volume of water compared to previous observations. This water appears to flow from the area referred to as the detention pond (by overflowing a small berm) eastward into the ditch. Water within the ditch had a very slight northward flow. Approximately halfway down the ditch, in the vicinity of the sewer line crossing, flow is less than observable. The wetlands located to the west of the access road are hydrologically connected to those located to the east through a 48" culvert located at the north end of wetland #2, approximately 34' north of station 23 +00. Water within Wetland "1" is hydrologically connected to Wetland "11" by a 24" culvert that passes under the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the east, approximately 20' south of station 16 +00. There was no detectable flow within this pipe, although the pipe was approximately half full of water. It is suspected that water does flow from Wetland "1", to the east into Wetland "11" during periods of heavy precipitation. Generally, the pipe appears to act as an equalizer between these two wetlands. Wetland "11" appears to receive water from direct precipitation, possibly groundwater, and surface water flow directed through culverts from Wetlands "1", "2" and "8". Although a surficial flow pattern is not evident within this wetland, water does exit through two 36" culverts at a constant rate and is directed into the large wetland complex, located off -site to the east of the BNR track (off -site wetland W -3 and uninventoried forested wetland). There is also a culvert connecting to an uninventoried wetland located to the east, within the City of Renton. There was no water in this culvert. Although evidence of flow (water born debris) was observed in the culvert, it is suspected to occur only during periods of very high water levels. Surface water within Wetland complex "3" flows through a 48" culvert (located approximately 34' north of station 23 +00) into Wetland #2. The inverts of this culvert indicate flow travels to the west. However, when a head of water builds up within Wetland complex "3" this water flows through the culvert to the east entering Wetland "2". This wetland appears to have once been part of Wetland "1 ", but was historically separated by the placement of fill. Surface water flows from Wetland "2" into Wetland "11" through the east end of a 36" culvert located approximately 34' south of station 23 +00. All water within Wetland "2" appears to be from direct precipitation, overland flow and at certain times of the year, possibly groundwater. Wetlands 4,5,6,7,9 and 10 all appear to be hydrologically isolated. These wetlands have no apparent surface connection to any other wetlands or surface water feature. Water enters these wetlands from overland flow, direct precipitation and possibly groundwater. Evaporation and transpiration being the most obvious outlets for water within these features. It is also possible that a subsurface hydrologic connection between these wetlands and those in close proximity exists. This appears dependent upon the permeability of the highly variable fill surrounding each wetland. 3.3.2 Possible Impacts from changes in hydrology. Most of the wetlands located to the east of the Puget Power access road appear to have a highly fluctuating water table. If the hydrology of these wetlands were modified, significant changes will likely occur in the plant communities. Increased water into these wetlands, especially a longer residence time, would probably result in a shift in species composition to more flood tolerant species. This shift could change not only species composition, but structural composition as well. The portions of these wetlands which appear to be most susceptible to change are dominated by Black Cottonwood. These areas are generally City of Tukwila/Tukwila Interurban /Job 1192 -117 B- Twelve Associates, Inc June 4, 1993 Page 4 seasonally flooded. A shift to a much wetter water regime would likely eliminate these trees. Black Cottonwoods do not typically withstand long periods of inundation as do willow dominated wetlands. The willow dominated wetlands appear more successful at surviving long periods of inundation. Areas wetter than the Willow dominated areas (semipermanently flooded) in the study area are dominated by shrub species such as Douglas Spirea. A radical change to an intermittently exposed or permanently flooded water regime would likely result in these scrub -shrub areas becoming emergent marshes. Wetland #W -3 located off -site to the east of the BNR tracks, appears to have undergone this transformation. This 6 acre wetland is referred to in the City of Renton's Wetland Inventory as wetland W -3 (Orillia Pond). Many snags (4 -6 inch dbh) remain in what is now an emergent marsh. These snags are the remainder of a forested area, probably wetland, which was transformed into a marsh by a change in water regime. This change is most likely due to an increase in water to the wetland from the west, and /or a blocked drainage causing water to be retained in the wetland nearly year round. According to the City of Renton Wetland Inventory, this wetland is blocked with no outlet. Historically, water appears to have exited this wetland into a slough, located to the east. This slough appears to be the historic channel of Springbrook Creek. Review of topographic maps taken from aerial photos from 1962, reveals a stream, exiting the northeast side of Orillia Pond, and leading directly to within 100 feet of the slough. At this point, the maps show the stream to end, probably because the channel was obstructed from view during photo interpretation. Although not shown on any maps, a ditch was observed in the field to lead from the southeastern end of this wetland, under a dirt road in a culvert, in the direction of Springbrook Creek. This ditch is blocked with fill and waste (ground rubber) near the bend of the dirt access road entering the property bordering the east side of Orillia Pond. Review of April 1992 aerial photographs of the site indicates water exits the north end of Orillia Pond, flowing to the north under the railroad spur. This flow occurs in a ditch directed to wetlands to the northeast, in the City of Renton. The ditch appears to be surrounded by an uninventoried forested wetland for most of its length. At a point parallel to the end of Oaksdale Blvd., this ditch takes a right angle turn to the east, connecting to wetlands adjacent to Springbrook Creek. This ditch is depicted on maps 4 & 5 of the Streams and 100 Year Floodplains in the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio. At the point where the ditch turns to the east, it proceeds along City of Renton inventoried wetland "W -13 ". This wetland is described as being hydrologically connected to Springbrook Creek, which is also listed as its outlet. The wetland adjacent to Springbrook Creek and to the east of "W -13" is known as wetland W -12 according to the City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory map. According to the Critical Areas Inventory Report (Jones & Stokes 1991), wetland W -12 is a 41 acre wetland that is the highest ranked wetland within the City of Renton. This wetland contains high quality wildlife habitat and is hydrologically connected by stream flow, to Springbrook Creek to the east. Although connections between wetlands on -site and Springbrook appear to exist on the photographs and in City of Renton Documents, we did not conduct a thorough field check of this off -site area to verify this connection. An inspection of this connection is necessary to positively determine this connection. City of Tukwila/Tukwila Interurban /Job #92 -117 B- Twelve Associates, Inc June 4, 1993 Page 5 4.0 WETLAND DESCRIPTIONS - (SOILS- VEGETATION - HYDROLOGY) Wetland #1 Wetland "1" was delineated with blue and lime -glo flagging sequentially numbered Al -Al2. The wetland is linear in shape and is approximately 0.6 acres in size. The edge of this wetland, like most on the site, is very obviously defined along the base of the steep slopes. This wetland contains both forested and scrub -shrub classes. The forested areas are dominated by Sitka Willow (Salix sitchensis), with a shrub layer comprised of Red -Osier Dogwood (Corpus stolonifera), Douglas Spirea (Spirea douglasif), and Sitka Willow. The scrub -shrub areas are dominated by the previously mentioned shrubs with the addition of Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis). Scrub shrub appears to be the dominant wetland class. This wetland contained up to 36 inches of standing water. The water regime for most of the wetland appears to be seasonally flooded, however, portions may have a semipermanently flooded water regime (Cowardin et al. 1979). A corrugated pipe (approximately 24 inches in diameter) links the northern end of this wetland to wetlands located between the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. There is also a 36 inch diameter pipe linking these wetlands to wetlands to the east of the railroad tracks. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification method (Cowardin et al. 1979), this wetland would contain areas classified as PFO1C (Palustrine, Forested Broad leaved deciduous, Seasonally Flooded) and PSS1C (Palustrine, Scrub - Shrub, Broad leaved deciduous, Seasonally Flooded). Due to the hydrologic connection to a Type 1 wetland (located between the Union Pacific tracks and the BNR tracks to the east, City of Tukwila Inventoried Wetland #12), this wetland would be considered a Type 1 wetland according to the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Typically, Type 1 wetlands receive a 100 foot buffer, however, there is no remaining undisturbed buffer surrounding this wetland. Buildings, paved surfaces, and the access road currently occupy the buffer. The southern end of this wetland is where fill may be temporarily placed if a tunnel is constructed to pass under S. 180th Street in the future. This area, currently has fill slopes of construction debris, and all of the vegetation has been killed. It is appears that the area has been sprayed with an herbicide to remove all of the vegetation. Wetland #2 Wetland #2 was delineated with blue and lime -glo flagging sequentially numbered B1 -B14 connected to C2 -C12. This wetland contains a forested wetland class (PFO1) dominated by Black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) with lesser amounts of Pacific Willow (Salix lasiandra), Sitka Willow, and Oregon Ash (Fraxinus latifolia). The scrub -shrub (PSS1C) (Palustrine, Scrub - Shrub, Broad leaved deciduous, Seasonally Flooded) portions of the wetland are comprised of Red -Osier Dogwood, Douglas Spirea, and Sitka Willow. There is also a large emergent area dominated by Cattails (T)ypha latifolia) which would be classified as PEM1F (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Semipermanently Flooded). The forested and scrub -shrub portions of the wetland appear to have a seasonally flooded water regime, while the emergent area appears to have longer inundation, resulting in a semipermanently flooded water regime. A culvert is located on the east side of this wetland leading east, to Wetland "11". There was approximately 3 inches of water flowing to the east in this culvert. Due to the hydrologic connection to Wetland "11", this wetland would be considered a Type 1 wetland according to the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Typically, Type 1 City of Tukwila /Tukwila Interurban /Job //92 -117 B- Twelve Associates, Inc June 4, 1993 Page 6 wetlands receive a 100 foot buffer, however, there is no remaining undisturbed buffer surrounding this wetland. Wetland #3 Wetland #3 was delineated with blue and lime -glo flagging sequentially numbered D1 -D11 connected to C2 connected to B15 -B36. This wetland system consists of sections of jurisdictional wetland connected by a man made drainage ditch on the west side of the Puget Power access road. Historical photographs indicate this area was formerly used as a cultivated field. Most of this ditch is vegetated with scrub -shrub vegetation such as Red -Osier Dogwood, Sitka Willow and Douglas Spirea. Some areas are dominated by emergents consisting of Reed Canary Grass and Cattail. Water was observed to stand 1 -3 feet deep in this ditch with no visible movement. There is a forested wetland dominated by Black Cottonwood which has formed in an old detention pond abutting the southern end of the ditch. According to Gary Schulz, Wetland Scientist for the City of Tukwila, this detention pond was built in the 1970's and is exempt from regulation. During our site visit the detention pond contained 18 inches of standing water which had overflowed its berm into the ditch. It appears that the runoff from adjacent commercial and industrial sites enters this ditch indirectly through the detention pond overflow, or overland flow on its banks. However, a small area of emergent wetland, dominated by a Reed -Canary Grass monoculture, and located behind NC Machinery (adjacent to the south side of the detention pond) is regulated. This area would be classified as PEM1C ( Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded). This area would be considered a Type 3 wetlands according to the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Typically, Type 3 wetlands receive a 25 foot buffer, however, there is no remaining undisturbed buffer surrounding these wetlands. In addition, the forested portion of this wetland located behind the Hartung facility also would be regulated. Due to the presence of a forested class, this wetland would be considered a Type 2 wetland according to the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Typically, Type 2 wetlands receive a 50 foot buffer, however, there is no remaining undisturbed buffer surrounding this wetland. Buildings, paved surfaces, and the access road currently occupy the buffer. According to the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance, constructed wetlands are exempt from the wetland regulations. Those areas of this wetland that have been constructed as a drainage facility are exempt from regulation. Wetland #4 Wetland #4 was delineated with blue and lime -glo flagging sequentially numbered E1 -E20. This wetland appears to have historically been the northern portion of wetland "2" prior to the construction of the rail spur that now separates them. This wetland is dominated by a forested wetland class (PFO1C) (Palustrine, Forested, Broad leaved deciduous, Seasonally Flooded) with smaller scrub -shrub areas (PSS1C) ( Palustrine, Scrub - Shrub, Broad leaved deciduous, Seasonally Flooded) also present. The forested portion of the wetland is dominated by Black Cottonwood with a shrub layer of Red -Osier Dogwood, Sitka Willow, Pacific Willow, Salmonberry and Douglas Spirea. Some forested portions of the wetland are dominated by willows. The Scrub -shrub class is comprised of the above described shrub species. Skunk Cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) is also commonly found in the herbaceous layer. Due to the presence of a forested class, this wetland would be considered a Type 2 wetland according to the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Typically, Type 2 wetlands City of Tukwila/Tukwila Interurban /Job #92 -117 B- Twelve Associates, Inc June 4, 1993 Page 7 receive a 50 foot buffer, however, there is no remaining undisturbed buffer surrounding this wetland. Buildings, paved surfaces, and the access road currently occupy the buffer. Wetlands #5, #6 & #7 Wetlands #5, #6 & #7 were delineated with blue and lime -glo flagging sequentially numbered F1 -F5, G1 -G7 and H1 -H5, respectively. These wetlands appear to be small portions of wetland "4" which were isolated by fill. During our inspection of these wetlands, approximately 18 inches of standing water was observed in the center of each depression. This water was stagnant with no visible movement. There does not appear to be any hydrologic connection of these wetlands to any of the surrounding wetlands. These areas are vegetated with Douglas Spirea, Reed Canary Grass and Blackberry (Rubus spp.). Garbage and fill has intruded into these wetlands leaving very little functional value other than a small water storage capacity. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification method (Cowardin et al. 1979), these wetlands would be classified as PSS1C ( Palustrine, Scrub - Shrub, Broad leaved deciduous, Seasonally Flooded). Due to the small size and single wetland class, these areas would be considered Type 3 wetlands according to the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Typically, Type 3 wetlands receive a 25 foot buffer, however, there is no remaining undisturbed buffer surrounding these wetlands. Buildings, paved surfaces, and the access road currently occupy the buffer. Wetland #8 Wetland #8 was delineated with blue and lime -glo flagging sequentially numbered I1 -I27. Three wetland classes are present in this wetland, forested (PFO1C) ( Palustrine, Forested, Broad leaved deciduous, Seasonally Flooded), scrub -shrub (PSS1C) (Palustrine, Scrub - Shrub, Broad leaved deciduous, Seasonally Flooded) and emergent (PEM1F) ( Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent Semipermanently Flooded). The forested section is dominated by Pacific Willow with smaller quantities of Black Cottonwood and Sitka Willow in the overstory. The shrub layer in the forested portion of the wetland is vegetated with saplings of the same species in addition to Red -Osier Dogwood and Salmonberry. The scrub -shrub sections of the wetland contain Red -Osier Dogwood, Salmonberry and Douglas Spirea, in addition to Blackberry along the edges. The emergent section is dominated by a mix of Cattail, Reed -Canary Grass and Nightshade (Solanum spp.). This wetland contained up to 36 inches of standing water during our site inspections. The water in this wetland appeared relatively stagnant, however, a 36 inch corrugated pipe was found at the end of a ditch at the north end of the wetland. This pipe provides a hydrologic connection to wetlands located to the east. Water appears to enter this pipe and flow to the east under the Union Pacific tracks. According to Gary Schulz, the wetlands to the east are considered Type 1 wetlands. The hydrologic connection between these wetlands results in this wetland also being categorized as a Type 1 wetland according to the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Type 1 wetlands typically have a 100 foot buffer placed upon them. Buildings, paved surfaces, and the access road currently occupy the buffer. Wetland #9 Wetland #9 was delineated with blue and lime -glo flagging sequentially numbered J1 -J5. This emergent wetland is located in a shallow depression between the access road and a building. Soils within this wetland consist of fill, primarily sand and gravel. The dominant plant species City of Tukwila/Tukwila Interurban /Job //92 -117 B- Twelve Associates, Inc June 4, 1993 Page 8 within this wetland consist of Cattail and Reed Canary Grass. During our site inspection water was observed to stand at a depth of 10 inches in this wetland. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification method (Cowardin et al. 1979), this wetland would contain areas classified PEM1F (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Semipermanently Flooded). According to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification method ( Cowardin et al. 1979), this wetland would contain areas classified PEM1F ( Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Semipermenently Flooded). This area appears to be a portion of the constructed ditch that was separated by fill. As a constructed wetland it would not be protected under the regulations. Wetland #10 Wetland #10 was delineated with blue and lime -glo flagging sequentially numbered K1 -K9. This wetland consists primarily of a forested area dominated by an overstory of Black Cottonwood, with a shrub layer of Salmonberry and Blackberry. Unlike the other wetlands located on the site, the soils found within this wetland did not consist of fill. Soils were found to have 12 inches of saturated, 10YR 2/2 sandy loam, overlying a sandy loam with a matrix of 2.5Y 3/2 and 10YR 3/4 mottles. There is a ditch along the east side of this wetland that appears constructed and contained approximately 1 foot of standing water. The wetland around the ditch consisted of the same soils as the forested area, but was entirely vegetated with Reed Canary Grass. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification method (Cowardin et al. 1979), this wetland would contain areas classified as PEM1F ( Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent Semipermenently Flooded), PEM1C ( Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent Seasonally Flooded), and PFO1C (Palustrine, Forested, Broad leaved deciduous, Seasonally Flooded). Due to the presence of a forested class, this wetland would be considered a Type 2 wetland according to the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Typically, Type 2 wetlands receive a 50 foot buffer, however, there is no remaining undisturbed buffer surrounding this wetland. 5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONS /VALUES The most obvious function that these wetlands provide is the storage of stormwater runoff. Essentially, these wetlands act as a regional detention facility for the surrounding businesses and industries. They also appear to have the ability to store a significant amount of runoff following storm events. Most of the stormwater is directed into the wetlands on the western side of the access road. Portions of these wetlands appear to be constructed to store runoff. Drainage enters from businesses along West Valley Highway, located between the site and the Green River. Generally, flow is to the east, towards Orillia Pond in the City of Renton. Water within Ori llia Pond appears to be hydrologically connected to Springbrook Creek by a ditch. Review of aerial photographs taken in mid April, 1992, reveals water exiting the north end of Orillia Pond, flowing to the north under the railroad spur. This flow occurs in a ditch directed to wetlands to the northeast in Renton. The ditch appears to be surrounded by wetland, and at a point parallel to the end of Oaksdale Ave., takes a right angle turn to the east, connecting to wetlands adjacent to Springbrook Creek. The wetland adjacent to Springbrook Creek is known as wetland W -12 according to the City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory map. City of Tukwila/Tukwila Interurban /Job 1/92 -117 B- Twelve Associates, Inc June 4, 1993 Page 9 Another important function these wetlands perform is the improvement of water quality. This is especially true of the emergent portions of the wetlands. Vegetation within the wdfland functions to trap sediment and remove contaminants from the surface water. Aquatic plants have been effective in treatment of a number of pollution problems, including nutrient removal, uptake of metals and organics, reductions of pathogenic bacteria, and neutralizing extremes of pH (Kulzer, 1990). The emergent wetland classes observed throughout the wetland complex containing Reed -Canary Grass, Cattail (7)pha latifolia), and Soft Rush (Juncus efff sus) are especially adept at performing heavy metal and nutrient contaminant removal. These wetlands may be isolated from groundwater, being perched on an impervious layer. However, test borings indicate it is probable that groundwater does influence these wetlands. Test borings in the vicinity of the wetlands #1 & #3, along S. 180th Street indicate groundwater is approximately 16 feet above mean sea level. The surface of the wetlands in this area is approximately 20 feet above sea level, with the bottoms more likely between 16 -18 feet above sea level, and the saturated zone lower than this. Due to close proximity of • groundwater elevations to the wetland elevations, it is highly likely that groundwater does interface with the wetlands at some time. It is also likely that the natural wetlands in the area formed in what was historically the floodplain of the Green River. As a result of diking and development, these wetlands no longer appear to be hydrologically connected to the Green River. The wetlands on the east side of the access road are hydrologically connected to wetlands to the east of the tracks (Orillia Pond), which appear to be hydrologically connected to Springbrook Creek. Although heavily impacted by man, these wetlands still offer good habitat to many species of wildlife. They offer one of the few remaining undeveloped tracts of land in the area. This large wetland complex offers a refuge to wildlife from the surrounding urban land uses, in addition, it offers some appeal as open space in this heavily urbanized area. Waterfowl commonly utilize the emergent portions of the wetlands. Species observed utilizing the wetlands include Great Blue Heron, Mallards, Canada Geese, Green Backed Heron and Redheads. Songbirds are also plentiful within the wetlands with Red - winged Blackbirds, Goldfinches, Marsh Wrens and various warblers being observed. Raptors such as Red -tail Hawks, Rough - legged Hawks, Marsh Hawks and Kestrels were also observed on the site and its immediate vicinity. Skunks, Raccoons, Opossums, and Garter Snakes are also common inhabitants of the site. 6.0 REGULATIONS In addition to the City of Tukwila wetland regulations previously described for each wetland, certain activities (filling and dredging) within "waters of the United States" may fall under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). If fill is to be placed within wetlands that fall under Federal Jurisdiction, then a Section 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers will be required. If the wetlands on this site are considered "isolated" or "headwaters ", a Nationwide Permit may be appropriate. However, telephone conversations with Jack.Kennedy (Regulatory Branch of the Seattle District, ACOE) revealed that all of these wetlands (except for constructed portions) would be considered adjacent to Springbrook Creek and /or the Green River unless a natural break or separation exists or did exist. There is no City of Tukwila/Tukwila Interurban/Job #92 -117 B- Twelve Associates, Inc June 4, 1993 Page 10 natural break, therefore, these wetlands are considered " duce . Any work within these wetlands would require going through the Individual Permit process. 7.0 PROPOSED IMPACTS TO WETLAND AND BUFFER AREA The proposed project is to construct an extension of the Interurban Trail through City of Tukwila. The project will involve the construction of a 12 foot wide, paved bike path, with a 2 foot wide, gravel shoulders on each side of the existing 10 foot wide access road. The path will be located within the buffer. However, there is no functional buffer remaining, and the location of the path already contains a dirt access road. The proposed path has been designed to minimize impacts to wetlands as much as possible. The design of this mitigation will be based on the findings of this report and the "Southeast CBD Drainage Basin Study - City of Tukwila Wetland Analysis Report" dated December 16, 1992. The proposed trail has been designed to avoid wetlands wherever possible. This includes a reduction in the width of the trail and meandering of the alignment to avoid wetlands. However, existing conditions require that some wetland fill will occur. This fill occurs in ten locations along the trail and ranges from 100ft2- 4,325ft2 in size. The total area of wetland fill for the trail alignment is 13,100ft2. According to Section 3.18.45.080.2 of the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance, compensatory mitigation for wetland fill will be required at a ratio of 1.5:1 (created:filled). This ratio would require 19,650ft2 of wetland to be created to compensate for the filled wetland. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call us at 859 -0515. Sincerely, Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist 92117WA2.doc City of Tukwila/Tukwila Interurban /Job #92 -117 B- Twelve Associates, Inc. June 4, 1993 PAGE 11 - REFERENCES REFERENCES B- twelve Associates, Inc. 1992. Southeast CBD Drainage Basin Study - City of Tukwila Wetland Analysis Report. Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS /OBS- 79 -31, Washington, D. C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y -87 -1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. (Cooperative technical publication). Hitchcock, C. and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Jones and Stokes, 1991. Critical Areas Inventory, City of Renton Wetlands and Stream Corridors. King County Planning Division. 1983. King County Wetlands Inventory Notebook, Vols. 1- 3. King County Courthouse, Seattle, Washington. Kulzer, L., 1990. Water Pollution Control Aspects of Aquatic Plants. Seattle Metro, 38p. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. Reed, P., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). 1988. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland Freshwater Ecology Section, St. Petersburg, Florida. Snyder, D., P.. Gale, and R. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey King County Area Washington. U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Steward, A. , L. Dennis, and H. Gilkey. 1963. Aquatic Plants of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1988. Soil Taxonomy. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida. City of Tukwila/Tukwila Interurban /Job#92 -117 B- twelve Associates, June 4, 1993 PAGE 12 - PLANTS PLANTS OBSERVED IN WETLANDS AT PROPOSED TUKWILA INTERURBAN TRAIL Indicator Categories Obligate Wetland (OBL). Occur almost always (estimated probability >99 %) under natural conditions in wetlands. Facultative Wetland (FACW), Usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67 %- 99 %), but occasionally found in nonwetlands. Facultative (FAC). Equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands (estimated probability 34 %-66%). Facultative Upland (FACU). Usually occur in nonwetlands(estimated probability 67 %- 99 %), but occasionally found in wetlands (1%-33%). Not Listed (NL). Do not appear on the list. Usually upland plants, or groups of plants (e.g. mosses) not included on the list. NI. Appear on the list, but have not been assigned an indicator status. + More frequently found in wetlands. - Less frequently found in wetlands. Trees Alnus rubra Fraxinus latifolia Populus balsamifera Salix lasiandra Salix scouleriana Salix sitchensis Shrubs Corpus stolonifera Cytisus scoparius Lonicera involucrata Oemleria cerasifonnis Prunus emarginata Rosa nutkana Rubus discolor Red Alder Oregon Ash Black Cottonwood Pacific Willow Scouler Willow Silica Willow Red -osier Dogwood Broom Twinberry Indian Plum Bitter Cherry Nootka Rose Himalayan Blackberry Indicator Status FAC FACW FAC FACW FAC FACW FACW NL FAC NL NL NI FACU City of Tukwila/Tukwila Interurban /Job#92 -117 B- twelve Associates, June 4, 1993 PAGE 13 - PLANTS Herbs Rubus laciniatus Rubus spectabilis Rubus spp. Salix spp. Salix lasiandra Salix scouleriana Salix sitchensis Sambucus racemosa Spiraea douglasii Symphoricarpos albus Cirsium spp. Epilobium angustifolium Epilobium ciliatum Galium spp. Geranium robertianum Gewn macrophyllum Lysichitum americanum Mentha arvensis Oenanthe sarmentosa Polygonum hydropiperoides Ranunculus repens Rumex crispus Rumex spp. Solanum dulcamara Solidago spp. Trifolium spp. Typha latifolia Urtica dioica Veronica scutellata Sedges/Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Agrostis alba Agrostis spp. Alopecurus pratensis Alopecurus sp. Athyrium filix-femina Carex obnupta Carex sp. Equisetwn arvense Equisetum sp. Evergreen Blackberry Salmonberry Blackberry Willow Pacific Willow Scouter Willow Sitka Willow Red Elderberry Hardhack Snowberry Thistle Fireweed Hairy Willow -herb Bedstraw Robert's Geranium Large- leaved Avens Skunk Cabbage Field Mint Water Parsley Marsh Pepper Smartweed Creeping Buttercup Curly Dock Dock Bittersweet Nightshade Goldenrod Clover Cattail Stinging Nettle Marsh Speedwell Redtop Bentgrass Bentgrass Meadow Foxtail Foxtail Grass Lady Fern Slough Sedge Sedge Field Horsetail Horsetail FACU FAC FACW FAC FACW FACU FACW FACU FACU FACW NL FACW OBL FAC OBL OBL FACW FACW FAC OBL FAC+ OBL FACW FACW FAC OBL FAC '; ...... City of Tukwila/Tukwila Interurban /Job#92 -117 B- twelve Associates, June 4, 1993 PAGE 14 - PLANTS Festuca arundinacea Juncus effiusus Juncus tenuis Juncus spp. Lemna minor Phalaris arundinacea Polystichum munitum Pteridium aquilinum Scirpus microcarpus Kentucky Fescue Soft Rush Slender Rush Rush Duckweed Reed Canary Grass Sword Fern Bracken Fern Small- fruited Bulrush FACU FACW FAC OBL FACW NL FACU OBL NORTH EXHIBIT A : Vicinity Map Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. It is'unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. B- twelve Associates, Inc. Ecological Systems Design & Management 521 South Washington Ave. • Kent, WA 98032 Job No.: 92 -II? Date: Drawn By: -its Checked By: Revised: By: 6 -3 -13 INTERURBAN TRAIL CITY OF TUKWILA, .WA 100 YEAR FLOOD SCALE gist FEET EXHIBIT B.: AREAS MAPPED BY 1989 FEMA STUDY SHOWING 100 YEAR ROOD AREAS BEYOND RIV67 BANK !.E 20.691 LE 20.501 ELEV. - 235 (NEST VALLEY PO 100 YEAR ROOD ELEV. -17.2 icts approximate locations of ientified by B- twelve Associates Ind edges were mapped off April 1 photographs. Wetland edges elineated- or formally surveyed. 36' CM? LE 18.71 LE 17.56 8.N.2.2. L.NWVEVTORIED FORESTED WETLAND SEE CITY OF RENTON DRAWING FOR SPRINGBROOK CREEK - P -1 CHANNEL ALTERNATES 36' CMP LE 16.72 LE 16.79 DRAINAGE COLRSE EAST OF CU-VT IS NOT APPARENT UVIIWEVTORIED CITY OF REVTON WETLAND W -13 TO SPRINGBROOK CREEK VIA WE17 -AND W -12 SPRINGBROOK CREEK 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEV.- 14.6 AT STRANDER EXTENDED B- twelve Associates, Inc. Ecological Systems Design & Management 521 South Washington Ave. • Kent. WA 98032 INTERURBAN TRAIL CITY OF TUKWILA, : WA Job No.: 92 -!1? Date: 6-4.73 Drawn By: i K 5 Checked By: Revised: By: 100 YEAR ROOD Et_EV. - 26.8 17 GpEEN 17 \ I7 18' tr,L VA "P2 250 0 250 SCALE IN Feel' 500 750 'eft 4- r; CLTJI m� --1 } J I nnt 71 i A V. S. : _1' l� 17 �: JI j o o o'er ;Id 45 ° �D n n= I- - -iJ 1 -(tea 1-.-.. t �J J ,, >/ J r! � 1 - -- o_,1 13 G, C.ht 57.P. E P. 2R. } \N. "n 1 POT/ON EXHIBI AREAS MAPPED BY 1989 FPMA STWY VOWING 100 YEAR 9.000 AREAS BEYOND RIVER BAN' Wair U 43' DETN 1 I �111�i111111 11 48'C ..; I 1 1 1 1 1 3C 1 I.E 18 ,,, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LE 18.46 ,,,, - -J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I' ,,,, I IH 1—FI 1-1- I It- F I .1� I /iJT.�r�YY��.1..•••••• r- K.. - �di. r11� � ==== K�ii� ©_ Q1i�i�ii. iffigilinsitiirimar Oi7� I i t I I I I i 1 I I I I I I i I III VIII III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1II111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I l t l I t 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIII11111I1111111111111111111111111111111I11111I111I1 111111 1,11111 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1+ 1 1 1 1. 36' CMD 1E 18.35 LE 18.25 24' \ /•� a- J � WEST VALLEY,ZO 1 0 L1 • 36' CA/P 1.E 18.71 l.E 17.56 E�N.R2 • 100 YEAR ROOD ELEV. - 1Z2 24' CM' fI I.E 1936 I.E. 1928 I1 ►Map depicts approximate locations of wetlands identified by B- twelve Associates Inc. Wetland edges were mapped off April 1992 aerial photographs. Wetland edges were not delineated- or formally surveyed. 0 0 0 fn , • 0 0 UVINVE NTORIED FORES7EFD VVETiAND SEE CITY OF RENTON DRAWING FOR SPRINGBROOK CREEK - P -1 CHANNEL AL TERNA TES 36' CMP LE 16.72 1.E 16.79 0 36' C !E 2 1.E 2 DRAINAGE C EAST OF CU - - NOT APPARE UVINVENFORIED I CITY OF RENTON WETLAND W -13 TO SPRIM BROOK CREEK VIA WETLAND W -12 SPR/NJGBROOK GREEK 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEV.- AT STRANGER E3CTETDED B-twelve, ECO�_ 521 South CIT Job No.: Drawn B Revised: 1 Ur- NORTH B- twelve Associates, Inc. Ecological Systems Design & Management 521 South Washington Ave. • Kent, WA 98032 Job No.: qtr n-1- Date: Drawn By: kS Checked By: Revised: 13y: 5-17 -1'1- :EIBIT D National Wetlands Inventory Map .1)1111111:4°1711 c .3_creS 11 _ wr i .'• PEW, , . E at+` • ' ' .... B CP OG — !• I I ;a PEMC v PAM& PEMC PS! ,,PFoc__ PSSF P55C PUSH PSSF 3;1 Ftesyvoir P55C • PA%N Pss ITE PFO PEMA ?EMC PEM PUBFtx 1 PFc PSSC PEMC-t P55Cx PSSA .PEMCY I. nRr NORTH ate: hecked By: y: 5 -v- -9'2 B- twelve Associates, Inc. Ecological Systems Design & Management 521 South Washineton Ave. • Kent, WA 98032 INTERURBAN TRAIL CITY OF TUKWILA, WA. 8-twelve Associates, Inc. Job // Wetland ✓ Upland Other . WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM Applicant Application Project Name: cif) of T,,KNII., .//: Name: TotCwit- T,✓hrvr{sc..✓ Tr ) State: wF} County K;Ns Sample Name: Date: -3-11- Plot #: Wet/A-4 . Determined by: £rt Sc l/ Vegetation Species Ind. Status Species Ind. Status Trees 1. s, 1, is Fr-0"/ 2. Herbs 7. 8. 3. 9. Saplings /shrubs Woody vines 4. co,>.„ s +o%. . FA-c-61 10. Frjc ✓ 11. 6. P.,h,s Seed4,4.2,s FRS 12. % of spp. OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: iaa Comments: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes tNo . Basis: ioo % t le() Q\14- s Soil Series and Phase: Fi lk Subgroup: On hydric soils list? Yes_ No_. Depth Munsell Color Texture Remarks (0 in) matrixlmottle t $in. 5,4.01* 7, -.1.4 4 li in. in. in. Comments: Hydric soils: Yes v No : Basis: ,A ilvvd A .,. /:.fr#,d,fi.l >30 01411.7.3 -lke, g.-oweAl s e• s ow . Hydrology Inundated: Yes ✓ No . Depth of standing water: 3c Saturated soil: Yes ✓ No . Depth to sat. soil: s„ ►tee Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology: Yeses No . Basis: S4f ,LLl .+ f•ove►d.,f41 > 30 d47a aore?" Atypical situation: Yes 'No ✓ . Normal circumstances: Yes ✓ No Wetland Determination: Wetland ✓ Nonwetland Comments: .ti„ 9row er^7 sCD.5•■•■ I3- twelve Associates, Inc. Applicant Name: co- of -RA64►� State: wA Date: �- Vegetation Species Trees 1. 4(.s 2. Job 11 qZ —(.%"?— Wetland ✓ Upland Other WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM Application #1: County K; N3 Plot r: Wct/f ?- Ind. Status Herbs 3. Saplings /shrubs 4. S.J, x s, fch..t CS 5. Co. -Nvs Project Name: `r'u k. „rtvli4 • . _ Tr-, j+ Sample Name: r Determined by: £ce St ti - // Species Ind. Status 7. Ty 8. PAa /■r 3 9. Woody vines 10. 11. N u�� �• GCS 6. 12. % of spp. OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: i v . Comments: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes ✓No . Basis: /w% 411.r•o�` 4ts Soil Series and Phase: Fi l\ On hydric soils list? Yes No . Depth Munsell Color (0 in) matrix/mottle t`h'in. in. -610 F/c t-✓ Subgroup: Texture Remarks sow/ t'towel in. in. Comments:. soils: Yes ✓ No Basis: s•t .•ol<.l 4 /.%..o-J414A > 30 Lys d�,,: 4ite- g•bw+'N� s e•, s o., • Hydrology Inundated: Yes ✓ No . Depth of standing water: / 2.– 36 tr- Saturated soil: Yes ■y No —. Depth to sat. soil: s�. Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology: Yes ✓ No . Basis: s4fwotd f,.•lfeedf.,1I > 3 o A473 cLsr I'r-, 't.. I newer, se-4s' Atypical situation: Yes 'No ✓ Normal circumstances: Yes ✓ No Wetland Determination: Wetland ✓ Nonwetland Comments: B- twelve Associates, Inc. Job 11 cZ — I Wetland ✓ Upland Other WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM Applicant Application Project Name: • C;1 ,�- r,.kti�l� //: Name: T,A 4,,.,∎1.,_ State: W & County K, N Sample Name: Date: t —3 -9z- Plot /t: wart,..,l , `k3 Vegetation Species Ind. Status Species Trees Herbs 1. Determined by: .4/ 2. 7. / %, /.,-,3 o�,v�.,�•..,� 8. 3. 9. Saplings /shrubs Woody vines 4. s,,i.v, s• kl4..i S c,,.' 10. 5. >7,0,4 dorj4 S' •' Fr. c -✓ 11. 6. 12. % of spp. OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: /07 . Comments: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes / No . Basis: i0o0r, A, ;I-. P� :rat Ind. Status Soil Series and Phase: Subgroup: On hydric soils list? Yes No . Depth Munsell Color Texture Remarks (0 in) matrix/mottle [ is, in. grnvcI ts�d in. in. in. Comments: Hydric soils: Yes ✓ No — Basis: v-- 9Aftil fr > Hydrology Inundated: Yes / No . Depth of standing water: /z- 36 Saturated soil: Yes-No . Depth to sat. soil: sa c. Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology: Yes ✓ No . Basis: ) 30 47, �,; 5r. st1 s�� Atypical situation: Yes /No Normal circumstances: Yes y No Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Comments: 13- twelve Associates, Inc. Applicant Name: crtt ,f Tok... 1., State: vj Date: ��9 Z Vegetation Species Trees 1. Poipi iv.5 fp, se 4. M. 2. Job // �Z �7- Wetland ✓ Upland Other WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM Application County K1N1 Plot 71: wci'11 4 Ind. Status Herbs 3. Saplings /shrubs 4 Convvf rtol.�, �u'� FAtw Project Name: Sample Name: Determined by: t Se WA // Species Ind. Status 7. y S, 4, 010 5,..q! 8. 9. Woody_ vines 10. 5. s. 1. ;c sdr 4.-, s, s 11. 6. � lo, s , :.. t�._Fn{w /2. . eh.4.1 .s P/4-C- 12. i o of spp. OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: i0'0 . Comments: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes ✓ No . Basis : / Soil Series and Phase: Fi l\ On hydric soils list'? Yes_ No_. Depth Munsell Color (0 in) matrix/mottle t ein. in. 6114-00144s Subgroup: Texture Remarks in. in. Comments: Hydric soils: Yes ✓ No . Basis: s, 4Wedd . 4 . . 0 ' . 4 4 .1 > so OL. i dvrer, -4.44 9row+'.1 se., s o./ • Hydrology Inundated: Yes / No . Depth of standing water: 6- Z4'r Saturated soil: Yes ✓ No . Depth to sat. soil: Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology: Yes No . Basis: s4tvAvW > 3°01473 1 4kt.. qr.w. -� sc•s.,� Atypical situation: Yes 'No ✓ . Normal circumstances: Yes ✓ No Wetland Determination: Wetland ✓ Nonwetland _ Comments: ____ B- twelve Associates, Inc. Applicant Name: co-,. 0f Tok k,, State: 1iJ19. Date: -1 Vegetation Species Trees 1. 2. 3. Saplings /shrubs 4. $ rtA d ev2 /, ■51,, 5. • Job fl 472"//7 Wetland ✓ Upland Other WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM Application //: County K(fJ Plot #: Wet 414 #5. Ind. Status Herbs Project Name: 7://(4t4 I,-/ --vfL, .- b"4,' Sample Name: Determined by: £d Sc Species 7. Ph# /«, s 8. 9. Woodv vines 10. RL'6Ld.s 11. 2v b v� Ind. Status o,rv,,r.• c.- c_ccr_ el ÷C. 1/5%04 r-- /a c iiv,;c .f., 6. 12. % of spp. OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 50 . Comments: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes /No . Basis: So et/0 V144-0011-13 r/-c tJ PAc Le) Soil Series and Phase: Fi lk Subgroup: On hydric soils list? Yes_ No_. Depth . Munsell Color Texture Remarks (0 in) matrix/mottle t 531in. s...1 t 7r~4./ in. in. in. Comments: Hydric soils: Yes ✓ No . Basis: ,A hMid f Air PA./4744A > 30 4"A .3 a„r,;,y 44. 9rpwe.,) s e•, s c., • Hydrology Inundated: Yes ✓ No . Depth of standing water: 6—i Fr Saturated soil: Yes ✓ No . Depth to sat. soil: Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology: Yes ✓ No . Basis: s4fw,h.1 . ;,w.. -41t4.0/ s o d473 (Jar t 1, �N•a. yr•w�'r? Sciao", Atypical situation: Yes No ✓ . Normal circumstances: Yes / No Wetland Determination: Wetland ✓ Nonwetland Comments: B- twelve Associates, Inc. • Job 11 ' 2 _ j 17- Wetland ✓ Upland Other WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM Applicant Application Project Name: crf of 1/: Name: T� Tra,i ,,State: k,,,R County K;N Sample Name: Date: 4 —2S-9 Vegetation Species Trees 1. 2. Plot n:Oel14- Ind. Status Herbs Determined by: £d. / Species Ind. Status 7. a,, yr -v.1, ctL FAr-C�✓ 8. 3. 9. Saplings /shrubs Woody vines 4. Seed, aiev, ��sl, F/4-C- v-" 10. Rvb ✓S 5. 11, Irsro F rc v 6. 12. io of spp. OBL, FACW, and /or PAC: L G . Comments: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes ✓"No . Basis: 6G% II L-0 Q \1k4s Soil Series and Phase: Fi I\ Subgroup: On hydric soils list? Yes_ No_. Depth Munsell Color Texture Remarks (0 in) matrix/mottle I'gin. 5:4.417, ?e.w./ ti r( `in. in. in. Comments: Hydric soils: Yes ✓ No . Basis: >30 4).3 d„�,; 4 %L ,g,oweAl s Hydrology Inundated: Yes t/ No . Depth of standing water: Co —/ Saturated soil: Yes ✓ No . Depth to sat. soil: Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology: Yes - No Basis: s411#,,f<1 f fieVee •+141 3 o ei.rs dory„ sememi Atypical situation: Yes No ✓ . Normal circumstances: Yes V No Wetland Determination: Wetland ✓ Nonwetland Comments: II- twelve Associates, Inc. Job 11 ' 2 —!1 Wetland ✓ Upland Other WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM Applicant Application Project , Name: co) 0f TuKw;t•, 1/: Name: T..kw,lA S.rl'<.�r4els T'- , r State: wpt County K;.il Sample Name: Date: -4 —2-0-91. Plot n. wcti. -4 . • Determined by: £d Sc ..,^ 1/ Vegetation # Species Ind. Status Species Ind. Status Trees 1. Herbs 7. PAA /AP/ V'" 2. 8. 3. Saplings /shrubs 4. S�r�, apev, 436 FA-cc-N./ 5. 11. 9. Woody vines 10. /Lul,,s �PiS(o�i r PAW 6. 12. % of spp. OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: & G . Comments: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes t/No. Basis: 666/4 hisrt i,11} A Soil Series and Phase: F■ lk Subgroup: On hydric soils list? Yes No . Depth Munsell Color Texture Remarks (0 in) matrix/mottle 18in. 5.4.01t yr.v,.e- I Y/ in. in. in. Comments: Hydric soils: Yes v No Basis: 0.,1w.Sc41 > 30 eL i awe," .mac .cw +•�� s e., So., • Hydrology Inundated: Yes ✓ No . Depth of standing water: (, —/ Fs Saturated soil: Yes V No _. Depth to sat, soil: Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology: Yes ,/ No. Basis: s.fi,isfee{ ;.vv ",A1n141 > 3 a Atypical situation: Yes 'No ✓ . Normal circumstances: Yes ✓ No Wetland Determination: Wetland ✓ Nonwetland Comments: d,JI`1�� 5 GwJ«✓ 13- twelve Associates, Inc. 3ob/1 92 -1); Wetland ✓ Upland Other WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM Applicant Application Name: co-) of T�kw�l. //: State: kA/1:1 County KtN� Date: 4 -20 -9 z Plot #: Vegetation Species � g Ind. Status Trees 1. F(4 w F(h C F4Ct.✓ 2. 4 /..s fT,' c o. 3. so.x. Saplings /shrubs 4. Corns 6 71„4„.A,-,.., 5. sA/,,; s,'tc�•,•s 3 Project Name: Sample Name: Determined by: £d Se w.► // Species TvKc.11� S,,.ft� (1 ••.� Herbs 7. Ph„ /.r/-s 8. 9. Woody vines Ind. Status 10. 14.,& vs J,se,/4.- 11. 6. 2..bvs F/yC- 12. % of spp. OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: . Comments: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes ✓ No . Basis: q;211% 611,-o 0144S Soil Series and Phase: Fill On hydric soils list? Yes No_. Depth Munsell Color Texture (0 in) matrix/mottle t B`in. sAwAt ve.►+K( in. in. FA{ �✓ Subgroup: Remarks 7i /r in. Comments: Hydri• soils: Yes ✓ No _. Basis: sA f►•-d(01 > 30 rya kith 41.g. growf0,1 s es, s a... • Hydrology ,� Inundated: Yes ✓ No . Depth of standing water: 3 6 Saturated soil: Yes ✓ No _. Depth to sat. soil: Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology: Yes No . Basis: s4fb#.,f) > 3 o A.r, dve, 4.. l r•wee, $e43." Atypical situation: Yes No ✓ . Normal circumstances: Yes V No Wetland Determination: Wetland ✓ Nonwetland Comments: II-twelve Associates, Inc. Job 11 R7. 1-4 Wetland ✓ Upland Other WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM Applicant Application Name: chi b r 11: State: t„i6} County KrNl Date: q Vegetation Species Trees 1. 2. 3. Saplings /shrubs 4. 5. Plot #: I4/M*..l It Ind. Status Project Name: 77,16.N. lri'L -art , . Tn.S) Sample Name: Determined by: £d Se . l( Species Ind. Status Herbs 7. 8. ,a, /A ,s 9. Woody vines 10. 11. /6. 14, , a,:L 6. 12. % of spp. OBL, FACW, andlor FAC: iov . Comments: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes ,/ No . Basis: /0-05/4 Inike,?\14 ,S Soil Series and Phase: On hydric soils list? Depth (0 in) t `din. F i lk Yes No_. Munsell Color matrix/mottle Subgroup: in. in. Comments: Hydric soils: Yes ✓ No Basis: s•t &,.d t.1 f ,;- PAM) i1714 A > 30 4►7,s d���; 41,4. 1.0w►' •-.3 s e•, s o.r Texture sp..) �t•.•KI Remarks Hydrology Inundated: Yes ✓ No . Depth of standing water: Saturated soil: Yes ✓ No . Depth to sat. soil: Other indicators: /roil ✓,.f Wetland Hydrology: Yes ✓ No . Basis: slfwAN z o 473 L -t'� OA. se s•4 Atypical situation: Yes No ✓ . Normal circumstances: Yes ✓ No Wetland Determination: Wetland ✓ Nonwetland Comments: B- twelve Associates, Inc. Applicant Name: MI) State: v, f}- Date: 4 -2.o - era Vegetation Species Job# '17 -1 / Wetland ✓ Upland Other WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM Application 1': County Ki Plot #: tier/..A o Ind. Status Herbs Trees 1. Pot„ l„src�,o�.�p.. 2. 3. Saplings /shrubs 4. R- 5e28 -- L111S 5. F/}-L F4C Project Name: Sample Name: Determined by: fP /4 T,rfw�lii►ti Species 7. 8. 9. Woody vines 10. a, 11. 6. 12. % of spp. OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: 7-g . Comments: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes Ind. Status No . Basis: ?5-% Soil Series and Phase: On hydric soils list? Yes_ No_. Depth Munsell Color Texture (0 in) matrix/mottle 1 z in. /0Y/z- Z/? /oIt-, / r in. z . sy 3h �,1, : ,� /ow 3/4 in. Subgroup: in. Remarks Comments: Hydric soils: Yes VNo _. Basis: c ��r-, . .F a 411-es Hydrology Inundated: Yes No it Depth of standing water: Saturated soil: Yes ,./No . Depth to sat. soil: Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology: Yes 1-No . Basis: s,,a,.,- ,�,:.� s�.F0- ere_ Atypical situation: Yes No ✓ . Normal circumstances: Yes i No Wetland Determination: Wetland ./Nonwetland Comments: • STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY P.O. Box 47600 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -7600 • (206) 407 -6000 • TDD Only (Hearing impaired) (206) 407 -6006 April 18, 1994 Mr. L. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance to construct a paved bicycle /pedestrian trail (L93- 0072). We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following concerns. 1. We would be glad to review the completed wetland report and to provide additional comments at that time. 2. Due to the poor record of success in replacing wetlands, we recommend avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts to the fullest extent possible. In the areas where the trail intersects with the wetland, consider narrowing the trail. 3. Ecology recommends that a buffer of native vegetation be retained to protect the functions and values provided by the wetlands. Especially in areas where the wetland is directly adjacent to the trail, increase planting as much as possible to minimize impact to the wetland from trail users. 4. With expected sheet flow of stormwater to the wetland, plant appropriate vegetation dense enough to prevent erosion. 5. Keep construction equipment and activities out of wetland areas to prevent soil compaction and other impacts. 6. This project may require a shoreline permit. The proposed project must be consistent with all applicable policies and other provisions of the Shoreline Management Act, its rules, and the local shoreline master program. 7. The applicant should contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Seattle at (206) 764 -3495 regarding additional permit information. R E C �= = N , APR 2 11994 "g" F \/ t O7f+0N!-... �.' If you have any questions on Comments 1 -5, please call Mr. Perry Lund with the Wetlands Section at (206) 407 -7260. For questions on Comment 6, please call Ms. Linda Rankin with the Shorelands Program at (206) 407 -6527. For questions on Comment 7, please call Mr. Tom Luster with the Permit Coordination Unit at (206) 406 -6918. Sincerely, jAir)/ - 44 --bk M. Vernice Santee Environmental Review Section MVS: 94 -2746 cc: Perry Lund, Wetlands Linda Rankin, Shorelands Tom Luster, CP City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director January 27, 1994 Ms. Susan Burgemeister President -B- twelve Associates, Inc. 521 South Washington Ave. Kent, WA 98032 Re: Tukwila Interurban Trail - Revised SEPA Checklist & Wetland Mitigation Plan. Dear Susan: This letter is written to summarize our recent meeting and clarify the environmental issues. Hopefully, I have responded to all issues expressed in your January 12, 1994 letter. On November 19, 1993 I met with your staff to discuss necessary changes to the first submittal of the Interurban Trail Mitigation Plan. Attached is a memo (11/29/93) I provided from my review and our meeting. After a re- submittal of the plan drawings and completion of the requested mitigation report, additional wetland mitigation issues were identified. On January 18, 1994 City staff met with you and Horton Dennis & Associates to discuss both SEPA and wetland mitigation revisions. Please review the following information and the attachments to this letter. WETLAND MITIGATION: 1) As previously discussed, accurate topography information within the mitigation site is needed. Having elevations from the adjacent wetlands will be useful for designing the new wetland and determining the amount of excavation. A cross - section of the created wetland area will be a feasible addition to the plan drawings for the construction and monitoring phases. I feel this detailed information is especially important when developing emergent wetland areas. 2) Site- adjacent wetlands, E & F, are areas influenced by seasonal hydrology. This is acknowledged in B- twelve Associates' reports for the trail project and the drainage basin study. Observed wetland hydrology and known groundwater data just north of S. 180th Street may not be comparable to what exists at the mitigation site. 6300 Southcenter. Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 4313665 Interurban Trail January 27, 1994 Page 2 My 11/29/93 memo suggested an emphasis be placed on reviewing hydrology potential because little is known about the groundwater table influence. I have not observed significant ponding or shallow groundwater in the mitigation area of Wetland E. In addition, the wetlands existing to the south do not appear to be connected by surface water to Wetland E. Please include a contingency plan section in the report to explain how adequate wetland hydrology will be evaluated during the 3 -year monitoring period. Also discuss corrective measures such as re- grading and replacement of plant material that dies. A final plan should also include estimated implementation costs for establishing the performance security. 3) Please clarify the performance standards of success. Are both 80% canopy cover and survival required for mitigation success? The monitoring section of the mitigation report states that emergent vegetation areas should have a 100% coverage. It is not clear to me whether emergent areas are evaluated the same as shrub areas? 4) Your letter indicates that a wetland replacement ratio less than 1.5:1 was fully discussed with me and approved. I have reviewed my file and have no personal documentation that this issue was approved after discussion. Also, a conceptual plan was not written but the Wetland Analysis. Report, dated 6/4/93, specifically identifies the SAO's 1.5:1 replacement ratio. In addition, the B- twelve letter to Puget Sound Power & Light Company (2/17/93, attached) identifies both mitigation site alternatives as having adequate area to satisfy the 1.5:1 replacement ratio required by the City's ordinance for wetland fill. My opinion for the mitigation ratio is that the intent of the Ordinance is to replace lost wetland area at a 1.5:1 ratio. However, function is also a factor and could become more important in this mitigation project. As we discussed, the best way to address this issue is to wait for accurate topography information and to re- evaluate the established wetland boundary. This information may help with the design for more wetland area. In -kind wetland mitigation is not listed as a requirement of Tukwila's SAO; however, site selection is considered important. The site is appropriate but the compensatory mitigation does not have to be emergent wetland habitat. A significant buffer area is usually a component of wetland mitigation but will not replace the loss of wetland values in this area. Interurban Trail January 27, 1994 Page 3 5) I do not feel contingency planting of emergent plants is appropriate for the following reasons. First, the proposal to not plant the majority of the mitigated wetland area is not supported by a predictable hydrologic regime and a seed bank associated with the historic wetland idea. Contingent planting, as proposed, does not insure the new or restored wetland will have desirable plant diversity. The fact that invasive species like reed canarygrass are present, indicates a need to provide plant cover that may establish as an improvement. SEPA CHECKLIST: 1) The SEPA Checklist Addenda will include changes in the Background - description section and Environmental Elements - Aesthetics section as follows: landscaping will be installed adjacent to the Trail for screening purposes if, a) trail development width allows for planting trees and /or shrubs, and b) Puget Sound Power and Light Company agrees that selected trees or shrubs will not be in conflict with overhead utility lines. 2) Plan drawings should show the greatest amount of detail available including building footprints, vegetation, fencing and other structures (existing and proposed). Plan sheets should also reference segment locations shown on the vicinity map. 3) The project's Phase III proposal shall show trail location and all available information to date (Same as for Phase II). 4) A landscape plan, as mentioned in 1), will provide screening where feasible. This plan will accompany a revised checklist. 5) The DOT Phase will be omitted from the vicinity map. The City recognizes the DOT Phase will be submitted with a separate SEPA checklist and plan drawings. Interurban Trail January 27, 1994 Page 4 I realize there is a significant amount of information and coordination left for this project. Please feel free to contact me on any of the wetland issues. If you need assistance with the SEPA checklist you may contact Denni Shefrin. Sincerely, C. Gary Schulz Urban Environmentalist cc: Rick Beeler, DCD Director Denni Shefrin, Project Planner` • Don Williams, Recreation Director Bob Giberson, Public Works Project Engineer Ladislav Matousek, Horton Dennis & Associates, P.E. REPLY TO ATTekTION Or Regulatory Branch ADDE?■1pUM DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGLNEERS P.O. 8OX 3755 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124-2255 Don Williams Director, Parks and Recreation City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Williams: JUN 9 -1993 Reference: 92 -4 -00562 Tukwila, City of A nationwide permit authorizes the wetland fill 1.AADciated with.�ukFtila's mile -long portion of the Interurban bicycle trail. We consider the wetlands involved to be adjacent to the Green River. The current design has eliminated the tunnel under 5W 43rd, and its need to temporarily place excavated tunnel material in nearby wetlands. As currently proposed, the project will result in wetland fills in ten locations along the path, impacting 0.3 acre. The regulations which govern our permit program contain a series of nationwide permits. Each one authorizes a specific category of work, provided certain conditions are inet. Nationwide Permit 23 (33 CFR 330 Appendix A. Paragraph B (23)) allows performance of work that a sponsoring Federal agency has declared 'categorically excluded from further environmental documentation, In this case, the Federal Highway Administration has made the appropriate exclusion statement in the manner prescribed in our regulations and the Council on Environmental Quality, Enclosed is the entire teat of Nationwide Permit 23 and its conditions. NWP 23 has a regional condition restricting work in documented habitat for state listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive animal species. To find out if the project site contains Such habitat, you must contact the Washington state Department of Ecology at (206) 438-7514 or write as follows: State Nationwide Permit Coordinator Washington State Department of Ecology Pont Office. Box 47703 Olympia, Washington 98504 This verification that a NWP authorises the work is valid for two years from the date of this letter or until Nationwide Permit 23 is modified, reissued, or revoked,. While you need no further authorization from us, you must 3ti11 comply with other stata and local requirements which may pertain to the work. If you have any questions, please contact Hr. Jack Kennedy at the above address or by telephone at (206) 764 -3495. Enclosures Sincerely, ✓yLS4 �� v�l'il(�4.it.Li Ann R. Uhrich Chief, Environmental and Processing Section February 17, 1993 Mr. Wayne Bressler Puget Sound Power and Light P.O. Box 97034 Bellevue, WA 98009 -9734 IV RE: Tukwila Trail Concept Mitigation B- twelve Associates, Inc. Job #92117 B- twelve Associates, Inc. Ft E.. _'L IN/ED FEB 1 91993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr. Bressler, This letter is a request for permission to provide wetland mitigation area within the Puget Power Easement for filling of existing wetlands to construct the Tukwila Interurban Trail. Our field investigation determined that the majority of the existing road was constructed across wetlands. Thus, work outside the road bed will involve fill of wetlands along most of the easement length. See Exhibit #1. This project is proceeding following ongoing conversations with the Corps of Engineers and the City of Tukwila confirming the status of the existing wetlands. We have not contacted you prior to this time because of delays in our coordination with the Corps of Engineers. Enclosed are blueprints of two sections of the proposed trail. To meet the design requirements for bicycle trail construction some widening of the existing roadway will be required. Although the intrusion is rarely more than 3 feet, due to the length of the trail, and the extent of the wetlands, approximately 11,500 sf of wetland fill will be required. We have outlined two alternatives for mitigation sites, Alternative "A" and Alternative "B ". Both sites satisfy the 1:1.5 replacement ratio required by the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance for wetland fill. The two sites are on the east side of the proposed trail. We believe that both mitigation sites are historic wetland areas that have been filled. We believe that this will greatly increase the potential for successful wetland mitigation. The east side of the trail is prefered for mitigation because it is enclosed by existing wetlands, the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and the proposed bike trail. We also expect that this is an area where future land use is not anticipated. The design criteria for the wetland mitigation planting will not allow intrusion into the powerlines. All specified plant materials will not exceed 25' height at maturity. The majority of the plantings will consist of wetland emergents and native shrubs. This will also be consistent with the character of the existing adjacent wetlands. We will develop a detailed wetland mitigation grading and planting plan for approval by the City of Tukwila. Upon their approval we will submit the proposed plan to you for your review and approval. 521 :Soutlh \V•shington Ave. • Kati. \\':\ 08(112 • 200/85Q -0515 • l=ay: 2O('/ti52-47 2 RE: Tukwila Trail/Job B-twelve Associates, Inc. February 17; 1993 Page 2 At this time we do not know the timing of the final mitigation plan or the extent of the mitigation requirements. We will keep you informed of the progress we make on developing acceptable mitigation alternatives. Please review this concept mitigation and inform us of any concerns to be considered by Puget Sound Power and Light. Thank you for your cooperation on this project. Please contact me or Susan Burgemeister if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lauchlin R. Bethune Landscape Architect, ASLA enclosures cc: Bob Giberson, City of Tukwila Project Engineer Gary Schulz, City of Tukwila Frank Matousek, Horton Dennis Associates file: 921171ip doc. CURT SMITCH Director STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE 600 Capitol Way North • Olympia, Washington 98501 -109 July 17, 1992 Edgar K. Sewall III B- twelve Associates, Inc. 521 South Washington Avenue Kent, WA 98032 )-753 -5700 RE: DATA SEARCH - INTERURBAN TRAIL IN KING COUNTY Dear Mr. Sewall: 9e //7 We have completed a review of our files for information on nongame species of concern in the study area. The result of this review is presented in the enclosed material, which summarizes the occurrence of special animals reported within or adjacent to the study area. We hope this presentation will be useful to you. This response is provided for your information only and is not to be construed as an official Department of Wildlife environmental review of your project. For official Department review and comment, mail environmental impact documents to: Washington Department of Wildlife, Ted Muller, Regional Habitat Program Manager, Regional Habitat Program Manager, 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard, Mill Creek, WA 98012 -1296. If your office should publish �r distribute general information from the enclosed material, please provide the Nongame Wildlife Program with a draft of any document in which information from the Natural Heritage Data System is incorporated or referenced, and cite the System as follows: Natural Heritage Data System Department of Wildlife - Nongame Program 600 Capitol Way N Olympia, Washington 98501 -1091 The information provided is not to be taken as a complete inventory of the project area and does not eliminate the need or responsibility to conduct more thorough research. If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us at (206) 586 -1449. Sincerely, Zaef cali-teL) Lori Salzer, Biologist Nongame Data Systems Enclosure cc: Rocky Spencer Ted Muller Dana L. Base ELEMENT OCCURRENCE SMEARY INTRODUCTION ENCLOSURE 1 The Natural Heritage Data System was established by the State of Washington and the Washington Natural Heritage Program of the Nature Conservancy. It is currently maintained by the Heritage Program of the Washington Department of Natural Resources and by the Nongame Wildlife Program of the Washington Department of Wildlife. The database is comprised of "element occurrences." An "element" is a natural feature of particular interest because it is exemplary, unique, or endangered on a statewide or national basis. An element can be a plant community, special plant, or special animal species. An "element occurrence" is a reported or confirmed locality of a native vegetation community, or of significant habitat for a plant or animal species of concern. Information on element occurrences in the state is collected from herbarium and museum specimens, scientific literature, knowledgeable individuals, and field investigations. This information is compiled in the Natural Heritage Data System for use in land -use planning and evaluating the status of Washington's natural features. This enclosure summarizes the ,special animal occurrences reported within or adjacent to the study area anii catalogued in the Natural Heritage Data System. The Washington Natural Heritage Program manages similar information concerning special plants and plant communities. FORMAT The Element Occurrence Summary table lists those special animals that have been reported to occur in or adjacent to the area specified in your information request. The first column lists the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) topozraphic quadrangle. The second column lists the township, range, and section. The third column, entitled "conf." (confirmation), lists a code indicating the specificity; of the locations recorded for each element occurrence. CONFIRMATION CODES C — The location of the element occurrence is known to within a 1/4 -mile radius. In addition, the locality has been confirmed. U — The location of the element occurrence is known to within a 1/4 -mile radius, but at this time has not been confirmed. N — The location of the element occurrence is known to within a 1 -mile radius. This information usually is derived from secondary sources. G — The element occurrence is known only to a general area, usually denoted by a geographic name. This information was derived from secondary sources. The next column contains federal and state status information. STATUS CODES FOR SPECIAL. ANIMALS FE EMERALIMMEEIZQ - A species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. FT allIZALMMIESED - A species which is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. FC1 FEDERAL CANDIDATE CATEGORY 1 - A species that is a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has substantial evidence to support listing as threatened and endangered species. FC2 FEDERAL CANDIDATE CATEGORY 2 - A species that is a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Listing is possibly appropriate but conclusive information is lacking. FC3 FEDERAL CANDIDATF,,CATEGORY 3 - A species that was once considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act which is no longer being considered. FS FEDERAL SENSITIVE - A species that is informally considered a sensitive species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region One. The state status given in the second column under "Element Status" is based on status evaluations conducted by the Washington Department of Wildlife. `ionea=e Program. CODE EXPLANATION SE ST SS STATE ENDANGERED - Wildlife species native to the state of Washington that are seriously threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant proportion of their ranges within the state. Endangered species are legally designated in WAC 222 -12 -014. STATE THREATENED - Wildlife species native to the state of Washington that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout significant portions of their ranges within the state without cooperative management or the removal of threats. Threatened species are legally designated in WAC 232 -12 -011. STATE SENSITIVE - Wildlife species native to the state of Washington that are vulnerable or declining and are likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their ranges within the state without cooperative management or the removal of threats. Sensitive species are legally designated in WAC 232 -12 -011. -2- RE: SPECIES OF CONCERN - INTERURBAN TRAIL Quad Name ---atatus--- T R S Conf. Fed. State Element Narne Crit. Occ. RE ION 7.5 4712242 23N 04E 13 C SM Ardea herodias Great blue heron • B 178-1 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources July 8, 1992 Ed Sewall B- twelve Associates Inc 521 S Washington Ave Kent WA 98032 SUBJECT: Tukwila Interurban Trail BRIAN BOYLE Commissioner of Public Lands Mk gut �3 l* it � OLYMPIA, WA 98504 �gI We've searched the Natural Heritage Information System for information on significant natural features in your study area. Currently, we have no records for rare plants, high quality native wetlands or high quality native plant communities in the vicinity of your project. The Natural Heritage Information System is a cooperative effort between the Department of Natural Resources' Washington Natural Heritage Program and the Department of Wildlife's Nongame Program. The Washington Natural Heritage Program is responsible for information on the state's endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants as well as high quality native plant communities and wetlands. The Nongame Program manages and interprets data on wildlife species of concern in the state. For information on animals of concern in the state, please contact the Nongame Program, Washington Department of Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501 -1091. The Natural Heritage Information System is not a complete inventory of Washington's natural features. Many areas of the state have never been thoroughly surveyed. There may be significant natural features in your study area that we don't yet know about. This response should not be regarded as a final statement.on the natural features of the areas being considered and doesn't eliminate the need or responsibility for detailed on -site surveys. I hope you'll find this information helpful. Sincerely, Sandy Norwood, Environmental Review Coordinator Washington Natural Heritage Program Division of Land & Water Conservation PO Box 47047 Olympia, WA 98504 -7047 (206) 753 -2449 Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer July 17, 1992 HWA Project No. 92041 Horton Dennis & Associates 320 Second Avenue South Kirkland, Washington 98033 -6687 Attention: Mr. Ladislav Matousek Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Tukwila Interurban Trail Stations 0 +35 to 69 +40 Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Matousek: In accordance with your request, Hong West & Associates, Inc. has completed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed trail in Tukwila, Washington. Results of our investigation are presented in the accompanying report. The opportunity of providing geotechnical services on this •roject is appreciated. Should you have any questions, or if we may be of • - ' e, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INC. Raymond M. Masson, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer RMM /SLH ❑ PO, Box 596 Lynnwood, WA 98046 (206) 774 -0106 Scott L. Hardman, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer ❑ 157 Yesler Way Suite 505, Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 622 -7698 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GENERAL 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK 1 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 2 2.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION 2 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING 2 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS 3 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 3 3.3 SITE STRATIGRAPHY 4 3.3.1 Undocumented Fill 4 3.3.2 Alluvium 4 3.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 4 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 4.1 EXISTING FILL 4 4.2 SITE PREPARATION 5 4.2.1 Preparation of Pavement Areas 5 4.2.2 Temporary Excavations and Dewatering 5 4.3 SITE EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS 6 4.3.1 Subgrade Preparation 6 4.3.2 Materials 6 4.3.3 Compaction Criteria 6 4.3.4 Trench Backfill 7 4.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UNDERPASS DESIGN 7 4.5 FOUNDATION PARAMETERS 8 4.5.1 Spread Footings 8 4.5.2 Lateral Loads 8 4.5.3 Retaining Structures 8 4.6 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 9 4.6.1 Pavement Subgrade Preparation 10 4.6.2 Drainage 10 4.6.3 Structural Pavement Section 11 5.0 LIMITATIONS 11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figures 2 - 13. Site Plans Figure 14. Cross Section at S. 180th Street APPENDICES Appendix A: Field Investigation Appendix B: Laboratory Testing Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Tukwila Interurban Trail Stations 0 +35 to 69 +40 Tukwila, Washington 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION In accordance with your request, Hong West & Associates, Inc. ( a geotechnical investigation for the proposed new segment of the Trail. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the subsurfa the alignment and, based on the conditions encountered, to provid pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of project development. • The proposed development consists of a northward extension of the Trail which currently ends approximately 800 feet south of S. 180th The existing trail is approximately 10 feet wide and is paved proposed alignment is a linear right of way comprised primarily of grades formerly used by the C.M.ST.P. &P., and other railroads. In the trail will be extended north to S. 158th Street, however the nort not a part of this investigation. The northern limit of thi approximately 900 feet south of S. 158th Street at approximately S Over the balance of the trail, it is our understanding that only mini profile and cross section of the existing alignment are planned befor asphalt pavement. At the crossing of S. 180th Street, an underpass the road. The approximate site location is shown on the Vicinity Ma A) has completed ukwila Interurban e conditions along recommendations xisting Interurban Street in Tukwila. ith asphalt. The bandoned railroad the present phase, ernmost portion is investigation is on 69 +40. al changes to the placement of the s planned beneath , Figure 1. 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK A proposal for geotechnical investigation of the site was submitted •y HWA to Horton Dennis & Associates, Inc., dated March 3, 1992. A Subcontract • greement for the work was signed by Mr. Ladislav Matousek of Horton Dennis on • pril 9, 1992. The scope of services authorized is as follows: 1. Review readily - available geotechnical and geologic data for the project area to gain an overview of the site conditions, and t• assist in identifying any geologic or geotechnical constraints to t e planned improvements. �..- July 17, 1992 HWA Project No. 92041 2. Plan and conduct a program of subsurface exploration consisting of fifteen to twenty test pits plus two test borings. 3. Conduct laboratory testing as necessary to determine the geotechnical engineering properties of on -site soils. 4. Perform engineering analysis and evaluation of data derived from the subsurface investigation and laboratory testing program, with respect to the proposed development. 5. Prepare this report containing the results of the investigation, including descriptions of the subsurface conditions, results of engineering analyses, and recommendations pertaining to the proposed development. Evaluation of chemical properties of the soil, and evaluation of the presence and /or concentration of hazardous materials, were not within the scope of services authorized or performed. 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 2.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION On March 20 and April 30, 1992, HWA personnel conducted site reconnaissance and subsurface explorations at the project site. Two boreholes were completed at the crossing of S. 180th Street, to maximum depths of approximately 60 feet using a truck mounted hollow -stem power auger. Bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were collected and the soil profile was logged by an engineering geologist from HWA. In addition, 16 test pits were excavated along the trail alignment to maximum depths of 5 to 9 feet using a rubber -tired backhoe. The approximate locations of the boreholes and test pits are shown on the Site Plan, Figures 2 through 13. The test pits were placed near the centerline of the alignment wherever possible, at intervals of 300 to 600 feet. Bulk soil samples were extracted from the test pits, examined, classified and logged in the field by an engineering geologist from HWA. Selected samples were retained for laboratory testing. The borehole and test pit logs are included in Appendix A. 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were conducted to determine the engineering properties of selected soil samples collected during the field investigation. The tests included in -place moisture, 2 cam._ July 17, 1992 HWA Project No. 92041 grain size distribution, and Atterberg Limits. The tests were conducted in general accordance with ASTM Standards. The results are displayed in Appendix B, and on the logs in Appendix A. A summary of laboratory test results is presented on Table B- 1, Appendix B. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS The alignment runs generally north -south through a semi rural /industrial area of Tukwila, Washington. It is generally parallel to and approximately 200 to 1400 feet east of West Valley Highway (S.R. 181). The proposed trail segment in the current project has a total length of approximately 8100 feet. At the southern end it will connect to the northern termination of the existing paved trail, approximately 800 feet south of S. 180th Street. The north end of the proposed trail segment is at S. 158th Street. The northerly limit of the present geotechnical investigation is at an existing fence at approximately Station 69 +40; the trail alignment through the property of the Embassy Suites Hotel and the existing pasture south of the hotel are not a part of our authorized scope of work. Over much of the alignment, the trail will be constructed on abandoned railroad grades formerly used by the C.M.ST. &P. and other railroads. Portions of the alignment are on low existing embankments with adjacent drainage ditches and wetlands. Over other sections of the trail, the alignment is at or near the grade of the surroundings, which in some areas are grass or brush covered, and in other areas are gravel parking lots. Grass, blackberry bushes, horsetails, and low trees were observed on the borders of the existing dirt road on the alignment, and in some areas were growing densely on the alignment itself. The existing earthen roadway along the alignment is used as a maintenance road by Puget Power for accessing high voltage transmission lines which run above the right of way. 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The project area is located in a broad river valley, and is underlain by recent alluvium consisting of sand, silt, and clay deposited by the Green River, and the White River before it was diverted to the south in 1906. According to the geologic literature, the upper 10 to 40 feet of this alluvium generally consist mainly of clayey silt and fine sand, with some peat. At greater depths, more sandy strata are generally present. Geological information for the project site was obtained from the map Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington (D.R. Mullineaux, 1965) published by the U.S. Geological Survey. 3 .. 3.3 SITE STRATIGRAPHY July 17, 1992 HWA Project No, 92041 Stratigraphic conditions on site were determined, based on a review of the geologic literature referenced above and data from our field investigation Descriptions of the stratigraphic units anticipated on site are presented below. 3.3.1 Undocumented Fill The project alignment is generally blanketed with undocumented soil fill material, ranging to approximately 8 feet in thickness. The fill is .highly variable, ranging from loose to medium dense, silty, sandy gravel with cobbles to clayey, sandy silt. A surficial layer of 2 to 6 inches of dark brown organic topsoil was observed in about one -third of the test pits. 3.3.2 Alluvium Beneath the topsoil and fill, the native alluvial deposits observed at most locations were sandy and clayey silts and silty sands. The silts were soft to stiff and damp to wet, and the sands were very loose to loose. At some locations, the alluvium consisted of fairly clean loose to medium dense sand, and in TP -12, TP -13, and TP -15, a medium stiff silty clay was observed. 3.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS At the time of our investigation, groundwater was observed in most of the test pits at 5 to 8 feet below existing grade. In the boreholes at S. 180th Street, groundwater was observed at 7 to 10 feet below existing grade. Because the site is located in a floodplain, higher groundwater levels may be anticipated to occur periodically. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analyses performed, it is our opinion that the trail alignment may be developed as planned, provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated in design and construction. Recommendations related to site preparation, earthwork, pavements, and the underpass at S. 180th Street are presented below. 4.1 EXISTING FILL The project alignment is covered with undocumented fill of variable depth, composition and relative density. We recommend that the upper portion of the fill be reworked as July 17, 1992 HWA Project No. 92041 described below to provide a stable subgrade for the overlying structural pavement section. 4.2 SITE PREPARATION Site preparation should begin with removal of any debris, asphalt concrete, vegetation and highly organic topsoil, and other deleterious matter from the construction area. Any wood fragments larger than 2 inches in dimension found in the fill soil should be removed. 4.2.1 Preparation of Pavement Areas In order to prepare the subgrade soil for paving, we recommend that a minimum of the upper 12 inches of existing soil beneath the pavement and shoulders be removed and recompacted as described in Section 4.6.1. Where excavation and grading exposes peat or bog deposits, organic debris, or other deleterious material, these materials should be overexcavated to firm bearing materials and replaced with granular backfill compacted to 90 per cent of maximum dry density using the Modified Proctor as standard (ASTM 1557). It is our understanding that for most of the length of the trail, minimal cut or fill is planned to the existing dirt road subgrade. We recommend that structural fill be placed in low areas as needed to maintain positive drainage and avoid ponding of water on or immediately adjacent to the pavement. Saturation of pavement subgrade and gravel base materials may result in poor performance of the pavements with high maintenance costs. 4.2.2 Temporary Excavations and Dewatering The temporary excavation for the underpass at S. 180th Street is expected to encounter soft to medium stiff sandy, clayey silt and very loose fine to medium grained silty sand. A cross section of the road crossing is shown on Figure 14. According to the borehole logs, groundwater will be encountered at approximately Elevation 16 to 18 feet. Depending on the invert elevation of the underpass, a temporary dewatering system will be required to provide dry working conditions and to prevent heaving or "boiling" of the excavation bottom. In our opinion, a closely spaced well point system will probably be required due to the low permeability of the fine- grained on -site soils. Assessment of the need for, and specific design of any dewatering system should be performed by qualified personnel prior to site development, based on the proposed underpass design. All excavations must comply with the current requirements of OSHA. Additionally, all excavations greater than 5 feet in depth and involving personnel within the excavation should be sloped and /or shored. Temporary excavations to 10 feet below surrounding 5 expansive soils. Materials should be less than 6 inches in maximum dimension, with less than 10 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve. 4.3.3 Compaction Criteria Embankment fill soils should be moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content, placed in horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in loose thickness, and compacted to at least 95 percent maximum density, determined using ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor). The procedure to achieve proper density of a compacted fill depends on the size and type of compacting equipment, the number of passes, thickness of the layer being compacted, and certain soil properties. When size of the excavation restricts the use of 4.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UNDERPASS DESIGN It is our understanding that the underpass at S. 180th Street is in the preliminary design stage. We anticipate that the underpass will be a reinforced concrete box -type structure, a steel plate arch, or a faced reinforced earth structure. A cross section of the underpass area, containing subsurface information, is shown in Figure 14. The lateral earth pressure for the design of concrete or steel underpass structures should be the "at- rest" pressure which assumes that yielding of the wall does not occur. This pressure may be computed as a triangular pressure diagram equivalent to that generated by a fluid with unit weight of 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Note that heavy compaction equipment should not be used adjacent to walls, because they can produce 7 July 17, 1992 HWA Project No. 92041 lateral soil pressures far in excess of design values. If reinforced earth is selected, the design parameters will depend on the material specified by the designer. As shown on Figure 14, the underpass will probably extend several feet below the water table. Waterproofing of the underpass is probably more cost - effective than a permanent dewatering system. If the underpass is waterproofed, the buoyancy forces should be calculated to prevent "floating" of the underpass. The water level for this calculation should be taken at the invert elevation of the tunnel entrance to allow for flood conditions. The unit weight of soil fill overburden may be taken as 125 pcf, and roadway pavement section material may be taken as 135 pcf. When the cover thickness over the underpass structure is determined, vertical and lateral pressure on the structure from concentrated loads on the overlying roadway can be estimated. Recommendations for a permanent dewatering system can be supplied on request. A reinforced earth underpass may be costly due to three factors: (1) the excavation for reinforced earth walls may be wider than for the other designs.; (2) spanning a reinforced earth underpass with a highway bridge may be costly due to the poor soil conditions which would require a deep foundation system; and (3) a permanent dewatering system would be required. 4.5 FOUNDATION PARAMETERS 4.5.1 Spread Footings It is our understanding that the only major structure planned in association with this project is the underpass at S. 180th Street. For the underpass an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design. If other structures are planned, HWA should be contacted to supply recommendations for site preparation and foundations. 4.5.2 Lateral Loads Soil resistance to lateral loads will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the base of the structure and passive earth pressure against the sides of the structure. For use in design, a coefficient of friction of 0.3 may be assumed between the base of the footing and foundation soils. Passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 350 pcf may also be assumed. These values are ultimate; a factor of safety of at least 1.5 should be included in design. 4.5.3 Retaining Structures Where retaining walls are used on the site, they should be founded upon structural fill. If they are cantilevered or yielding walls, they should be designed to resist an active 8 July 17, 1992 HWA Project No. 92041 lateral earth pressure equivalent to that generated from a fluid weighing 35 pounds per cubic foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 is recommended for calculation of the resistance to sliding along the concrete /soil interface. Retaining walls should be provided with drainage systems suitable to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Wall backfill materials and compaction criteria should be in accordance with that specified for the embankment fill, above. 4.6 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Results of the subsurface investigation indicate that the proposed trail is underlain primarily by undocumented fill which varies greatly in composition along the alignment. As seen in the test pit logs, sandy gravel was observed at some locations. However, the majority of the alignment is underlain by silty sands and sandy silts which demonstrate some plasticity. We also observed some areas of the alignment that have ponded water immediately adjacent to the existing service road. Therefore the subgrade support conditions along the alignment are likely to vary significantly depending upon the soils, degree of compaction from past traffic, and potential saturation of pavement subgrade and base (drainage). Successful performance of the pavement structure is a function of these factors plus traffic conditions, pavement section, care in construction, and ongoing maintenance. These elements are discussed briefly below. The subgrade conditions for the trail may generally be classified as "fair ", and are anticipated to provide generally satisfactory support for the trail. Those sections of subgrade where ponding of water can occur within approximately 2 vertical feet of trail grade may require additional attention during construction, and will likely experience more distress from heavy truck traffic, and require more maintenance. The alignment has provided access for Puget Power and other service vehicles in the past and is anticipated to provide ongoing access in the future. According to the Puget Power fleet department, their typical line truck has a gross vehicular weight of 32,000 pounds with 20,000 pounds on the single rear axle. Very heavy trucks with gross vehicular weights up to 80,000 pounds such as cranes are occasionally used. Estimates of anticipated traffic volumes on the access road were not available. For the following pavement design, we assumed that truck traffic would consist of service vehicles corresponding to the typical Puget Power line truck making 75 to 150 trips per year. The effects of this level of truck traffic over the assumed 20 year design life of the pavement is relatively small compared to the traffic on typical roads. Therefore, pavement distress due to fatigue is less likely than failure from effects such as saturated subgrades, aging of asphalt materials, and localized shear failure along the edge of the pavement from vehicle usage during saturated conditions. 9 July 17, 1992 HWA Project No, 92041 4.6.1 Pavement Subgrade Preparation Subgrade preparation should begin with removal of debris, vegetation, and other deleterious matter. All debris and organic material should be disposed of properly, and should not be utilized as subgrade or fill material. Loose surficial materials such as topsoil, slopewash, and fill with organic material should be completely removed to firm inorganic material, and replaced with properly compacted fill. Where fill is to be placed adjacent to existing embankments, we recommend keying and benching into the compacted fill slope. Depth and width of individual benches should be such that the new compacted fill is founded on relatively dense, undisturbed embankment fill. The subgrade should be shaped to a uniform surface running reasonably true to established line and grade described in the contract documents. After subgrade preparation is completed, the upper 6 inches of exposed subgrade must demonstrate at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, determined using ASTM D 1557. Natural deposits or disturbed surfaces that do not meet this requirement should be additionally worked by scarifying to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioning as necessary, and compacting. Soft or loose materials disturbed during the excavation process which cannot be compacted properly should be removed to appropriate bearing materials prior to placing compacted fill, or excavated to a depth of 12 inches and replaced with quarry spans, gravel, or crushed rock. Subgrade should not be considered stable if movement such as "pumping" is observed under construction traffic or compaction equipment, even if the required degree of relative compaction is achieved. The site soils contain a high percentage of silt, which makes them very moisture sensitive. Where difficulty in obtaining required relative compaction of the subgrade is encountered due to excessive moisture, or where saturated conditions are likely, we recommend the placement of a 12 -inch mat of quarry spalls or gravel beneath the proposed base course. This will serve as a capillary break to help reduce moisture migration into the base course, provide additional support, and act as a working surface. Use of a geotextile separator between the gravel and subgrade soil as discussed in Section 4.3.1 is recommended in areas of soft subgrade conditions. Where a working surface is provided, 50 percent of its compacted thickness may be included in the determination of the thickness of gravel base required for that pavement section, if the materials used comply with the requirements outlined in Table 1 below. 4.6.2 Drainage Adequate drainage is very important for maintaining the strength and integrity of the pavement. Subgrade resilient modulus values of 10,000 pounds per square inch (psi) 10 July 17, 1992 HWA Project No. 92041 have been observed to drop to 1,000 to 3,000 psi when the soil is wet or saturated. The high silt content of project soils, and their plasticity, allow them to remain saturated for prolonged periods. Since removal and replacement is not reasonable for this project, we recommend provision of effective surface water removal from areas adjacent to the pavement. Where possible the grade of the trail should be elevated above surrounding areas to prevent ponding of water adjacent to the pavement, and to enhance drainage of the subgrade and base materials. 4.6.3 Structural Pavement Section We recommend consideration of two alternative pavement sections calculated using the AASHTO design method. Alternative 1 is designed to support vehicular traffic up to 150 typical Puget Power line trucks per year, plus large volumes of lighter vehicles and bicycles. Alternative 2 assumes annual line truck traffic up to 75 per year, and presupposes greater willingness to repair and maintain the trail on the part of the owner. Table 1. Recommended Pavement Sections Material Description Alternative 1 Thickness (inches) Alternative 2 Thickness (inches) WSDOT Specification ACP, Class B or D 3 2 5 -04 5/8" -minus CSTC 6 6 9- 03.9(3) Quarry Spalls 12" (as needed) 12" (as needed) 9- 13.6 ACP = Asphalt Concrete Pavement CSTC = Crushed Surfacing Top Course WSDOT = Washington State Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction 5.0 LIMITATIONS This geotechnical investigation was planned and conducted in accordance with generally accepted engineering standards practiced presently within this geographic area. Experience has shown that geotechnical investigations performed by these standards reveal with reasonable regularity soils that, are representative of subsurface conditions throughout a site. The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are made on the assumption that the soil conditions encountered in borings and test pits are representative of actual conditions throughout the subject site. However, experience has also proven that subsoils can vary quite radically over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between borings and test pits and not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are 11 .,. • encountered which are different from those describe for review of the recommendations of this report, an This report is prepared for the exclusive use of t specific application on this project in accordance foundation engineering practice. No warranty, Geotechnical observation and testing by HWA is rec phases to verify that the recommendations present constructed work. 12 July 17, 1992 HWA Project No. 92041 herein, HWA should be notified revision of such if necessary. e owner and its consultants for ith generally accepted soils and xpressed or implied, is made. mmended during the construction d herein are incorporated in the Ky o`b rltii� cq• � " E'arlmgton Golt Course . awing PACIFIC • RENTON KWMr f1;Q'"1- Interurban Trail Project Site • BDY •,, BASE MAP: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 92041 —A -002.0 1 SCALE: 1"=0.4 MILES HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES TUKWILA INTERURBAN TRAIL PROJECT N0. VICINITY MAP 92041 bRENO. 1 : APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Exploratory Borings Boreholes BH -1 and BH -2 were advanced using a truck- mounted Mobile B -61 hollow stem continuous flight 8 -inch diameter power auger. Standard Penetration Tests were taken at intervals of approximately 5 feet in accordance with ASTM Method D1586. This method uses a 2 -inch outside diameter split barrel sampler which is driven into the bottom of the borehole by a 140 pound weight falling 30 inches. The number of blows to drive the sampler each 6 inches over an 18 -inch interval is recorded and displayed on the boring logs. The number of blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is termed the Standard Penetration Resistance or blow count, and is used to estimate the strength and consistency of the soil. Soil samples from the auger cuttings and split barrels were examined, classified, and logged in the field by HWA personnel, and returned to the laboratory for testing. Logs of the boreholes are included in this appendix. Legends containing symbols and terms used on the logs are also included. The approximate borehole locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 3. Exploratory Test Pits Test Pits were excavated at selected locations along the alignment using a rubber -tired backhoe. The soil samples were examined, classified, and logged in the field by HWA personnel. In -situ strength and other attributes of the materials encountered were estimated by the geologist or engineer, based upon experience with similar soils, the difficulty incurred during excavation and other factors. Representative soil samples were retrieved from the exploration pits, and returned to our laboratory for further testing and analysis. The logs representing our interpretation of the subsurface materials are included in Appendix A. Legends of the symbols and terms used on the logs are also included. The approximate test pit locations are shown on the Site Plans, Figures 2 - 13. LEGEND OF TERMS USED ON EXPL 1 RATION SOIL LOGS Soil classifications presented on the exploration soil logs ar based on visual field and laboratory observations, using ASTM D 2488. Soil descriptions are p - nted in the following general order: Density /consistency, color, modifier, MAJOR CONSTITUENT, minor constituent(s), moisture content, soil structure(s), additional remarks. DENSITY /CONSISTENCY Density/consistency of soils encountered in exploratory borings is Penetration Test (SPT) N -value or "blowcount ", ASTM D 1586. driven 18 inches with a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. Tte blows for the last 12 inches of sampler drive. usually based on the Standard Using this method, the sampler is SPT N -value is the number of Granular Soil SPT Density N -value Unconfined Cohesive Soil SPT Compressive Consistency N -value Strength (tsf) Very loose 0 - 4 Very soft 0 - 2 < 0.25 Loose 4 - 10 Soft 2 - 4 , 0.25 - 0.5 Medium dense 10 - 30 Medium stiff 4 - 8 0.5 - 1.0 Dense 30 - 50 Stiff 8 - 15 1.0 - 2.0 Very dense > 50 Very stiff 15 - 30 2.0 - 4.0 Hard > 30 > 4.0 MOISTURE CONTENT MINOR CONSTITUENTS Estimated Percentage Dry , Little perceptible moisture Trace 0 - 5 Damp Some perceptible moisture, probably below optimum Some 5 - 12 Moist Probably near optimum moisture content Modifier (sand , silty, 12 - 30 etc.) Wet Much perceptible moisture, probably above optimum Very (plus mo.ifier) 30 - 50 TERMS DESCRIBING SOIL S I RUCTURES Bedded Composed of layers thicker than 1 cm, of varying color and /or texture. Calcareous Containing a significant amount of calcium . rbonate. Cemented Rock or soil hardened by the precipitation 'fa mineral cement among the grains of the sediment. Fissured Containing shrinkage cracks, frequently fill- • with fine sand or silt, usually more or less vertical. Indurated A rock or soil hardened or consolidated by .ressure, cementation, or heat. Interbedded Composed of alternating beds of different sail types. Laminated Composed of thin (< 1 cm) layers of vary '. g color and /or texture. Poorly graded Predominantly a single grain size, or havin . some intermediate sizes missing ( "gap" graded). Slickensided Having previously - sheared planes of weakn-ss that are slick and glossy in appearance. Well graded Having a wide range of grain sizes, with su.stantial amounts of intermediate particle sizes. I Lia +IONGWEST .n c cnrtll TF C INC. LEGEND OF SYMBOLS USED ON EXPLORATION SOIL LOGS GRAPHIC SYMBOLS FOR SOIL TYPES NON— COHESIVE SOILS ( <50% passing No. 200 sieve) well graded gravel and gravel /sand mix poorly graded gravel, gravel /sand mix silty gravel, gravel /sand /silt mix clayey gravel, gravel /sand /clay mix well graded sand, gravelly sand poorly graded sand, little or no fines SM silty sand. sand /silt mix SC clayey sand, sand /clay mix COHESIVE SOILS ( >50% passing No. 200 sieve) inorganic silt and very fine sand inorganic, low plasticity clay OL organic, low plasticity clay, silt /clay mix inorganic, elastic silt, silt /sand mix inorganic, high plasticity clay OH organic, medium to high plasticity clay Pt peat and other highly organic soil I LI m 0 I z 0 I m SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS BOREHOLE SAMPLES 2.0" OD Split Spoon (SPT) Shelby Tube 3.0" OD Split Spoon with Brass Rings Grab Sample (cuttings) Core Run TEST PIT SAMPLES Bag (bulk sample) Grab (small volume) Shelby Tube HAND BORING SAMPLES Non — standard penetration (40 Ib. hammer with 12 inch drop) Grab Sample (post hole) Shelby Tube ROTARY BOREHOLE SAMPLES Continuous Core Sample Note: The graphic symbols used for the various soil types are based on symbols recommended in the Unified Soil Classification System. Graphic logs are based on subjective field identi- fication of soils, and laboratory data where available. GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL SYMBOLS entonite Seal rout Backfill uttings Backfill or Caved Hole iezometer Casing Groundwater Level (noted during drilling) Groundwater Level (measured in piezometer after water level stabilized) lotted Piezometer Casing and Backfill ATTERBERG LIMITS PL 0 LL o — Natural Moisture Content PL — Plastic Limit LL — Liquid Limit Y lM -HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES. INC. HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES , INC . DRILLING COMPANY: Associated Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger SAMPLING METHOD: SPT, DCM BORING LOG TOTAL DEPTH: 81.5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 25.5 Feet MEASURING POINT EL.: Feet w 0 Z 5 tn v, C Z J CC w X w O u, a 0— n oc L u i 0 N -VALUE (blows /ft) MOIST. CONT. (X) 5-- 2/2/2 4 27.7 10_ 2/4/4 8 33.1 15— 2/4/4 20_� 2/2/2 4 38.8 4/4/5 9 832 30_ 2/3/4 7 58.4 35- 10/12/20 32 70.8 40— J 0 S 0 m 0 N SOIL CLASS. DESCRIPTION w• r: :0 GP . r•: s 44edlum Dense, brownish -grey Sandy GRAVEL, Dry to Damp. (Fill) SM Very Loose, very dark brown Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, Moist. (Alluvium) Loose, very dark brown Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, Moist. ML Soft, very dark brown Sandy SILT, fine grained, Wet. PT Soft, grey to greyish -brown Clayey Sandy SILT, /j / CiL ML interbedded in dark brown to black PEAT, Wet. €oft, very dark grey Sandy SILT, Wet, interbedded with Silty CLAY, and PEAT. ' PT Silty CLAY, and PEAT. SM oose, very dark grey Silty SAND, grading into a Dense, dark brown Sandy SILT, fine grained, Wet. I CL SM Dark grey to greyish -brown Silty CLAY interbed. sense, very dark brown to dark grey Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, Wet to Saturated. • Hoist. Cont. (X) 1 Pen. Resistance (blows /foot) 0 20 40 60 80 • • • • NOTE: This lop of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project BORING: BH -1 LOCATION: S. 180th Street Tukwila, WA, 50' N. of Sidewalk DATE COMPLETED: 3/20/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 2 W _ Z w _ Q t fn c �m W W h w a. a W a o cn a -- 40— No14/20/28 45- 22/11/9 50- N -VALUE (blows /ft) MOIST. CONT. (X) 4830.0 22/11/9 20 38.3 55- 11/6/7 60- 13 24.9 10/15/35 50 27.0 65- 70- 75- 80- HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES , INC . BORING LOG SOIL CLASS. (USCS) DESCRIPTION .x.1.1: SM SAND, as on Sheet 1. SM ,Silty Dense, olive grey SAND with Silt, fine to medium grained, Moist to Wet. • • • _ SM Medium Dense, very dark brown to dark grey Silty SANG trace of Clay, fine grained, Wet. Medium Dense, dark grey Silty SANG, trace of organics, fine grained, Wet. Dense, dark grey SAND with Silt, fine to medium grained, Wet. End of Hole • Moist. Cont. (X) 1 Pen. Resistance (blows /foot) 0 20 40 60 80 L A • • • A PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project BORING: BH -1 LOCATION: S. 180th Street Tukwila, WA, 50' N. of Sidewalk DATE COMPLETED: 3/20/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 2 OF 2 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES , INC. DRILLING COMPANY: Associated Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger SAMPLING METHOD: SPT, D &M BORING LOG TOTAL DEPTH: 59.0 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 28 Feet MEASURING POINT EL.: Feet N s w W 0— N w J 6 S .o w 0 z 1- 0 ccN w z W a 61 L c� C X O 3 N —VALUE (blows /ft) MOIST. CONT. (X) - 35/10/8 18 24.8 5— = 1/1/2 3 32.7 10— 5/8/1 15— 4/7/9 18 37.8 20— 5/4/4 8 58.9 25— - Ei 8/9/11 28 87.1 30— - El 2/3/3 8 40.5 35— - M 15/22/28 50 27.4 40— -J 0 CO i Y- U) in 0 N SOIL CLASS. DESCRIPTION • Moist. Cont. (X) 1 Pen. Resistance (blows /foot) 0 20 40 80 80 • • 1 • • • NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project LOCATION: S 180th Street Tukwila, WA, 50' S. of Curb DATE COMPLETED: 3/20/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens BORING: BH -2 PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 2 SM edium Dense, olive brown Silty Gravelly SAND with Cobbles, Damp. (Fill) ML Medium Stiff, greyish -brown Sandy Clayey SILT with minor amounts of Organics, Damp to Moist. (Alluvium ?) SM • • • Very Loose, grey brown Silty SANG, fine to medium grained, Wet. (Alluvium) ML Medium Stiff, Grey to greyish -brown Sandy SILT, Moist to Wet. • SM Medium Dense, grey to dark greyish -brown Silty Clayey SAND, fine grained, Wet. Loose, greyish -brown Silty SAND, Wet 11E61 61 Dark brown PEAT. Grey Clayey SILT, Wet to Saturated. r Dark brown PEAT, wood organics, with Silty CLAY interbeds, Wet to Saturated. Mr. Loose, olive grey Silty SAND with some Sandy SILT interbeds, Wet. • SM Greyish dark brown Silty CLAY, and PEAT, Wet. Dense, dark grey Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, Wet. • Moist. Cont. (X) 1 Pen. Resistance (blows /foot) 0 20 40 80 80 • • 1 • • • NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project LOCATION: S 180th Street Tukwila, WA, 50' S. of Curb DATE COMPLETED: 3/20/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens BORING: BH -2 PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 2 W V Z cn ILU S J Q a~. i Z 0 u, a 40— 45— 50— 55— 60— 65— 70— 75— 80— t U C 0 a 25/80 for 8" N -VALUE (blows /f I) MOIST. CONT. (X) 23/40/45 85 24.0 El17/32/38 70 27.2 El15/22/24 4e 30.3 -J 0 S r m HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES , INC. BORING LOG SOIL CLASS. DESCRIPTION • • • . SM Very Dense, dark grey Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, Wet. (Alluvium) • • Dense, very dark grey Silty SAND, fine grained with interbedded, dark grey Sandy SILT layers, Moist to Wet. End of Hole. • Moist. Cont. IX) ► Pen. Resistance (bows /foot) 0 20 40 60 80 • 854 • PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project BORING: BH -2 LOCATION: S 180th Street Tukwila, WA, 50' S. of Curb DATE COMPLETED: 3/20/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 2 OF 2 ii HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INC. TEST PIT LOG EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 24 Feet 9 DEPTH ((e I0 MOIST. CONT. (X) 22 027 SOIL CLASS. (USCS) DESCRIPTION End Of Hole • Hoist. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 60 80 NOTE: This loft of subsurface conditions applies only at the specifiedlocatlon and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP -1 LOCATION: Sta. 85 +10.5 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 SM Loose, dark brown Organic Silty top soil, Damp. ML Stiff, dark brown SILT, trace of Pebbles and grey Clayey SILT, Moist. (Fill) r SM Loose to Medium Dense, very dark greyish brown Silty SAND, Moist. End Of Hole • Hoist. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 60 80 NOTE: This loft of subsurface conditions applies only at the specifiedlocatlon and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP -1 LOCATION: Sta. 85 +10.5 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INC. EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples TEST PIT LOG TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 23 Feet 0, = w ul 0— 5— 0 0 10— MOIST. CONT. (X) 20 42 41 J O s DESCRIPTION } GM Medium Dense, olive brown Silty GRAVEL, Damp. ML (Fill) Medium Stiff to Stiff, greyish -brown SILT, Clayey and Sandy in some zones, Damp. (Alluvium) Becoming Moist to Wet. Medium Stiff to Stiff, greyish -brown Clayey SILT, Wet. (Alluvium) End of Hole • Moist. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 60 80 • NOTE: This loft of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP -2 LOCATION: Sta. 62 +94 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 • HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES , INC. TEST PIT LOG EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 24 Feet N 2 J a 11I-. . X w < CI rn 0— 5— 0 0 MOIST. CONT. 24 38 0 45 10-- -J O m S r LA SOIL CLASS. DESCRIPTION End of Hole • Moist. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 80 80 • PLHLL • NOTE: This lop of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP -3 LOCATION: Sta. 58 +33 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 ML Soft to Medium Stiff, olive brown SILT, Damp to Moist. (Alluvium ?) ML Medium Stiff to Stiff, reddish -brown and grey (mottled) Clayey SILT, Moist to Wet. (Alluvium) End of Hole • Moist. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 80 80 • PLHLL • NOTE: This lop of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP -3 LOCATION: Sta. 58 +33 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 .� HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES , INC. EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples TEST PIT LOG TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 23 Feet X F- O_ w 0 0— 5— 10— cn w J S u) C MOIST. CONT. 10 38 3 42 J 0 co z r (1) SOIL CLASS. (USCS) DESCRIPTION ._.. GM Medium Dense, olive brown Silty Sandy GRAVEL, and some Cobbles, Damp. (Fill) Medium Stiff, grey weathered to olive grey Clayey SILT, Moist to Het. (Alluvium) Medium Stiff, dark olive grey Clayey SILT, some fine Sand, Wet. ( Allvuium) . MH End of Hole • Moist. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 60 80 • • • NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project LOCATION: Sta. 51 +92 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens TEST PIT: TP -4 PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES , INC . TEST PIT LOG EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 25 Feet CU N = J O. O. X 0 U7 0— MOIST. CONT. . 0 18 5— ewl 0 32 O 40 J 0 Z N SOIL CLASS. (USCS) DESCRIPTION End of Hole 10— — • Moist. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 80 80 • • NOTE: This lop of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP -5 LOCATION: Sta. 45 +78 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 SW Dense, greyish -brown Gravelly SAND, with Cobbles and trace of Boulders (Rounded), Damp. (Fill) • - SM Loose to Medium Dense, greyish -brown Silty fine SAND, with roots, Damp to Moist. • (Alluvium) • • • • SM Medium Dense, brown to dark grey Silty SAND, trace of Clay, Wet. Sand has volcanic origin. End of Hole 10— — • Moist. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 80 80 • • NOTE: This lop of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP -5 LOCATION: Sta. 45 +78 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 HONG,WEST & ASSOCIATES , INC. EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples TEST PIT LOG TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 28 Feet • W x 0 w w 0 0— 5— 10— cn w J d S m MOIST. CONT. 0 II O 12 33 J 0 m Y u) u) U SOIL CLASS. DESCRIPTION uvium End of Hole • Mast. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 60 80 • • NOTE: This lop of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project LOCATION: Sta. 42 +85.7 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens TEST PIT: TP -6 PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 s Medium Dense, greyish -brown Gravelly Silty fine SAND to SAND with Silt, some Cobbles and boulders (Rounded), Damp. (Fill) • SM • Medium Dense, grey Silty SAND, with Gravel. Trace of Cobbles, Cement Blocks, and Plastic in areas, Damp. (Fill) SP Loose, dark grey SAND, trace of Mica, Wet to Saturated. uvium End of Hole • Mast. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 60 80 • • NOTE: This lop of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project LOCATION: Sta. 42 +85.7 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens TEST PIT: TP -6 PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 • HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INC. EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples TEST PIT LOG TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 25 Feet W 0— 5— cn W J x MOIST. CONT. (X) 10— 34 SOIL CLASS. DESCRIPTION End of Hole • Mast. Cont. ( %) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 80 80 • • NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project LOCATION: Sta. 39+29 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens TEST PIT: TP -7 PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 Sit Medium Dense, greyish -brown Gravelly Silty SAND to SAND with Silt, some Cobbles (Rounded), Damp (Fill) • SM Loose to Medium Dense, dark grey weathered to brown Silty fine • SAND, Wet to Saturated. (Alluvium) • • End of Hole • Mast. Cont. ( %) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 80 80 • • NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project LOCATION: Sta. 39+29 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens TEST PIT: TP -7 PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES , INC. EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples TEST PIT LOG TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 24 Feet 5 MOIST. CONT. 014 0 10— 30 41 0 SOIL CLASS. (USCS) DESCRIPTION ::....:-.'SW ... • • Medium Dense, dark brown Gravelly (Rounded) SAND, Damp. ;. SM • (Fill) Loose to Medium Dense, very dark greyish —brown Silty fine SAND, Damp to Moist. (Fill ?) Loose, dark grey SAND, with Silt, fine to medium grained, with trace to some Mica, Saturated. Volcanic origin. (Alluvium) End of Hole • Mast. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 60 80 • • NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project LOCATION: Sta. 36 +21 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens TEST PIT: TP -8 PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INC. TEST PIT LOG EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 23 Feet d w cn x J 1— w o cn 0— MOIST. CONT. 033 10— C' - J 0 S r U) SOIL CLASS. (USCS) DESCRIPTION End of Hole • Mast. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 60 80 • NOTE: This loft of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP -9 LOCATION: Sta. 33 +15 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 SM Loose to Medium Dense, dark greyish -brown to brown Silty SAND, with Clay Silt fragments, Moist. (Fill ?) ML. MH Medium Stiff, greyish -brown Clayey? SILT with Sand, Wet to Saturated. (Alluvium) End of Hole • Mast. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 60 80 • NOTE: This loft of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP -9 LOCATION: Sta. 33 +15 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INC. TEST PIT LOG EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 24 Feet 5— 10— MOIST. CONT. O 21 C 30 J 0 CO cn SOIL CLASS. (USCS) DESCRIPTION Test Pit caving -in €nd of Hole • Mast. Cont. (%) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 20 40 80 80 NOTE: This loft of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP -10 LOCATION: Sta. 29 +84 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 ML Stiff, dark brown Sandy SILT with Clay fragments, Moist. (Fill) SM Loose to Medium Dense, very dark brown Silty SAND, Wet. (Alluvium) Test Pit caving -in €nd of Hole • Mast. Cont. (%) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 20 40 80 80 NOTE: This loft of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP -10 LOCATION: Sta. 29 +84 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 - HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INC. TEST PIT LOG EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 24, Feet _ a a X O (.n 0— MOIST. CONT. 013 10— 44 31 SOIL CLASS. (USCS) DESCRIPTION Medium Dense, Silty Sandy GRAVEL. (subrounded to rounded). Stiff, brown fine Sandy SILT, Damp to Moist. SP Medium Stiff, greyish -brown slightly Sandy Clayey SILT, Wet (Alluvium) Loose, dark brown to dark grey SAND, with trace of Silt, Wet to Saturated. End of Hole • Moist. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 80 80 • • NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated. 7 PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project ' TEST PIT: TP -11 LOCATION: Sta 26 +96.7 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 % HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INC. EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples TEST PIT LOG TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 21 Feet 5— 10— MOIST. CONT. (X) 22 51 0 31 0 x SOIL CLASS. (USCS) DESCRIPTION .74.A.A.11. t 1 Loose, dark brown Top Soil and Grass :::!:: :'..../: SW Dense, olive brown Gravelly SAND, with concrete and Clay fragments. (Fill) .-- / ,/ /, ff , / / GL MI-4 Stiff, grey weathered to a dark greyish-brown Silty CLAY/Clayey SILT, with charcoal (roots), Wet. (Alluvium) : SP Loose, rust brown weathered zone composed of Sand overlying dark grey SAND, Wet to Saturated. (Alluvium) End of Hole • Moist. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 60 80 • • • NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP-12 LOCATION: Sta. 24+10 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INC. TEST PIT LOG EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 23 Feet 5— 10— HOIST. CONT. (X) o° 0 28 48 0 DESCRIPTION End of Hole • Mast. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 80 80 • • • NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP -13. LOCATION: Sta. 21 +04 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 Top Soil and grass. GM Dense, olive brown Silty Sandy GRAVEL (subrounded to rounded), Damp. • SM / (Fill) Loose to Medium Dense, very dark greyish -brown Silty SAND, Moist to Wet. (Alluvium) f4 j/ jj j / j j j j j // CL Medium Stiff to Stiff, grey Silty CLAY, Moist. (Alluvium) End of Hole • Mast. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 80 80 • • • NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP -13. LOCATION: Sta. 21 +04 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 • HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INC. TEST PIT LOG EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 23 Feet N 2 -J a i w a 0 cn 0— 5— (0— MOIST. CONT. 0 10 C 28 -J 0 m r SOIL CLASS. (USCS) DESCRIPTION End of Hole • Hoist. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 80 80 NOTE: This lop of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP--14 LOCATION: Sta. 18 +73.8 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 ; JTop Soil, and grass k ;.., +":' .1.k% d• la: 'Y1 GP Dense, olive brown Sandy GRAVEL (subrounded to rounded), Damp. (Fill ?) MH Medium Stiff to Stiff, dark grey Clayey SILT, trace of Sand, Damp to Moist. (Alluvium) CL Stiff, dark grey Silty CLAY, Damp to Moist. (Alluvium) 0.T. CL Peat? Possible Log. Stiff, dark grey Silty CLAY, Moist. End of Hole • Hoist. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 80 80 NOTE: This lop of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project TEST PIT: TP--14 LOCATION: Sta. 18 +73.8 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples INC. TEST PIT LOG TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 25 Feet a w 0— 5— 10— 018 44 c48 SOIL CLASS. (USCS) DESCRIPTION Top Soil, and grass. SM Dense, yellowish brown Gravelly (rounded) Silty SAND, Damp. (Fill) CL Medium Stiff to Stiff, rust to grey mottled Silty CLAY, Moist to Wet. Weathered. End of Hole • Moist. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 80 80 • • • NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project LOCATION: Sta. 15+98 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens TEST PIT: TP -15 PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES , INC . EXCAVATION COMPANY: Soos Creek Excavation EXCAVATION METHOD: Back Hoe SAMPLING METHOD: Grab samples TEST PIT LOG TOTAL DEPTH: 5 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: 25 Feet DEPTH (feet) 0— 5-- 10— MOIST. CONT. (X) 11 0 31 0 I4 SOIL CLASS. (USCS) DESCRIPTION 0:.4,,,, GP Gravel Fill :�• SW Medium Dense, olive brown Gravelly SAND, with Silt, Damp (Fill) SP Medium Dense, brown SAND, Damp. (Fill) MH Medium Stiff to , olive brown Clayey SILT, Damp. (Alluvium) • GM Medium Dense, yellowish -brown Silty fine SAND, Damp. (Alluvium) End of Hole • Moist. Cont. (X) PL Plastic Limit LL Liquid Limit 0 20 40 80 80 • • • • NOTE: This lop of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. PROJECT: Interurban Trail Project LOCATION: Sta. 0 +94.8 DATE COMPLETED: 4/30/92 • LOGGED BY: Chris Behrens TEST PIT: TP -16 PROJECT NUMBER: 92041 PAGE: 1 OF 1 :. � APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Moisture Content Testing Moisture content testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM method D2216. The results are shown on the appropriate logs, Appendix A, and on Table B -1. Grain Size Analysis The grain size distribution of representative soil samples were determined in accordance with ASTM D422. The soil samples were soaked overnight to disaggregate any clay clumps prior to testing. The results are contained in Appendix B, and on Table B -1 Atterberg Limits The Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit of selected plastic soil samples were determined in accordance with ASTM D4318. The results are shown on the logs in Appendix A, and on Table B -1. HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Interurban Trail Test Hole Number: 9H -1 Client: Horton Dennis and Associates Sample Number: 4 Project Number: 92041 Depth: 20 -21.5 feet Date Tested: 5/13/92 Sample Description: Remarks: Very dark grayish brown, very Gravel: 0.0 sandy SILT c,P ) Sand: 47.6 Silt: Clay: PERCENT SMALLER 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30. 20 10 0 52.4 Clay Silt Sand Gravel I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 -- i--t---1—t—r-----------t—I---t—t—I-- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — __J__L___J_1_1___ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Fine 1 Medium 1 Cm Fin• I Cr:. SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/8 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 — • I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 -- i--t---1—t—r-----------t—I---t—t—I-- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — __J__L___J_1_1___ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' I I I I I I t I I I I I 1 I 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 - - -- I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 t t 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 ' I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 3 1 I 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 t I 1 1 1 1• 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 11 11 11111 1 1 1 111 i1 1 1 1 i i n11 I' I r 1 1111 1 1 ii i i ii'1 1' I 1 1 ii 5 0.001 2 5 2 0.01 5 2 5 2 5 2 0.1 1 10 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES 5 Project: Interurban Trail HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Client: Horton Dennis and Associates Project Number: 92041 Date Tested: -- __5/13/92 Remarks: Very dark gray, fine SAND with some silt (SP —SMM PERCENT SMALLER 100 90 80 Test Hole Number: BH -1 Sample Number: 11 Depth: 60 -61.5 feet Sample Description: Gravel: 0.0 Sand: 93.0 Silt: 7.0 Clay: Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fine 1 Medium 1 Cr. Flee 1 Cr,. SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/8 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/8 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 - 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 1 _ 11 1 I I I I 1 1 — ---i -- --- i- + -h- -- - - - -- -- f -I--- t -t-t -- I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 . I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I --.1- L - --J -1 -1----------1-I---1_I_I-- - I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 1 '- - -1 -, - -- 1 1 1 - - -- 1 1 1 1 I . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I -1--t---1-r—r-"-------1-1---t-t-I-- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 - I 1 t1 1 1 1 1 I 1 11I 1 1111 11 I 1 1111 1 1 1 1 1 fi 1 1 1 1 1 IIf � 1 1 11 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 70 — 60 50 — 40 30 20 10 0 s 2 0.001 s 0.01 2 s 2 5 2 0.1 1 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES s 2 10 5 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 I L _ ___J __L _ _ _J-1'_I- ------ - -- --1-I--- 1 1-1 -I -- I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 70 — 60 50 — 40 30 20 10 0 s 2 0.001 s 0.01 2 s 2 5 2 0.1 1 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES s 2 10 5 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Interurban Trail Client: Horton Dennis and Associates Test Hole Number: BH —2 Sample Number: 4 Project Number: 92041 Depth: 17.5 -19 feet__ Date Tested: 5/13/92 _._ Sample Description: Remarks: Dark.grayish brown_ very sandy Gravel: 0.0 SILT c.ML) Sand: 36.7 Silt: Clay: LL= 29.4, PL= 22.7, Pl= 6.7 PERCENT SMALLER 100 . 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 63.3 Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fine I Medium 1 Creel Fine 1 Cr,. SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/8 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 - I I. - - - J 1 -L---J-1.-L---------1-1---1-1-1-- I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 • 1 1 .1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I• 1 1 1 1 i I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1. 1 !1 11 I I 1 I yy1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 -11 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( I I J 1 1 ( 1 1 1111 1 I 1 I I 1 11 1 1 1 I l s 0.001 2 5 2 5 2 5 0.01 0.1 1 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES 2 S 10 2 5 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Interurban Trail Client: Horton Dennis and Associates Project Number: 92041 Date Tested: 5/13/92 Remarks: Gray., very sand,_ silty GRAVEL KG/t4) Mww PERCENT SMALLER 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Test Hole Number: TP-4 Sample Number: 1 Depth: 0 -2 feet Sample Description: Gravel: 52.7 Sand: 33.2 Silt: 14.1 Clay: Clay Silt Sand l G ravel 1 1 1 I --- J-- L--- I I I 1 I 1 --- 1-- r-- Fine 1 Medium 1 Crs. Fine I Craig SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/8 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 S 2 5 2 5 2 5 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES 2 5 10 2 5 1 1 1 I --- J-- L--- I I I 1 I 1 --- 1-- r-- 1 I I 1 I I J- 1 -1- -.. 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 --1 -T -i ------- ----- 1 1 I I - -1 -I__ 1 I I 1 1 1 - -1-1 - 1 1 I _1 1_1__ I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 T -T-1 - 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 --- -I -- r--- I 1 1 -1 -T -i -- - - -- I I - .-- 1- ,-- I 1 I -T -T -I - I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I - _ -J__L_ J_1_L_-------- 1_I___1_1_I__ I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I - - - 1 —,I 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 — — — — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I - -- 1--r----1-t-r---------?-t---Y-t-I-- 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I ' ll I ) 1 I 1 1 1 II 1 1I 11 I I I I I I I I I (III 1 I I l i f 1 1 1 I iili?ii' 1 111111 1 I ll( S 2 5 2 5 2 5 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES 2 5 10 2 5 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Interurban Trail _Client: Horton Dennis and Associates Project Number: 92041 Date Tested: 5/13/92 Remarks: _Very dark_g ray, _.fine SAND with some silt (SP —SMM PERCENT SMALLER 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 -30 20 10 0 Test Hole Number: TP-8 'Sample Number: 3 Depth: 7.5 feet__________.______. Sample Description: Gravel: _.._.. ^__..... 0.0._____ Sand: 94.2 Silt: 5.8 Clay: Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fine 1 IA.dlum 1 Cr. s Fin• 1 Cn. SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/e 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 5 2 s 2 5 2 5 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES 2 5 10 2 5 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - -1 -- -- 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .... 1 -T -j - ----- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - -1 -1- -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7-T -1 -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 - - -1 -r --- 1 1 1 -I-T-1----------1-1---T-T-1-- 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 I I .- - --1 -t---1—t—t----------i—I---t—t—I-- . 1 1 1 t 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- -1_--- - J- - -L -- - ------ = -1- -- 1— L-1 -- 7- 1- 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 - 1 1 -1 1 1 - - - -- 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I — --1--Y----I—t—t----------1—I---t—t—I-- _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I ► 1 1 ( Halt I I i I I l 1 � 1 1 1 1 I I 5 2 s 2 5 2 5 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES 2 5 10 2 5 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Interurban Trail Test Hole Number: TP -11 Client: Horton Dennis and Associates Sample Number: 2 Project Number: 92041 Date Tested: 5/13/92 Sample Description: Remarks: Brown SILT with some sand (ML) Gravel: 0.0 Depth: 5 feet PERCENT SMALLER 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Sand: 6.2 Silt: Clay: 93.8 Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fin. 1 Medium 1 Cra. Fin. 1 Cn. SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/8 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 3 5 2 s 2 5 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES 5 10 2 5 arm --{r.�41'�"-� I I J L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 -1 - -.1- 1 I 1 I I J 1 L _ I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 r 1 I 1 I I 1 I - - - I - t - F- I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I 7 I I I I I -t- I--- 1 I 1 1 1 J. 1 1 I 1 1 1 T T 1 1 1 1 t -t -1 -- 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 J L J 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 r 1 1 I 7 I T 7 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 i-- I - - - --1 t-1 - -`+ — I--- t —t —I -- 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I t I 1 1 J L J 1 L 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 t 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 i 1 1 • . . 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I t 1 I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 t -1-- 1---- 1—t -1- -- •Y— I--- t -7 —I -- I 1 i 1 I I I I I 1 1 ' fI 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 11 )I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I l l r l i f 1 1 f 1 1 1 r 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 3 5 2 s 2 5 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES 5 10 2 5 Table B -1. Results of Laboratory Testing Boring Depth (ft.) Moisture Content (%) Grain Size Distribution Atterberg Limits U.S.C.S. Classification BH -1 5-6.5 27.7 SM 10 -11.5 33.1 SM 20 -21.5 36.6 0% gravel, 48% sand, 52% fines ML 25 -26.5 63.2 CL /PT 30 -31.5 56.4 CL 35 -36.5 70.8 CL 40 -41.5 30.0 SM 50 -51.5 38.3 SM 55- 56.5 24.9 SM 60- 61.5 27.0 0% gravel, 93% sand, 7% fines SP /SM BH -2 2.5-4 24.8 SM 7.5 -9 32.7 SM 17.5 -19 37.6 0% eravel, 37% sand, 63% fines LL =29, PL =22 ML 22.5 -24 58.9 PT 27.5 -29 67.7 PT 32.5 -34 40.5 SM /PT 37.5 -39 27.4 SM 47.5 -49 24.0 SM 52.5 -54 27.2 SM 57.5 -59 30.3 SM /ML TP -1 1 22.3 SM 5 27.5 SM TP -2 2 20.3 LL =29, PL =27 ML 3 41.8 ML 5 40.8 ML TP -3 1 23.7 ML 2 36.0 LL =38, PL =32 ML 5 45.1 ML TP-4 1 9.9 53% gravel, 33% sand,14% fines GM 3 37.7 ML /MH 8 42.0 ML /MH TP -5 1 18.0 SW 4 31.8 SM 7 40.3 SM TP-6 1 11.3 SW /SM 5 12.5 SM 9 32.6 SP TP -7 1 9.4 SW /SM 6 34.2 SM TP -8 1 14.0 SM 4 30.0 SM 8 41.3 0% gravel, 94% sand, 6% tines SP /SM TP -9 1 33.0 SM July 17, 1992 HWA Project No. 92041 Table B-1 Continued TP -8 1 14.0 SM 4 30.0 SM 8 41.3 0% gravel, 94% sand, 6% fines SP /SM TP -9 1 33.0 SM 7 37.3 . ML/MH TP -10 1 26.6 ML 6 30.0 SM TP -11 1 12.6 ML 5 44.3 0% gravel, 6% sand, 94% fines ML 7 31.3 SP TP -12 1 22.0 SW 2 50.9 CL /MH 7 31.5 SP TP -13 1 6.2 GM 3 26.5 SM 8 45.9 CL TP -14 1 10.2 GP 4 26.0 MH TP -15 1 16.0 SM 4 44.2 MH 8 47.9 MH TP -16 .5 7.9 GP 1 10.6 SW 5 36.9 MH 8 14.0 SM D m 1 z 2 a a Rt W ra ucrraw h � Zl b • LIMIT LIMIT z t (rl 0 z r- ran It SIM I IMOLA 2122.71142211-2-22 r m 2 JP c- o m 0 -4 -4 N 2 x_ 2 —4 0 2 _ *+-_11_f —i- _ -0— f•-- ,_`_— o _= C O T a – -- _Z- 01_Z -----.-- C- O C1 m rlme hiss 1 12e2-2612-1/ LONGACRES 68MND STAND a wti- --- — ! i • ti 0 1 1� i ,444r, RQCE`TRACK t`. It 11 „HOCKEY i i \,‘ i) ,1� � h z U . • `N ∎s• 1� 11 • c_ 11 0 2 O5 1, lMH A311VA 1S3M 181 r L CD th z • MIT z r n - r^• ti Z N TUK :ILA r- r CORPORAT, L•� CORPORAT •. ; -• , L. ,I emit r x_v,__ 471: — - --ii - -' _2- —� —_: O �, -- .�' .... r i el ONGA; -.'r ,;1 r I / � -CF CR . 1'' -li -- �yA-�� - - -- 77?1 Res -RACE J ACE` TRACK ! II 4pN 1� JOCKEY CLUB u �` i ‘ S� 11 11Z U ,�,r1I 0 OM El tat I t �.r • :1; u . ' \ l � `'` ••,,,.• .� ; .tip t T:...;..-:.7.„.*A 1,..,r. , ,,,.. ..-/.11% -- 1- ��.�f(�1 `t a vt. LONGACRES w. GRAND STAND O 0 r. • L. a lMH ) 311VA 1S3M itx,a UC Nom II aura =CIL& 1.111611842111411.411111-111-1111111-111, r m r L,-,'.= ___ -__ --... 7'!t 11111611-11-111111-11 C CD , �...� �• � --- --,T- int ▪ % :-.7-7.-.7 - P- Ct O _ i- - - -- `r, o ,-- N � • , Z -c i - -7!/ � 7 I i 1 r I. tI ^Q m 'I Ikili t I __ . O -= L A - -____= C 0 s ti LONGACRES GRAND STAND • • / "LONGA RE- > >� %/ / RACE` TRACK / -. - -- -1 �- f �j ` Mi C1� � j; ° t G - ti 0 ti` II N it ,-,-KEY `„,. II tt z .�. I} t{ Nam 'y . • • 6 a •J 19, rr '' 'I r---co-N-6(A—CRE 11 e,,, --Rt4c-E----TR4 L A It 1 I lts ; I it to II tl T N 11 1 - .JOCKEY CLUE u f -" 1Z u ..../1'7. z • 'o• ^r roa,•- \- .. -*•-• + •:: ' . N 169300 E 1651700 1 0 0 0 0 N 0) c0 2 -N •...D PROPOSED TRAIL CENTERLINE E 1651600 sraNi ^o CONC. WALK : SED TRAIL CENTERLINE WETLAND BOUNDARY BUILDING 16550 W. VALLEY HIGHWAY CONC. 0 0 0 W Z E 1651700 0 0 N 1651700 O O N ..�....�..»:. . 20 10 20 40 60 E' 1651500 LHDII Horton Dennis & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers, Planners, and Surveyors KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 822 -2525 � FLOOD BANK „., 0 0 cQ z E 1651500 3 14‘ GREEN RIVER • • sci E Ov-ex--16/ Fv ve-v-ur erA, DRAWN 6Y: RL H DATE: 7/08/92 CHECKED 8 DRA $WC NO.: 91240RA JOB NO.: 9121.40 SHEET 1 or 1 • 1 • • '' • • ••1•1•••—•••••.1.-4,-.4-4—nst • 0 0 n rro <-1 ••••• o-0 it • •• • (1879-1884 c=3 :1 C-1 5.15 1 a., p 1 5' f 4:;£41F4i t t ROPE FAS E Nr co- — a c - z r- - C3 > sp • •.3 > 0 -c 1. • impupoupwwwwommiumnsipuimpuumpoupuoman • CELLO BAG C 1 3 , • SLO a ,ct STONE P (GET SOUND POVI CHI CA GO k Aiir4rAllie'ELE ST PALA . . Bunt NGT NORTHERN rrnn arrit.1 1 Ei 1 EA 1 no 1 Ess 11.11 Lim LAW' Milli BM aTMIWTWITIMETimmarmEnwrourrict_ _ 53 12 • - 1302 SI . . '4LIA • !Oa i'. • • . rw. CNA 4i • tuyNGTON NORTH ,4 P A R 0 r— ea 0 • (b. sr, -V RI 0 -I Mr - E:R N • • • • . a • ' • cv rCio 0 )3- .• • • f.45(.44E-Nr? G e M. ; W _ _10: Sl._2_ A_101,6a_4_,C4 FA 8t STATE SIGN RIUTE 181 IC,' r-Fs7-075-E-4- rd-rAi-,-vot OsTPf--- GEORGE 012.'T Vi ■•••••■•••••■•••••■.0w..111.1■0•■ STONEWM_ In & cijoy,-.56 ::: - s • • .. • • ..••• s . PUGET SOUND POWER a LIGHT CO. RIGHT OF WAY t • r- 0.111111°1111P11116117:. • . . CHICAGO- iiILWAVICEE Sr PAUL PACIFIC RAILROAD • • I • - • , • • Btl PI GT CrN NORTHERN • 4 4. 4 4 1- 4- L • ,• s 1 • L KW _ - REN coe PSPitt. CO .■40 1 • • • • lb [ m ••••■ fl S LIM1 _ C. 1 II e • • • moo (ti • UNIOAI PACIFIC) 1. z Of z ..-............ •••••-4--o-ir-4- '-'-0-4--•T--------.."-4""""4-4-.-•-•• • RV IJMO-1 MI Meat A.1.1Ur1=:3:1•11 4--)--•-■-• • ' .---r--1-4-1-•-4--..-.-4--4•••••-•-• , -,....y.-{ -4- 74-4-4.44..... -4••",--1"4' - e...-1., ....--4-4-'4-...„.........4.„ i_.....4_,........ . . . . 1:24-1•01-a-se-timirsorrirri--= -r=rustigrurriscriormzi-aeri rir-d- IMO -milli. !it al 1 41-4 iti z , 0 • . „ • . I -* . ••• - . • • . •••• CI . .• • • 4.PN- < - • 7 *7 • elk' • -1 0 - :4 • . al1 • •?: 2•;,- .•_•;•-• • • • Ci. i.4‘. P-•-■ v`••-r • 1 • 411111.141115,.....wa.851 0 27. tx ; I r1 ..... .... Z II trl C.. Ct 33 0 -.4 m ca '5 Z 0 i4 A -.• o ,a; C) h', x --4 c_. c • m X -L. r• vs eb C0-k-.4c 0 0 z -c N. •Z t el ..:..s. . -.1 C ••-• CI -41 CP - • 1••• 14 3 -all • .-1 CD NI .1 .ftwo. A •■ 1) 1111 • .... • . • �-zflu) r- DD m // 1 1 • t, X) • • 2 r 1 o = (t. n ! I I� rw Y I n .3 a • CORPt s LI M) J • t•S 9 r i lb, t lb 76-11E-4 ammo tio rob* b ltitH A3TIVA IS?M VC t 10 LIMIT b z 0 0 -4 - 0 - m z • -r - - d — - ; -- _ f►lI r 1 o _ -- r-_y_.� - -_ -� Z ^' C 0 z -m -2 3 z _ � _ - ti_��� -� -ii /I II i�I I ". / ice, LONGAR(S `/ RACE` TRACK / � /// ti - LONG' 6 4NU STAND ___ c N-EI4 CRE , � 1� ii ( ��\ 11 • kV 11 • r GRAVEL MEDIUM DENSE 0.5'=-1.5' GRAVELLY SAND 1.5'-4.5' MEDIUM DENSE SAND 4.5'-7.5' MEDIUM STIFF CLAYEY SILT 7.5.-8.5. MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND T.D. 8.5' FREE WATER NOT OBSERVED RIGHT-OF-WAY N 163676.37 E 1651765.74 P OF PROPOSED TRAIL OF PSPL R/w AND SURVEY LINE 'TRANSITION FROM 10' WIDTH (EXISTING TRAIL) TO 12' WIDTH (PROPOSED TRAIL) LEGEND ASPHALT APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT P: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. RIGHT—OF—WAY 1 SCALE: 1 "=40' ASPHALT SAWCUT EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT - MATCH NEW PAVEMENT TO EXISTING REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT OF EXISTING ASPHALT TRAIL HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES TUKWILA INTERURBAN TRAIL SITE PLAN - SEGMENTS A & B STA. 0+35 TO STA. 5+10 PROJECT NO. 92041 ,FIGURE NO. 2 MATCH UNE 5+00 CS RIM - 21.41 NV. NV. SOT. LEGEND TP-16 O N ASPHALT APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT R IGHi-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY 0 20 40 TP-16 GRAVEL MEDIUM DENSE GRAVELLY SAND MEDIUM DENSE SAND MEDIUM STIFF 4.5'-7.5' CLAYEY SILT MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND T.U. 8.5' FREE WATER NOT OBSERVED v 80 SCALE: 1 "=40' SO 'TRANS IT ION FROM P 10' WIDTH P TRAIL) TO 12EXIWIDTH (PROPOSED TRAIL) in I O Z F v m 0 EXISTING PAVEMENT ®. SAl ASPF ►MTC TO E HONG TU KWIL, SITE PLA STA. C BASE MAP: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES. INC. PROJECT NO. 92 92041-0-001.1 25 8 2 2 E 1651900 .92• 1-6H-2 BUILDING LEGEND BH-2 A APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BOREHOLE A' LOCATION OF CROSS SECTION ! (SEE FIGURE 14) P: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. r 8 I E 11551900 GRAVEL 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1"=40' ASPHALT e• COAX CURB 8 r. I E 1651900 RI 21 4t NV. 1011121 6-CONC TALI OUMPSTER ENCLOSURE MATCH UNE 5+00 SEP 1 ,11993 NT HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES TUKWILA INTERURBAN TRAIL SITE PLANS - SEGMENT B & C STA. 5+10 TO STA. 11+00 92041 LEGEND BH-2 A rPHALT..30.66 IT SUPP0RT.47.66 Ur T49.•6 �•� 3( 1'1 P YHALT x .ri1 rr. tarfratIMINEWN ELEC MH RIM30.16 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BOREHOLE A' I LOCATION OF CROSS SECTION (SEE FIGURE 14) BASE MAP: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES. INC. 8 E 1651900 11000 RET ti‘3 / GRAVEL GRAVEL 0 20 tf 40 80 SCALE: 1"=40' ASPHALT 6- GONG CURB CB INV. 6- 10 HONG TUKWIL SITE PLA STA. f. PROJECT NO. 9� 92041-8-002.2 P P P A e-1 A-12 20 SSW RM"21.07 TP-I5 0-0.5' TOPSOIL 3'-B' GRAVELLY SILTY SAND MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF SILTY CLAY T.D. B' WATER AT 6' P gik fti OF PROPOSED A-10 TRAIL A-0 S S S LEGEND TP-16 -�- APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT P: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. RIGHT-OF-WAY WETLAND AREA E OF PSPLAR/W AND SURVEY LINEA_e 0 20 40 S 80 SCALE: 1"=40' 25 20 • SEP 2 0 1993 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES TUKWILA INTERURBAN TRAIL SITE PLAN - SEGMENT C STA. 11+00 TO STA. 17+00 PROJECT NO. 92041 FIGURE NO. 4 0 0 W Z 9-3 Ak 2 B-24 LEGEND TP-16 -� • B-25 TP-I5 0-0.5' TOPSOIL 0.5'— 3' 3'-8' GRAVELLY SILTY SAND MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF SILTY CLAY T.D. 8' WATER AT 6' A-12 A SSMH RIM-21.97 8-26 A► P r RIGHT-OF-WAY A► L A-10 s 0 A. 8-27 1E A fL 0P PROPOSED TRAIL A-9 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT BASE MAP: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. At 0 8-28 Al METLAND AREA OF PSPL11/W AND SURVEY LINEA_B 30 ZS 20 GHT-or-+vAY--- 0 20 40 At A-7 80 SCALE: 1 "=40' A. Alt A-J B-30 s A. N 164509.51 E 1651776.19 P 0 HONG TUKWIL, SITE F STA. 'y 1 Q, PROJECT NO.y 4 92041-8-003.1 1651600 20 0-1' 1'-4' 4'-8' TP-13 DENSE SILTY SANDY GRAVEL LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF SILTY CLAY T.D. 8' FREE WATER NOT OBSERVED 0 0 -- — — -- — — — — — -- — _— -- — RIRIGHT-OF-WAY — -- E 1651800 WE1I.AND REA 'B" E 1651751.89 8-18 20 8-10 TP=13 8-19 p ♦ n 1'----a--- P alr— -- —: p- 0 S 0 LEGEND TP-16 -� tn5t7W 0 0 € OF PROPOSED TRAIL 8-a S S APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED -AT TEST PIT ': SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. p 0 rt OF PSPL R/W AND SURVEY L ldtEB 8-20 �-- R I GHT-FLAY 20 20 0-2' 2'-7' 7'-9' TP-I4 DENSE SANDY GRAVEL MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF CLAYEY SILT STIFF, SILTY CLAY T.D. 9' WATER AT 8.5' B-6 � 8-21 AL 8 8-5 p --p_ P s P 'METI.AND A�2EA .F3 _ /h 0 0 0 0 20 40 SCALE: 1"=40' 80 (z I E 1651800 f E 1651700 S 8-4 0 0 0 SEP 2 0 1993 DE' _=O� MENT HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES TUKWILA INTERURBAN TRAIL SITE PLAN - SEGMENT D STA. 17+00 TO STA. 23+00 PRO CT NO. 92041 FIGURE NO. 5 8 h N 2 W E 1651500 1 2 20 S i 0 0 0 2 0-1' 1'-4' 4'-8' TP-13 DENSE SILTY SANDY GRAVEL LOOSE TO MEDIUM . DENSE SILTY SAND MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF SILTY CLAY T.D. 8' FREE WATER NOT OBSERVED RICHT-OF-WAY E 1651600 I I �► --{I - WEILAND REA "8" AL TP-I4 DENSE SANDY GRAVEL 2'-7' MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF CLAYEY SILT 7'-9' STIFF. SILTY CLAY T.D. 9' WATER AT 8.5' E 1651751.89 AL. ii. € OF PSPL R,. �� 8-6 OF PROPOSED AND SURVEY LItIE6 20 8-S ' — 20 6-10 �1 3 TRAIL B-9 \ .4 20 8-18 m 2 LEGEND TP-16 -�- t65t7AJ S 8-19 0 0 8-20 0 20 8-21 4 p P— • A P WET AND AREA 'B" Ti P-- -- 0 0 0 0 s APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED -AT TEST PIT BASE MAP: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS do ASSOCIATES, INC. 92041-8-004.2 S R I CRT -FAY — ______________ _ g 4- 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1 "=40' H( TUK Sll STA. PROJECT NO. C-i D-7 P c-e O # P I E 1651700 s 8 0 0 C-7 TP-II MEDIUM DENSE 0-0.3' SILTY SANDY .GRAVEL STIFF FINE SANDY SILT MEDIUM STIFF CLAYEY SILT 6.5'-7.5 LOOSE SAND T.D. 7.5' WATER AT 5' ETLAND AREA 'C' 0-2' 2'-5' TP-I2 DENSE GRAVELLY SAND STIFF SILTY CLAY TO CLAYEY SILT LOOSE SAND T.D. 7' WATER AT 5' R 1 GHTOF-WAY 48. OAP 1 V.- 1 e. PSPL R/W 20 • =• a. C-6 AND sliivEO`'d1NE P z LEGEND TP-16 4-- 0 D-4 RET IND AREA 'D. P E 1631700 0 # APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT ': SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 C-3 C-2 20 TP-12 g D-3 i 8-14 # 13 MATCH U£ 23+00 -. ffer 'PAY s 5 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1 "=40' O 5 1 e-15 O s0 # 4e' CMP 0 WV-'i.ao sS7/H 5 11114- 24.11 r- - - a SEP Z 0 1993 JY DE,. ..1- jIJ.JI rll 7 H ON G WEST & ASSOCIATES TUKWILA INTERURBAN TRAIL SITE PLAN - SEGMENT E STA. 23+00 TO STA. 29+00 92041 IFIGURE NO. 6 PROJECT NO • TP-II 0-0.3' SILTY SANDY .GRAVEL STIFF FINE SANDY SILT MEDIUM DENSE 4'-6.5' MEDIUM STIFF CLAYEY SILT 6.5'-7.5' LOOSE SAND T.D. 7.5' WATER AT 5' R 1 G iT--OP-WAY 0-2' 2'-5' TP-I2 DENSE GRAVELL SAND STIFF SILTY CL/ TO CLAYEY SIL1 5'-7' LOOSE SAND T.D. 7' WATER AT 5' # C-9 # D-7 C-6 5 O P I E 1651700 5 S # C-7 # P NE1LAND AREA -C' 20 . s. ]. C-6 ■ LEGEND TP-16 .z 5 O P F OF PSPL RAY AND SIRVE:P-8INE D-4 D-3 # a WEILAND AREA 'O E 1631700 Qu_ 0 5, z O APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT --Rte141-0r'4+A I 5 0 20 40 5 # A. C-2 20 C-3 O 80 SCALE: 1 "=40' 5 1' TP-12 O HONG TUKWILA SITE PI STA. 23= BASE MAP: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 92041-8-005.1 PROJECT NO. 92( E-,0 P OF PROPOSED ---- I L LEGEND TP-16 -(#- 0-6' 6'-8' TP-9 LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND MEDIUM STIFF SILT WITH SAND T.D. 8' WATER AT 7.5' WETLAND AREA "V € OF PSPL R/W SURVEY LINE TFs 9 - RIGHT-OF-WAY E-6 E-7 p p 0 0 0 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES. INC. TP-IO STIFF SANDY SILT LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND T.D. 7' WATER AT 7' E-3 E-4 20 7 AY AL PSPL R R I GHT-OF--WAY 25 5 5 0 20 40 SCALE: 1 "=40' 80 0 0 rn W JCr12 SEP 2 u 1993 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES TUKWILA INTERURBAN TRAIL SITE PLAN - SEGMENT F STA. 29+00 TO STA. 35+00 92041 FIGURE NO. 7 PROJECT N0. i 1- x P IL O LEGEND TP-16 -�- 0-6' 6'-8' OF PSPL R/W SURVEY LINE E-E TP-9 LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND MEDIUM STIFF SILT WITH SAND T.D. 8' WATER AT 7.5' TP- 9 RI IGHT-0E-WAY E-6 E 1631700 WEILAND AREA "J" P P - n WETLAND AREA "E' O O o APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT 0 20 Z15- 40 E-4 20 80 SCALE: 1 "=40' $ TP-I C 0-5.5' STIFF `, 5.5'-7' LOOSE DENSE E-3 T.D. WATER A 7 HONG WE: TUKWILA IN SITE PLAr STA. 29+0 BASE MAP: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 92041-B-006.1 PROJECT NO. 92041 € OF PROP TAIL --i LEGEND 1P-16 (TP7 0-4.5' MEDIUM DENSE GRAVELLY SILTY SAND LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE SILTY FINE SAND T.D. 8' WATER AT 8.25' _...„„) 2 RIGHT-0E-WAY Q OF PSPI R/W AND SURVEY LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY RUe 1SW PILL: WETLAND AREA TP-7 E-15 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT ': SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. E-14 P-- 0 0 0 ----------------- 13 WETLAND AREA 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1"=40' 0-0.25' TP-8 MEDIUM DENSE GRAVELLY SAND LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE SILTY FINE SAND LOOSE SAND WITH SILT T.D. 8' WATER AT 7.5' TP-8 -8 R I GHT- OF -WAY OF PSVL R/W AND SORVEr=TNE O STANDING WATER RIGHT-OF-WAY S.3...�. 4_J SEP 2 0 993 ©-t• NT i HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES TUKWILA INTERURBAN TRAIL SITE PLAN - SEGMENT G STA. 35+00 TO STA. 41+00 PR s; T N 92041 FI UR N. 8 (TP7 0-4.5' MEDIUM DENSE GRAVELLY SILTY SAND LOOSE TO MEDIUM 4.5'-8' DENSE SILTY FINE SAND T.D. 8' WATER AT 8.25' E-IS E_14 E-12 WETLAND AREA 'E' la 7 RICHT-OF-WAY n U E-16 \ OF PROPOS TRAIL LEGEND TP-16 G. OF PSPL R/W AND SURVEY LINE TP-7 O f/ "s5 —CRC R 1 OHT-OF-WAY RUEBISH PILE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT 3 0 F —_ p WETLAND AREA -E. P 0 0 20 40 P 80 SCALE: 1"=40' MEDIUM DE GRAVELLY LOOSE TO DENSE SIL SAND LOOSE SAI WITH SILT T.D. 8' WATER AT 7.5' TP-8 HON TUKWII SITE STA. BASE MAP: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES. INC. 92041—B-007.1 PROJECTN 9 ETLAND RE 1 d E 0-1.5' TP-5 DENSE GRAVELLY SAND LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND T.D. 8' WATER AT 8' RI41R-OF-MIAY G-7 WETLAND AREA 'G G-S i OF PROPOSED TRAIL LEGEND TP-16 F OF PS& RAI / Alp SUR1$Y LINE G-4 GRAVEL STOCKPILE E T _ 8 I I E 165171. V TP-5(t1 . 1RANSFERl1ER tfrr7tn LOCATION TE R I GHT-OF-wAY APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT G-2 0 0 20 40 0'-3.5 TP-6 MEDIUM DENSE GRAVELLY SILTY SAND MEDIUM DENSE 3.5-8.5' SILTY SAND WITH TRACE COBBLES 8.51-9' SCALE: 1 "=40' LOOSE SAND T.D. 9' WATER AT 8.75' 80 • cf-21 WETLAND AREA 'F' O F-5 U Q 41 -Ai IVACX Alirrij £ OF PSPL R/W AND SURVEY LINE n z F-3 R I T-0FWAY RIGNT.OF-MAY SL..1 21IbJ Ci HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES TUKWILA INTERURBAN TRAIL SITE PLAN — SEGMENT H STA. 41 +00. TO STA. 47+00 ': SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT N0. 92041 FIGURE NO. WETLAND AREA X 5/r 0 �/ ^r £OF PROPOSED TRAIL f7RAvn P tg 0 0-1.5' 1.5'-8' TP-5 DENSE GRAVELLY SAND LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND T.D. 8' WATER AT 8' RIGHT-OF-WAY £ OF PSfE R/W / A►a SUR\SY LINE 8 4I TP-5 1RANgORYER1pcAim vva war iw LOOMED LOCATION APPR07CYATE LEGEND TP-16 RIGHT-OF-WAY GRAVEL STOCKPILE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT WETLAND AREA 0 20 40 O'-3.5' 3.5'-8.5' 8.5'— 9' 80 SCALE: 1 "=40' TP-6 MEDIUM DENSE GRAVELLY SILTY SAND MEDIUM DENSE • SILTY SAND WITH TRACE COBBLES LOOSE SAND T.D. 9' WATER AT 8.75' • F-S c_E-21 £OFPS Ara slJ HONC TUKWIL SITE STA. 4' BASE MAP: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT NO. 9' 92041-8-0060 OF PROPOSED TRAI1. 0-2' 2'-8' TP-4 MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SANDY GRAVEL WITH COBBLES MEDIUM STIFF CLAYEY SILT T.D. 8' WATER AT 7.5' PSPL R/W LINE 1-10 H-5 r 1-1 p RIGHT-OF-WAY — — — — — RIGHT -0F\WAY— -- — 1-G opgZq t �r N 1-6 1-7 E 1651700 1-6 TP-4 GRA4E1. WETLAND AREA -1' 1-5 1-4 ASPHALT Ch. 23.45 S 21.25 YHV -B' NW} 21.05 190T..20.0 /9D /0 LEGEND TP-16 -�- of I1 �_\ RICHT-OF-WA BU4DING 1B RIY- 24.15-- INV. 61N.YY} 21.63 BOLA 21.1 V CONc FOUNDATION APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT 1P: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. —P-- 0 0 20 40 SCALE: 1 "=40' 80 0 0 0 NERAND AREA 'H' H-3 RIpR-OF-WAY 87: 9IJ1993 HONG WEST Sc ASSOCIATES TUKWILA INTERURBAN TRAIL SITE PLAN - SEGMENT I STA. 47+00 TO STA. 53+00 PROJECT N•. 92041 MA NO. 10 N W P 0-2' 2'-8' TP-4 MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SANDY GRAVEL WITH COBBLES. MEDIUM STIFF CLAYEY SILT T.D. 8' WATER AT 7.5' T CB RW- 23.45 MV. 6'P ZE S 21.25 .6'((NW} 21.05 6OT.-20.0 LEGEND TP-16 -� 1-1C RIGNT-OF-WAY----_--_---__-__-__-----_--__- RIfM..0A IAY- CRAWL -��=IGHT-OF-WAYi BUILDING RIM- 24.13--- WV. 61N.W)- 21.63 BOT.- 21.1 1-4 WETLAND AREA 1' 1-6 1-7 E 1651700 1-6 1-5 -1 • I1 V ICONC FOUNDATION P P APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT 1-3 O -P- 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1 "=40' 0 - RIGHT-OF-WAY HONG TUKWIL SITE I STA. 47 BASE MAP: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT NO. 92 92041-B-009.1 0-2' 2'-5' TP-3 SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF SILT MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF CLAYEY SILT T.D. 5' FREE WATER NOT OBSERVED 1IETLNO AREA OF TRAIL € OF PSPL R/W AND SURVEY LINE 1-17 --I— E 1651700 1-16 -1- K-2 3 r� 20 r- WEILAND AREA r 1-15 �( N p • GRAVES. GRAVEL P K-1 1651600 B — 24.13 V•(}M213 2T.- 19.0 LEGEND TP-16 GRAVEL cONc WALK GRAVEL IBUILDING R I GHT-OF-WA SDM RIM- 26.45 INV. 8'C34P 21.15 INV. 6? NN . 20.75 INV. 1YCMP(S} 10.90 INV. 1YTRAP(N} 19.70 BOT.. 16.3 ASPHALT APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT CB RIM- 24.05 IHV. 6'P SSW)- 21.90 INV. 8.CMP�W} 21.00 INV. 12'CMP(Sr 20.65 INV. 1YC 1P(N)- 20.10 BOT.- 19.1 0 —P— OF PROPOSED TRAIL GRAVEL _p_- 1-14 0 0 0 20 40 z 80 SCALE: 1 "=40' BUILDING E 1831800 CB RW- INV. 12.(N,5} 19.55 BOT.- 18.6 R{GI4T-OF-VIAY z E OF ,,spE. aC31700 AND SURVEY LINE —P— R 1 ..OF-1111Y a RIM•N 25.54 TOP OVERFLOW 12.C1AP(N} 23.84 TOP WATER 20.0 INV. (SW} 19.74 SOT.- 13.7 1-12 FP 2 0 1u93 MATCH UNE 53+00 c ,`. ENT HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES TUKWILA INTERURBAN TRAIL SITE PLAN - SEGMENT J STA. 53+00 TO STA. 59+00 • SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES. INC. PROJECT NO. 9 20 41 FIGURE NO. 11 0-2' 2'-5' TP-3 SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF SILT MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF CLAYEY SILT T.D. 5' FREE WATER NOT OBSERVED 11ETLAND AREA E 1651600 CB 4. NV. 4.PVC(W). 21.13 NV. 12.C11P(S} 10.66 sOT- 16.0 K-1 E OF PSPL R/W AND SURVEY LINE 1-17 E 1651700 0 1-16 WETLAND AREA 'I' 1-15 OF PROPOSED TRAIL 1-14 LS RUM . __ CONC WA{X RIGHT -OF -WA LEGEND TP-16 -�- BUILDING RIM. 26.45 INK row( 21.15 INV. 6�PVC(NHM . 20.75 INV. 12-CAIP(S) 19.90 INK 12'1RAP(N). 10.70 ROT.. 16.5 ASPHALT APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT CB RIM- 24.05 INV. 6.PVC(SSW)- 21.00 INV.6'CMP((W) 21.00 INV. 12-CMP(S)- 20.65 INV. 12.0.1 (N 20.10 SOT.. 10.1 i 0 20 40 BUILDING E 1651600 CB RIM NV. 1Y(N.S} 19.55 O�St eoT.- 16.6 z 80 SCALE: 1-=40' HONG TUKWILA SITE P STA. 53= BASE MAP: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES. INC. 92041-5-010.1 PROJECT NO. 92( f RICNT- -INAY 0 0 2 1-r E 1851700 a 0-0.25' 0.25'-5' TP-2 'MEDIUM DENSE SILTY GRAVEL MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF CLAYEY, SANDY SILT T.D. 5' FREE WATER NOT OBSERVED -z7 1-26 WETLAND AREA 1 23 of PROPOSED i AIL 4 7 11111111111111 m PSPL-RITTPP Ale 26 R 1 GHT-OF-WAY LEGEND TP-16 VAULT TRANSFORMER ELECTRICAL VAULT 1-25 1-24 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT P —8 N n �}— E 1651700 1-23 0 20 WETLAND EA T 20 1-22 40 K-7 80 SCALE: 1 "=40' 1-21 OF PROPOSED TRAIL �-- P WETLAND AREA 'K' R I GNT-OF-+NAY 2 —T g. 2 E 1651700 S, rt OF PSPL R/M METIJINO 11 R F. AND SURVEY LINE I-20 N P RIGHT-OF-WAY E 1651600 1-19 O O a) LJ a K-3 0 . 1J n HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES TUKWILA INTERURBAN TRAIL SITE PLAN - SEGMENT K STA. 59+00 TO STA. 65+00 SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT NO. 92041 FIGURE NO. 12 0-0.25' 0.25'-5' TP-2 'MEDIUM DENSE SILTY GRAVEL MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF CLAYEY, SANDY SILT T.D. 5' FREE WATER NOT OBSERVED 127 C h W R 1 CHTOF-wAY o_ 2 E 1851700 WETLAND AREA 1' 3 R1GHT-OF-MAY LEGEND TP-16 P .1 Ant:J. V 1RANS7:ORYER ELECTRICAL VAULT APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT n 0 .z— E 1651700 0 WETLAND EA 'I' € OF PROPOSED TRAIL 1-21 20 40 80 SCALE: 1'=40' 1ME UIJID AREA 'K' 2 O E HONG TUKWILA SITE PI STA. 59- BASE MAP: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES. INC. 92041-0-011.1 PROJECT NO. 92C NORTHERN LIMIT OF INVESTIGATION ELECTRIC MI. RIM- 22.79 RIGNT-OF-WAY • GRAVEL PARKING LOT W 6 l t OF TRAIL • ED ir-- 23 81 0 LEGEND TP-16 - RIGHT-OF-WAY APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT SITE. PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 20 40 SCALE: 1 "-40' Bo P P TP- 0-0.7' TOPSOIL STIFF SLIGHTLY PEBBLY SILT 4.5'-5.0' LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND T.D. 5.0' FREE WATER NOT OBSERVED 0 0 R I GHi--0E-MUY_— U rsri. Rfr 24 RIGHT-OF-WAY 4 H ON G WEST & ASSOCIATES TUKWILA INTERURBAN TRAIL SITE PLAN - SEGMENT L STA. 65+00 TO STA 71+00 PROJECT NO 92041 FIGURE N0. 13 GRAVEL PARKING LOT -i 8 r f aF PROPosEo n / TRAIL 23 N �i P a P 24 4a tl LEGEND TP-16 -�- NORTHERN LIMIT OF INVESTIGATION RIGHT-OF-WAY CITRIC 11 RW- 22.79 - RIGHT-OF-WAY 0 0 N lJ ,1111 mail _ '2+ PIMININANIIMM pp 6112 T 2a E 1651600 2 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT SOIL PROFILE OBSERVED AT TEST PIT 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1"=40' HONC TUKWIL SITE STA. 6 BASE MAP: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT NO. 92041—B-0121 A 30- 20 - -30 - -40 LEGEND 8H--2 ' APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BOREHOLE BLOWCOUNT EXTRAPOLATED SOIL/ GEOLOGIC CONTACT BH-2 16 3 M L SM q. S 180th STREET FILL APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER LEVEL 3-20-92 ? ML 16-- SM 8 26 6 50 85 70 46 PEAT SM —9 SM ? BH-1 ' GP -GM IRREGULARY INTERBEDDED LOOSE SILTY SAND AND SOFT TO MEDIUM ST1FF SANDY SILT ? SEAT ? ? ? LOOSE SILTY SAND ? ? DENSE SILTY SAND MAXIMUM DEPTH EXPLORED=61.5 (ELEV. -36.5. MSL) SEE FIGURE 3 FOR CROSS SECTION LOCATION NOTE: THE GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE WAS COMPILED FROM AVAILABLE SUBSURFACE INFORMATION IN THE VICINTY. IT IS INTERPRETIVE IN NATURE; ACTUAL SOIL CONDITIONS BETWEEN BORINGS MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN. 0 10 20 ? 40 SCALE' 1'=20' HDRIZDNTAL=VERTICAL ? 7 32 48 20 13 50 SM ML =PT CL-ML PT SM SP-SM -?- A' 30 20 10tn 0 —10 -20 -30 -40 i'v"ZFanif ELEVATION IN 2 0 S93 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES TUKWILA INTERURBAN TRAIL CROSS SECTION A -A' AT S. 180th STREET PROJE T NO. 92041 FlGUR NO. 14 A 30 - 20 - J 10- 1n f- 0- z p —10 - F w -20- -30 - -40 - LEGEND BH-2 3 BH-2 M APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BOREHOLE BLOWCOUNT ?- EXTRAPOLATED SOIL/ GEOLOGIC CONTACT ML S 180th STREET FILL ? ? ? 9 APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER LEVEL 3-20-92 9 BH-1 • SM 16 8 26 6 50 85 70 46 ML SM PEAT _? SM —? SM ? GP -GM v IRREGULARY INTERBEDDED LOOSE SILTY SAND AND SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF SANDY SILT 9 9 ? ? LOOSE SILTY SAND -? ? DENSE SILTY SAND ? MAXIMUM DEPTH EXPLORED=61.5' (ELEV. -36.5. MSL) SEE FIGURE 3 FOR CROSS SECTION LOCATION NOTE: THE GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE WAS COMPILED FROM AVAILABLE SUBSURFACE INFORMATION IN THE VICINTY. IT IS INTERPRETIVE IN NATURE; ACTUAL SOIL CONDITIONS BETWEEN BORINGS MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN. 0 10 20 ? 40 SCALE: 1'=20' HORIZONTAL=VERTICAL SM 7 32 48 20 13 50 ML _PT L-ML =PT SM SP-SM HONC TUKWIL CRC AT 92041-B-001.2 PROJECT NO. r a.111s."— !Logic NOTES 1.0 SITE coND&DONS 5.0 VT( SPLc,r`c GOND::.o.S :.0 PI ANT W AIIRra:s NSTALLATION PROCEDEIES 1.0 CO:.S:RJL:r0,, SAEEGu4R:S ..0 11..A1.1P,G Sr O..E .1:1 3.0 P.ANT 43'i=:ti ir::,TA.: aI'oN 3.0 P.A. is S11A1 C.. :,0 ••P.GA. Pi AN7:I.G Si ASGI.S 5.0 ..17.105E E3.1.G 1.0 00.-:nST.41. iCI. WETLAND MOMTORNG REOUfELENTS i.0 LAVio:G SCHEDU:E v.0 .A.i0A5ir - 1.0 S11v.DA005 Or SUCCESS til.��.0.,s •i_.i110., �.. v P UBLIC WORKS DEFT. •ENCINIERINC•STREETS•WATER•SERER•PARES•BUILDING• HDA140r101 Dos* a Assow»t Ise N-TWELVE5ASSOCIA TESL INC. HTDROSEED MA 1.0 AP: ant c..r:E`. ARIA PLANT SCHEDULE '.0 Sr u6S SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL Oa..t .lt..v.. EMERGENT PLANTING DETAIL • 1 1 If 3 1 DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAILR`V1 �1 FOR AGENCY r:� DAB FIN 2 tl lNbe:a4Or%J REVIEW ONLY INTERURBAN TRAIL MMGATION OF WETLAND DETAILS ST L1 ream E-3 ..:.......: .• INTERURBAN TRAIL GRADING PLAN _ r-•--i-�- -.•-v_ 'fir _ ,,a: tf..-- ---t. ..•. / 7 ,,,, zx_.ra_. . :L •• _-r1�— _ t= .j T- �._ o - _Y..: �L• ]-�•-..Li;. �v • 5 �:p,-- - 2•"r: `• _-_ 11 4,1t - :?„-. `- -`.�c=t..i.""•»:% ----`. _. :(�.' _ --C-_-..�Yl1r':'- - r=t'__ J_.e ..sue„ • -'^ . -J._'� "V \_-..w_-. t'� V�'x� C `. `11--.". ^'�-� 7 .�,"T;-*`rY ,: .�J .,-;.."'t ..,. ay�- fir-" Tyr- ^•,'>``- t-E'i ti., A• -a. "-t xy:r « • x-r - . _ • t L43-0012 /rJ •PLANTING LOCATION•j P J13LIC Tti ORKS. DEFT. •ENCINEERINC•STREETS•WATER•SEWER•PARES• BUILDING* INTERURBAN TRAIL PLANTING PLAN 11 411 Cool wild PM n4 • HDA, Norton IBMS Associate., Inc &TWELVE aSSOCINTS4INC. NOTES' FOR AGENCY REVIEW ONLY INTERURBAN TRAIL :EI `T7':`.E'Il MITIGATION OF WETLAND SITE PLAN 1 I If !GRADING LOCATION 3 IL ID z 41 nwou 2.ao-cbi Lq3-oo72 si FOR AGENCY REVIEW ONLY Fib 2 8 1991 P UBLIC WORKS DEFT_ •ENCINEIRINC•STRJETS•WATRNSEIFER•PARYS•BUILDING• ,3 /,,arm./-fl LF,•• metaboa- e.•..ze HDANorton Dorris 1 Anoci&ts Inc 3-TWF1VEAµSoOC TES NC. INTERURBAN TRAIL MMGATION OF WETLAND SECTIONS E-2 I a 1 a 05'12'16 .o"o 3M011061Z16-o" ,Tunw t6/02/10 nn� z, H� '•'."_i0 (snn9-rhi 2.3 vaa• arl ur. o 0. u 0 0t- ! r}`11I tt ' ! I I I I Irk i ' I I 1 I a I jam_II a 1 1 1 1 I I I SS 00+c, SI uY 0 SIrt Or 0a$ 0w i I- 04 0. DI TV • SC 00; tly • ,c .t 22 • • • _. CO tt) M•°°':r D 05 147:A.T.,„ 1...q3- 00 72- 'LT II L. I (7 0 R. S DEPT. ISC/MLI1N0 STRUTS SIAM IRRILR PULS MUM. ----PSPL45.TRA/L (SRC TC- 12000 00Fr D 14.! ?Aft I. • I2S SPT \ 6 SCALE IN FEET rPROP. CL TRAIL / _ _ ;... - _ ELSE 1'51.53 68 4 L 290 58 2 - • 1K, 7 71_ • • 77: : • irta.ter ty4c p/ --TtrtHr"., •-•-• au • •••• aaam. NCLUN PL •/10 INTSRUSSAN TRAIL AA V AA UT CROSS SSCTIOR - •••': PRCPCSCD TRA: 1. PBCF: C•••,, •: • . .L. PROPOSED CURB PROF! LE ..-, 4ID P L 6 • ...tan PROP. CL NELSEN PLACE • (14 co - : ... -• _ _ • • SI p••• ; a: at c;,,,,E, 8 -,' - — . --- -- p.....,.4.• 1 r..; OFF I PRELIMI • — ------- — IIARY ',TFOR AGENCY unnsu REVIEW °Mil • :. vimo72_ MONSTER ROAD SCALE,: 1. . 20' NOTES: gEOUIRES 2 GRADE CROSSINSS BICYCLE TRAYFIC ADJACENT TO BOSY HIGHKAy JAM 2 3 094 If 3 li 123 D A S. P.iL.xc WC, Ft ICS IDIEP'S. SNOINZEILINO SMITS 7*1111 16.12 111711.130. HDA PRELUAINAR :NTERLIRBANI TRAIL SITE PLAN - PHASE III / A FOR AtitN CY- -; --• DES:GN DEVEL oPmE%REVIEW 2 of 2 ',O2LAD ,a'sy 1,20' _ 00 1222/94 or, ?If / 03-002_ 71:1174771t!f* • I.: ••••- .... • SCALE, 1,20' cm,/q ,1* 5,,,cre Melo t INTERSTATE 405 ).11'.;tr-7:-;ftr;.--?ATAYI•tw-tr- 0- 0If 0 3 s. 1.1-7331—.1C W,C)12.1C.SIEPT ZSGENISILNO MASTS WA1fl win PAIL, 111.11131110 IRHorton tar' Assccotes,Inc. calgrALl.Zr14:T=4,1".' INTERURBAN TRAIL SITE PLAN - PHASE 11! DFV:7-LOPir sE6•27dE (7,51•14 S•21,A, ; A. ra5,1•51. IV 4,5, "I' 51..5.5 SE, ,EI,ell AL l''. CEata1 cc,corre os.ve... 121.11,20* ST• s•sos swc , STA /11.7 1,1••EAn Clan _ 171 F.< 1, ['Tr El 11•1•15• ":•17. IA,: iC 0(77.5 5(21.) ii•-• u•TC, 1,11.11aG 1,avrw,, :1;77; ... Da A3S1 Si 5C Co 57/7•5••••7:1,1•1-; ••••;...„ Sr• 1S•AC t[Fr ; 51, 72.iS WS, ,.....0. t•••,••4 &FA I-. • • C5t7Oil,. ;; I• „_,•r_.10.1i, ..-Er •i 1 ,,52.7.2"`i;2r.'7"'.'•`•.'.7.,!.•',-E:'14.,.4,--c-.l'''I_"1,11' ..1A.'/qEN,",k •• - ta• ,.N."PI:C":e7..,1..1:=, .1 7.51.. . aLl•••25 ;S'.1:-..', / SEWS A757;75 •,r, 1•,185,,.1",, aa•CA 200Esi2Ara, cn ,Ktt ''. / EAtliIZ A02r511 ,.,,..: 1 _L__,7"...1 .• 1s.. - cr....: 1.:E...,-,, • . -,-,...., ,..:12::!-.E.F..._,L.SC, c.-: ' --.1W-011M11 CUTOFF MA] PE1107E E2157 ASPHALT iisSiAlL •••E• 004E1 AY, 007744(7,5 PlAaTta 4•74TOP SC, 17.505 ••••51•54. t•••• •5 04 SKET C-2 715, 15.82 I Ci,S•rAG S•Gr• ,•20.05E [CST • --1,7.0.2 S.A..•AC.F3 • ; t',4;i2V•••!7,-,-.., 'Lt----' '....': ‘.. . • • • . . it...-:+..-.. ".."' 21- - 1, :LE 1.1.1••_ tatE7 1.2 . ; 50.4•E EN•5,17_,..; .7 1 - SEUE.WE 2 •SEE5171•1.A.5S CN PC1a. 7 ; .., 2, Z.: L ,,,,,... •27•,E ; : • .:757.1';'2.45E7Z.7A17.'11.- Z.: : '1": 71 ss;:a1:::!'1'.7:1":;:::::" Ti ••••""11."‘,•••••17"C 1 : . Fa. A% rt] D: ',.-.. , 1% •Gua 2,.. 711 at ....2c :: 7,051,4 0*034*7 Ar11.1. 0E5,554,CrE5 1.1721 CaA1,5e3 05 CA, C,Cta 03- 007a CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-803-424-5555 5., 35% Si OS 12.1•011 PUBLIC WORKS _DEP T. •ENGINEER1NG• STREETS•WATER•SAff mt•PARICS.BUILDING• Darn Associal5 141c. /-111•• 77•2, La5S5,41 1•JA 11A .5 ,E,A2VC 2.777•ES AS ..ECtSS4••(CLE•••7 •CE • PUS FaCha (FCC Cr •15,Ati; 1 01.2 7,61 me _ ; 7 ; h•ARAfszEia-7, • /-.4,5C4AC sEam-SEF • ; DEIA. t 5,01 C-2 ; 1.5T77,•s•-•; • S• corSETE 11A.NS 5:AA • Z•z 5 'FS ft 211,14 2r2A, 2,0-1 7-2 MATCH- LINE 76+50 7705757 e5•.35414 EON MAL I MAL INIMA113) !DAT:v ary j50,0 ro0. 5.• 57004P,LIN 7CAER E.E7 ••• 7.7 72 1.1”041./.. •7!, STA•55A, 5,. ••• 7,3 A7,I2r51 504,4 • AO 7. IT iraF 2.1.••7•(T. 721. .71E5 • , 5745751(0 •••• 1211a 0,055 1•441/ 17.44157 00,14 •••55,11. sra..•cf. 714E5 a 7, aq . .. 7FE 7." C-7 1.1.4A, •••5•7E .1 C447",r2•••-•• aF 057C. 70 701 51, 5•AZE all 28 074 PRELIMINA INTERURBAN TRAIL FOR -AGENCY: EMBASSY SUITE PORTION prinEwryvALY.: ITE SPLAN AND PROFILE """ •se. NAM ;•••••••• s•22/...r I ..---.... ----' I . , ... . \ - ' . ...,. 4 s ; 01 `-,-- - -; ) 1 - ' '• ,:.__. , . \ --i ...... a 3 .„..---' -1"-----'"--- zt ----- \ ----- . . ----..-- -___ '': ' I ::,,,..1' . • .,. .'”,,,...,?1 ' ..1. , - - -.- :::- ....:, C--•-•---4$4-P-.! t _ ••• `.. ,•., 1., •".. ,.....V.,..i.:..,...... •-•-• '-',...r ''.4.i.,....:-. -: -- : a.---t".'• 8 28 43 SCALE IN FEET -AT PROPOSED TRAY-. PROFIE SJ3L.c WBKS I2> Pa% STAILSTS WATU 51... PARES M.D. 1ADA 66_ .zoziatesec. .zz•VZ; PRELIMINARY FOR AGENCY . 0., NY: . FHASE A 0 L. 3 a li 112h/9. FN I TA IN 1-- - ( IE3I.O0 8 80 '; F F w'- ort S4n.1A 3 -- L•(CLEA9Ma 1 sn(• S • 11.7 TS .yLAPEA T4Nrc SUITES .F1.. aD41. )_ i616 1,2 -.PA- [W1 Rana.— s N xs w O • P P5E (PPP0Pu••E LOCATION) v:4.19 sT __ / . 19:0 g 1 f IEst>S0 \\ I t i' �� '' 1 / 10 ID 0 }D 1, i SCALE IN FEET /�—ai f �y_7I' 1 L.- 1 \. I 2 14/ ("Lr14.D ro•EN POLE 1 OE PEWVED /\ , 'E• I / 1 M:ALL 9•6 LE(10r4) OF it., 1(T9•T ION TPENDN PROPERTY 9(4*tEP ANJY'S 01M1L AND 4I EYYS0Y 5Y1 TES IS DOLLOPED IN40 P4SIDEN114 .1W%E'+ %'o:"PP 4 OPasEoE 0PA0•�EII 07. - "i4----' --/- ,-�/ -- -"!¢ •ter --'-:`dad —2 --=�(m P` `� yllsrlwN'.oKx PnE :T o 1 I x �E,OELPPOPcs(D eE (PDrzD�._�- +4 a'I I::�• t 9�}3 ij V: a i r.:o;' 1 a+ `.IPE .04.0E *to, EIE REPLACED A 'n CHAIN LINT. EEMENO. FENCE PILL •f .S74200 22 102001.022 LIM // STA ES-•S SANITARY S(A ELEVATION u4.I.N Cn (A 15T lk (FADE O (a PParosm *P•1L / a C-9iar�-•Ar STPAGE ', I TP/LILEP wits fif 9E.OVED PE..• T - •r.iw LOT 11.00 YS 00 IPAIL INSTAL-Li/1 VAX. S CONf0A!i !• OTPOLS 1-410072 TS.DO 04 OC h PUBLIC WORKS DEFT_ •ENGINEERING•STREETS•WATER•SEI/ER•PARKS•BUILDING• Ica Norton Doris 1AAUCcIDan 4K. » 00 17. CO 524 71.62 SOT 002E0 ',SW) (LE'.•:10. Y.TI4 •ENG4•MP4 M ET aN A0OTLfN190E" s0u*NMI!010TPRD I S• SA SOPIDGE WE• PEEN RIVER. ",jm2 mu PLe.ISNED EL(V•T ION 04.96 INTERURBAN TRAIL►R EL IM I N A PHASE II— LAYOUT FOR AGENC REVIEW ONL . I..t Win T 00 2 of 2 1 b.412E-W . q 1-.20• W 1/25/94 liKtf -NANG 20 40 40 20 10 0 iiliEilil WALL IN rm. 5 ,45 ........ _.,-,—...... L —•....-,P.,---.IIf1--! ! ,f2vy- /010.10P -e•f S I I ti •8- I 1 I i i . 0 1 r•••• rjp.,...,4 ,,, .14 • 1 ; f : ---;-;,;•7-Z-'.. =j;0 4z-1I '_:a2, ' It< • \ i• _._ 1, -I. V.*- . , --,- - ,—,,,.1'4''a:'..-5-r,-v1;F:--./- -,;1----,-. 1--,-"-•--it - - 1-,-I ---.,''-i.11I- ll77-"..•,.,.'Lt. rOV'--. / i §l. ,.- L--II- 0 / / 1 4:07. --7--1• 7---,7rI.t:;?r. •--; 'IP 1 -.,, i !..".115 -A. g•rq. :k i 2 ... -1 ._....- ..._._ ,er----------- i''• .- .1 i • ! .4, • N ,i-r.;',":•.,74A1°.*2....i!!' ! '11 . , i . ...• _:,.._ .. ,,..., 0.,,,s u.,,,,, .,..,,,,,,,._. _ ......, ii0p.....416.7r/.1.5:,.....t..ON, I .""11444,13'."21. ''''1.14;.1"1. L'''''' SP' • . I'7.7. :71 .. it a BY 0'14.14. ' - P. • . •11.0614'0,.% Of MOSEL 140,0 els - • ,, . • • . • 5 Ocs u.O• • 5 ,szes ars, 1f••• • . • . BEGIN EPPEL 11 ENO CO ENABB 1 . . • ••,i,-:;;7 • • • 67.14131 t,r! N1G14 60E.51.PE 67 1 I..; • ' \-0$001.-Cf-607 _ - 4 \ z I41,111.0 C11....4 • I 7GC01II4 044 .711I 71•60 03-00-12- 70.40 66.00 r ,r / INA.. El E.. !I 3 IL m 25 I 0947 st•OC. 60,100 Al 2 !I SU ....04,-.40-1173, SLANCUIP LISA Si 1.0.0P 00, St 001004 0,40 GREEN 1.0.E0 nor.o..to vs _PU:131,1C WORKS D T. •ENGINIEFLING.STREITS•WATER.SEWER•PARIES*BUILDING• rillTIN Norte DIM* IZIociam 44. =1. IINITERURBANTRAIL PREMAINAI ----FORAGENC PHASE II — LAYOUT REVIEW ONI. UM -UM is Aga' now ,./2s/94