HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-2014 2-19-2014 Hearing Examiner Packet
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject Public Hearing Application No. SHL13–0006 Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit, City‟s 30th ST NE Storm Line
Replacement Project
Date:
February 10, 2014
Department: Community
Development & Public Works
Department
Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit
List, below
Budget Impact: NA
Administrative Recommendation:
Hearing Examiner to approve the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for SHL13-0006 based upon
the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Kim Truong, Project Engineer, Community Development & Public Works
Department, City of Auburn
REQUEST: A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the site preparation and
construction for replacement of approximately 3,800 lineal feet of existing
30-inch gravity storm line that has lim ited capacity with a 42-inch line for the
purpose of alleviating flooding. This is Phase 1 of the project.
LOCATION: The western 3/5ths of the project is within the right-of-way of 30th ST NE
from approx. 1,000 feet east of B ST NE, continuing east to the east side of
I ST NE. The eastern 2/5ths of the project is from I ST NE to just west of
the existing Brannan Park (stormwater) Pump Station, west of the Green
River. The project is within the southern half of Section 6-21-05, W.M.
EXISTING ZONING: The western portion of the project located in the public right-of-way is
exempt from zoning. The existing utility easement for the eastern portion is
located within residential subdivisions and a city park in the “R20,
Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre”, R7, Residential 7 dwelling units per
acre” and the “P1, Public Use” zoning districts.
EXISTING LAND USE: “Light Industrial”, “Quasi-Public & Public”, “Heavy Commercial”, “High
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Density Residential” and “Single Family Residential”.
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT
DESIGNATION: “Urban Conservancy”
SEPA STATUS: A Final Determination of Non-Significance was issued on October 30, 2013
(File# SEP13-0029)
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Building M&O
Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor
Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv. Finance Parks
Human Services Planning & CD Fire Planning
Park Board Public Works Legal Police
Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval: Yes No
Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____
Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____
Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____
Councilmember: Staff: Dixon
Meeting Date: February 19, 2014 Item Number:
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 2 of 21
The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning classification and current land uses of the site and
surrounding properties are:
Location
Comprehensive
Plan
Designation
Zoning
Classification
Land Use
Site 30th ST NE right-of-
way
“Light Industrial”,
“Quasi-Public &
Public”, “Heavy
Commercial”,
(Not
Applicable)
Developed public
roadway
Green River Village Plat
289177-0190
289177-0200
289177-0210
289177-0220
289177-0230
289177-0240
Riverside East
000100-0080
River Park Estates Plat
733800-0010
733800-0020
733800-0030
733800-0040
733800-0050
733800-0060
733800-0070
733800-0080
733800-0090
733800-0100
733800-0120
733800-0130
733800-0140
733800-0150
733800-0160
733800-0170
733800-0180
733800-0190
733800-0200
733800-0210
733800-0220
733800-1230
Brannan Park
000100-0081
High Density
Residential
“Single Family
Residential” and
“Public & Quasi-
Public”
“R20,
Residential, 20
dwelling units
per acre”
“R7, Residential 7
dwelling units per
acre” and P1,
Public Use”.
4-plex residential
Assisted living facility
Duplex and Single
family residential
Public park
North “Light Industrial”,
“Quasi-Public &
Public”, “Heavy
Commercial”,
High Density
Residential and
“Single Family
Residential”
“M1. Light
Industrial”, C3
Heavy
Commercial,
“R20,
Residential, 20
dwelling units
per acre”
“R7,
Residential 7
Variety of light
Industrial and
commercial,
multiple family and
single family
residential.
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 3 of 21
dwelling units
per acre” and
P1, Public
Use”.
South “Light Industrial”,
“Quasi-Public &
Public”, “Heavy
Commercial”, and
High Density
Residential
“M1. Light
Industrial”, C3
Heavy
Commercial,
“R20,
Residential, 20
dwelling units
per acre”
and P1, Public
Use”.
Variety of light
Industrial and
commercial, and
multiple-family
uses.
East Quasi-Public &
Public”,
P1, Public
Use”.
Green River
West Light Industrial”,
“Quasi-Public &
Public”, “Heavy
Commercial”
“M1. Light
Industrial”, C3
Heavy
Commercial
Public ROW of
30th ST NE
Vicinity Map
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 4 of 21
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit 1 Staff Report
Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3 2012 Aerial Photograph of Project Vicinity
Exhibit 4 Completed Shoreline Permit Application Form, Received November 6, 2013
Exhibit 5 Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) City of Auburn 30th Street
NE Area Flooding, Otak Inc.
Exhibit 6 Notice of Application & SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (SEP13-0029)
October 30, 2013.
Exhibit 7 Final SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (SEP13-0029,) December 4, 2013
Exhibit 8 Affidavit of Posting - Notice of Application (to be provided)
Exhibit 9 Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Application
Exhibit 10 Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Application
Exhibit 11 Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 12 Affidavit of Posting - Notice of Hearing (to be provided)
Exhibit 13 Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Hearing
Exhibit 14 Affidavit of Publication Notice of Hearing
Exhibit 15 City of Auburn Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan, Volume 1 – Report,
Selected pages referencing “Project 13 – Relieve 30th ST NE Area Flooding”,
Brown and Caldwell, Amended December 2011.
Exhibit 16 30th Street NE Area Flooding - Phase 1, Project No CP1122, 99% Review
Submittal Plans, Sheets 1-34, City of Auburn Public Works Department, February
2014
Exhibit 17 Map of King County Flood Control District‟s Reddington Levee
Exhibit 18 Cultural Resources Assessment for the 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I
Project (CP1122) Auburn WA, Technical Memo # 1302L-1, Cultural Resource
Consultants Inc., April 10, 2013.
Exhibit 19 Geotechnical Engineering Services (Report) City of Auburn 30th Street New Area
Flooding Phase 1, GeoEngineers Inc., April 30, 2013.
Exhibit 20 Technical Memorandum 30th Street NE Flood Alleviation Project, Phase 1,
Brown and Caldwell, November 20, 2013.
Exhibit 21 Floodplain Habitat Assessment for the City of Auburn NE 30th Street Flooding
Project, Otak Inc. August 26, 2013, Revised November 5, 2013.
Exhibit 22 Comment letter dated November 3, 2013 sent by e-mail from Karen Walter,
Watershed and Land Use Team Leader representing the Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe.
Exhibit 23 City response letter to Muckleshoot Tribe, December 4, 2013
Exhibit 24 Comment letter from Susan Quinzel of 1118 30th ST NE, a homeowner in the
adjacent plat of River Park Estates.
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 5 of 21
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Site/Proposal Description
1. Kim Truong, Project Engineer, City of Auburn Community Development & Public Works
Department has applied for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the site
preparation and construction of replacement of approximately 3,800 lineal feet of
existing 30-inch gravity storm line that has limited capacity with a 42-inch line for the
purpose of alleviating flooding.
The project is the replacement of an existing gravity storm line conveying flows from a
large portion of the “I Basin” of approximately 240 acres as identified in the City‟s
Comprehensive Drainage Plan, easterly to the existing Brannan Park (stormwater)
Pump Station. Generally, the project replaces the existing 30-inch line with a 42-inch
line. In the western 3/5ths of the project area, the construction is located within the 30th
ST NE right-of-way; from B St NW to Auburn WY N and in this area, the replacement
line follows the alignment of the original line. In the eastern 2/5ths of the project area
the replacement line will follow a different but generally parallel alignment, easterly to the
pump station. The project is being undertaken as part of a multiple phase project to
alleviate flooding experienced in the north central portion of the City and to protect local
public and private property.
2. The eastern approximately 50 feet of the project area and the City‟s existing
(stormwater) pump station and associated generator building are located within the 200-
foot shoreline jurisdictional area of the Green River. The shoreline environment
designation of this portion of the Green River is “Urban Conservancy” according to the
City‟s adopted Shoreline Management Program (SMP).
3. The area of the City‟s 30th ST NE storm project is located in the valley floor portion of
the City and is relatively flat with slopes of less than 5 percent.
4. The western 3/5ths of the project is within the right-of-way of 30th ST NE and I ST NE
and will require removal of existing pavement surfaces and excavation for installation of
the storm pipeline and replacement of pipe bedding and trench backfill and road base
and restoration of road surface.
5. Within the eastern 2/5ths of the project, the majority of the replacement line will be
installed underground within an existing thirty (30) foot wide easement. The 30-foot
utility easement is divided along it length by property lines. The northern fifteen (15) feet
of this easement roughly spans the south part of the southernmost row of lots within two
adjacent residential subdivisions (Green River Village and River Park Estates). The
southern fifteen (15) feet of this easement crosses the northern portion of an assisted
living facility (River Side East) and a municipal park (Brannan Park).
6. The existing 30-inch storm line is roughly located within the northern fifteen (15) feet of
this thirty (30) foot easement. Within the eastern 2/5ths of the project, the majority of the
line will be installed within the southern fifteen (15) feet of the 30-foot easement in order
to minimize disruption to existing vegetation and residential properties.
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 6 of 21
7. More specifically proceeding west to east, the project will require excavation and line
installation through the existing easement on the River Side East Property, an assisted
living facility (Parcel # 000100-0080), the construction will occur within their service
driveway on the north side of their buildings. The construction will continue east within
their grass landscape areas to their east property line and the city park boundary.
At the boundary of Brannan Park, the construction will cross formal landscaping as a
City Park (Brannan Park). The vegetation consists predominantly of maintained grass
with scattered and perimeter trees. However, at approximately sixty (60) feet east of
the NW corner of Park, the alignment of the storm line will be shifted south
approximately thirty (30) feet to avoid construction within, and disturbance of, a mature
row of evergreen trees at the north boundary of the Park. These evergreen trees were
planted many years ago to screen and separate the backyards of homes in the adjacent
residential subdivisions. The storm line will then continue easterly for approximately 430
feet before shifting back north into the south part of the existing thirty (30) foot utility
easement.
Characteristics of the Area
8. The western 3/5ths of the storm line project is bordered by areas with a comprehensive
plan designation and zoning of “Light Industrial” and “Heavy Commercial”. The western
portion of the project, located in the public right-of-way is exempt from zoning. The
eastern 2/5ths of the project is bordered by areas with a comprehensive plan
designation and zoning of “High Density Residential” and “Public Use”.
9. The project is not anticipated to result in increased stormwater runoff upon completion
as paved surfaces and landscape areas will be restored to original condition.
10. The majority of the City‟s 30th ST NE storm line project is located outside of the 200-foot
shoreline jurisdiction area. Only the eastern approximately fifty (50) feet occurs within
the shoreline area of the Green River and is regulated by the City of Auburn pursuant to
the Shoreline Management Act. Under the City‟s Shoreline Management Program the
Green River is considered Shoreline of the State and under the City‟s critical area
regulations; a Class I Stream. The City‟s critical area regulations require a 100-foot
critical area buffer measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of any Class I
stream. The project construction is outside the 100-foot critical areas buffer.
11. Additionally, the area between the City‟s pump station, associated generator building
and the Green River has recently been disturbed by the King County Flood Control
District‟s reconstruction and setback of the Reddington Levee.
The following description of the Reddington Levee Project is excerpted from the King
County website: http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wlr/sections-programs/river-
floodplain-section/capital-projects/reddington-levee-setback-and-extension.aspx
“About the project
The Reddington Levee Setback Project is part of a larger overall flood
management strategy for the lower Green River. In 2013, King County will set the
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 7 of 21
Reddington Levee back along the left (west) bank of the Green River through a
portion of the City of Auburn. The project area is 1.3 miles in length and extends
from the southern boundary of the Port of Seattle’s wetland mitigation project at
43rd Street Northeast (River Mile 28.2) to 26th Street Northeast/Brannan Park
(River Mile 29.5).”
“The 2013 project covers only the southern (upstream) 0.9 miles of that length,
ending just north of the River Mobile Estates, which is at 37th Street Northeast.
The work consists of removing existing rock armor and levee fill materials,
demolishing existing structures, utility construction and relocation, constructing a
setback levee and access road, rock barbs, and engineered log jams, and
restoring the site with native trees and shrubs. A future project is being planned
to extend the setback levee from just north of the River Mobile Estates to 43rd
Street Northeast.
Construction of the Reddington Levee Setback Project is starting in June and will
continue through October 2013.”
“Problem addressed
The project replaces a sub-standard levee that protects nearly 600 properties
valued at $680 million. 2013 The project will result in a wider corridor for moving
flood flows, and a wider riparian corridor with enhanced ecological benefits. It will
greatly reduce flood risk to residents, businesses and infrastructure within the
City of Auburn and the Green River Valley. Once the new setback levee is
constructed and the existing levee removed, the river channel will be free to
migrate laterally and form new channel patterns in this area.
The 2013 project includes approximately 4,800 linear feet of setback levee. The
southern end of the project includes removing existing rock armoring and the
existing levee prism that is currently sitting along the river’s edge. A construction
and maintenance access road will connect the north end of the levee to R
Street.”
The Reddington Levee Project construction began in June of 2013 and work has been
temporarily halted for wintertime and expected to be completed in the spring of 2014.
(See Exhibit 17) The levee construction setting back the levee from the River and
replanting the intervening area with native vegetation will assist in re-establishing an
appropriate stream buffer for the Green River consistent with the City‟s critical area
regulations.
Earthwork
1. According to the environmental checklist application submitted, approximately 14,600
cubic yards of existing site soils will be excavated for installation of the drainage pipe
and storm drainage structures. Approximately 13,200 cubic yards of fill be imported for
pipe bedding, trench backfill and backfill around storm drainage structures. The disposal
of excavated material will be to an approved disposal source off-site.
2. Information on the site‟s soil characteristic can be found in the report: Geotechnical
Engineering Services (Report) City of Auburn 30th ST New Area Flooding Phase 1,
GeoEngineers Inc., April 30, 2013. The report indicates the site surface geological unit
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 8 of 21
is alluvium (Qaw) deposited by the Green River. Alluvium is composed of silt, sand and
gravel deposited in stream beds and fans. The Alluvium is likely underlain by Quaterny-
age river and glacial deposits for the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation. The
borings encountered soft to medium stiff silt and sandy silt interbedded with loose silty
sand in the upper portion of the borings. Cleaner loose to medium dense sand was
encountered below these upper siltier deposits at a depth of 15 to 17 feet. The report
indicates groundwater was encountered at depth of approximately 5 to 10 feet during
drilling. Groundwater is expected to be within 5 feet of the surface during wet winter and
spring months, and somewhat lower during the remainder of the year. Groundwater is
expected to fluctuate seasonally with precipitation and rise and fall of the Green River.
The geotechnical report concludes that the new replacement storm line can be
satisfactorily completed with conventional earthwork equipment and techniques.
Shoring will be required to limit excavation in roadway and within the park due to the
presence of loose to medium dense sand and gravel deposits. Dewatering using
pumped wells or well points will be necessary for the eastern portion of the project and
will likely be necessary for the entire portion east of Auburn Way North in order to
prevent failure of the excavation bottom due to heave or boiling of the underlying cleaner
sand deposits. Sheet piles or other shoring will be required where the excavation is
close to the retirement facility building foundations. The upper silt soils are moisture
sensitive and will not be suitable for re-use as trench backfill during the wet weather.
The report recommends the import of fill for the majority, if not all, of the trench backfill.
3. To minimize potential erosion impacts to adjacent properties and downstream receiving
waters, the City will prepare and implement a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan (TESCP) consistent with Best Management Practices (BMPs) per the 2009
City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual (SWMM). In addition, contract
specifications will require implementation of the Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan (TESCP).
Environmental Setting
4. The City‟s storm line project is not located within the FEMA identified 100-year floodplain
and no activities will occur within the 100-year floodplain per Map Number 53033C1254
F, May 16, 1995.
5. The City‟s storm line project is however located within the „Riparian Habitat Zone‟ of the
Green River, a designation of the City‟s floodplain regulations. Auburn City Code (ACC)
15.68.060.FF provides the following definition of the Riparian Habitat Zone:
ACC 15.68.060
“FF. "Riparian habitat zone" means the water body and adjacent land areas that are
likely to support aquatic and riparian habitat as detailed in this chapter. The size and
location of the riparian habitat zone is dependent on the type of water body. The
riparian habitat zone includes the water body and adjacent lands, measured
perpendicularly from ordinary high water on both sides of the water body:
1. Marine and lake shorelines and Type S streams that are designated
"shorelines of the state": 250 feet.
2. Type F (fish bearing) streams greater than five feet wide and marine
shorelines: 200 feet.
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 9 of 21
3. Type F streams less than five feet wide and lakes: 150 feet.
4. Type N (non-salmonid-bearing) perennial and seasonal streams with
unstable slopes: 225 feet.
5. All other Type N (non-salmonid-bearing) perennial and seasonal streams:
150 feet."
As a result of the project location within this designation, a floodplain permit and the
preparation of a Habitat Impact Assessment report are required under City regulations to
evaluate, and if necessary, identify mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potential for
effects of the project on federally-listed fish species in the Green River. ACC
15.68.135.J provides the following guidance on preparation of the Habitat Impact
Assessment Report:
ACC 15.68.135
“J. Habitat Impact Assessment. Unless allowed under ACC 15.68.130(C)
or (D), an application to develop in the regulatory floodplain shall include an
assessment of the impact of the project on water quality and aquatic and riparian
habitat. The assessment shall be:
1. A biological evaluation or biological assessment that has received
concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine
Fisheries Service, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; or
2. Documentation that the activity fits within a habitat conservation plan
approved pursuant to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act; or
3. Documentation that the activity fits within Section 4(d) of the Endangered
Species Act; or
4. An assessment prepared in accordance with Regional Guidance for
Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation, FEMA Region X, 2010. The
assessment shall determine if the project would adversely affect:
a. The primary constituent elements identified when a species is listed as
threatened or endangered;
b. Essential fish habitat designated by the National Marine Fisheries
Service;
c. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
d. Vegetation communities and habitat structures;
e. Water quality;
f. Water quantity, including flood and low flow depths, volumes and
velocities;
g. The channel's natural planform pattern and migration processes;
h. Spawning substrate, if applicable; and/or
i. Floodplain refugia, if applicable.”
6. The Habitat Impact Assessment Report: Floodplain Habitat Assessment for the City of
Auburn NE 30th ST Flooding Project, Otak Inc. August 26, 2013, Revised November 5,
2013 was prepared to evaluate the project‟s potential for effects on water quality and
aquatic and riparian habitat. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act requires that essential fish habitat (EFH) must be identified by National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for federally managed marine fish. In addition, federal
agencies must consult with NMFS on all proposed actions undertaken or funded by the
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 10 of 21
agency that may affect EFH. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has
designated EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery, for federally managed ground fish, and
for coastal pelagic fisheries. For the proposed project occurring within the City of
Auburn, only species of the Pacific salmon fishery could potentially be affected, as any
potential project would occur within the Green River drainage, which is a freshwater
system. The EFH designation for the Pacific salmon fishery includes all streams, lakes,
ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except above the impassable barriers
identified by PFMC. The Pacific salmon management unit includes Chinook, Coho, and
Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbushcha). Within the City of Auburn, EFH occurs for
Puget Sound Chinook, Pink salmon, and Coho salmon. All three species are known to
occur in the Green River, and the River provides rearing habitat and potential spawning
habitat for these species. The Report concludes that the 30th ST NE storm line
replacement project will not directly impact EFH for these Pacific salmon species.
Indirect effects resulting from the proposed project are also not anticipated to transfer to
in-river habitat, and no changes to Green River water quality and flow regime are
anticipated to occur as a result of the project. The Report concludes that the proposed
project will not adversely affect EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery.
7. In response to comments, the City and its consultants have also prepared the Technical
Memorandum 30th ST NE Flood Alleviation Project, Phase 1, Brown and Caldwell,
November 20, 2013, describing the current operation of the 30th ST NE storm line
leading to the Brannan Park stormwater pump station, the nature of discharge from the
pump station to the Green River, and the project‟s effect. The conclusion of the
Technical Memorandum is that the project construction will result in an increased peak
flow to the Green River only during infrequent larger storm events, but that peak flows
will not exceed the flow rate that the pump station was originally designed and
constructed to convey. The provision of a new stormwater quality swale, being
constructed by others off-site to the north, ensures the same level of water quality
treatment as the original swale.
8. Auburn‟s critical areas inventory maps do not show that the City‟s 30th ST storm line
project site contains any wetlands and none are known to exist. This is also the
conclusion of the Habitat Impact Assessment (report).
Cultural Resource Investigation
9. To assess the potential for historic or archaeological resources, the City commissioned
the following report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the 30th ST NE Area Flooding,
Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn WA, Technical Memo # 1302L-1, Cultural Resource
Consultants Inc., April 10, 2013. The report evaluated the environmental and cultural
setting of the project vicinity, consultation to the WA State Department of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation (DAHP), use of a predictive model and conducting a field
survey of the project site where accessible (including subsurface testing).
The Report concludes that the area may lack distinctive archaeological signatures
associated with pre-contact-era activities in an active floodplain, active riverine
depositional processes, and multiple episodes of human landscape modification (e.g.
farming or road construction) and given these conditions the likelihood that intact
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 11 of 21
archaeological deposits would be encountered is extremely low. No further
archaeological investigations are recommended. However, the report goes on to say
that if any historically significant site, building, district, structure, or object is discovered
during construction activity, work should be halted, the area secured, and the Tribes and
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP),
immediately consulted. Work should be halted until such time as further investigation
and appropriate consultation is concluded.
Shoreline Management Program
10. The City of Auburn uses its 2008 City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to
regulate development and management of the City‟s shoreline.
https://www.auburnwa.gov/Assets/PCD/AuburnWA/Docs/shoreline_plan.pdf
Under the City Shoreline Master Program, the Green River is defined as a “shoreline of
state-wide significance.” (RCW 90.58.030). Under the Shoreline Management Act, all
development occurring within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction area adjacent to the
River must be consistent with policies and regulations of the local Shoreline
Management Program (SMP), as well as with the policies of the State Shoreline
Management Act.
11. The City‟s rules and procedures for shoreline permits are contained in ACC Chapter
16.08; more specifically sections 16.08.030 through 16.08.140. The Chapter provides
the following general purpose and intent:
“16.08.010 Chapter purpose and intent.
It is the intention of the city council that the provisions of this chapter will
promulgate and adopt a program for the administration and enforcement of a
permit system that shall implement by reference the State Shoreline
Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW; the State Department of Ecology
regulations and guidelines adopted as Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC; the
Auburn shoreline master program attached to the ordinance codified in this
chapter, together with amendments and/or additions thereto, and to provide for
the implementation of the policy and standards as set forth in the aforesaid laws
and regulations which are by reference made a part of this chapter with the force
and effect as though set out in full in this chapter.”
12. Pursuant ACC 16.08.080, the Hearing Examiner shall hold at least one public hearing on
the shoreline substantial development permit in accordance with the following:
“16.08.080 Application – Hearing – Required.
A. The hearing examiner shall hold at least one public hearing on each
application for a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional
use permit, or shoreline variance on shorelines within the city. The public hearing
shall be held not less than 30 days following the final publication of the notice
required by ACC 16.08.050.
B. The notice and conduct of the public hearing shall be in accordance with
Chapter 2.46 ACC.”
13. The City‟s rules provide the following requirements for public notice:
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 12 of 21
“16.08.050 Application – Notices.
The director shall give notice of the application in accordance with the applicable
provisions of ACC 14.07.040, no less than 30 days prior to permit issuance.
The notices shall include a statement that any person desiring to present his view
to the director with regard to the application may do so in writing to the director,
and any person interested in the hearing examiner's action on an application for
a permit may submit his views or notify the director of his interest within 30 days
of the last date of publication of the notice. Such notification or submission of
views to the director shall entitle said persons to a copy of the action taken on the
application.
Public Notice and Comments
14. The City issued a combined Notice of Application (NOA) and SEPA Determination of
Non-Significance (DNS) on October 30, 2013 with an associated 15-day comment
period (File # SEP13-0029). The notice was mailed to property owners with 300 feet of
the project site, published in the newspaper and posted on site.
15. A subsequent Notice of Public hearing was issued on January 13, 2014; a minimum of
30 days prior to the hearing. The notice was mailed to property owners with 300 feet of
the project site, published in the newspaper and posted on site.
16. The City received two comment letters in response to the public comment periods of the
environmental decision/Notice of Application and the Notice of Public Hearing. One
comment letter dated November 3, 2013 was sent by e-mail from Karen Walter,
Watershed and Land Use Team Leader representing the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. The
other comment letter was from Susan Quinzel of 1118 30th ST NE, a homeowner in the
adjacent plat of River Park Estates.
17. The letter from the Muckleshoot Tribe inquired about the status of the stormwater quality
treatment discharge from the Brannan Park (stormwater) pump station and the effect on
water quality. The letter also noted that the project construction would remove three
trees and in light of the pending water quality restrictions under review by the
Washington State Department of Ecology, she recommends replacement tree planting.
The City sent a response letter on December 4, 2013 and included the Technical
Memorandum 30th ST NE Flood Alleviation Project, Phase 1, Brown and Caldwell,
November 20, 2013. The conclusion of the Technical Memorandum is that the project
construction will result in an increased peak flow to the Green River only during
infrequent larger storm events, but that peak flows will not exceed the flow rate that the
pump station was originally designed and constructed to convey. The provision of a new
stormwater quality swale, being constructed by King County Flood Control District as
part of the Reddington Levee construction off-site to the north, ensures the same level of
water quality treatment as the original swale. The City also replied that the excavation to
replace the underground storm line will require removal of these remaining three trees in
order for the alignment to connect to the fixed location of the pump station. These
remaining three trees consist of a 6-inch evergreen, a 2-inch evergreen and a 4-inch
diameter ornamental maple tree. The City concurred with the Tribe‟s general concern
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 13 of 21
regarding potential for reduction of shading and water temperature impacts in the Green
River, however the trees are located approximately 170 feet west of the Green River and
their current height precludes the contribution to shading and water temperature and, in
turn, habitat for returning and sustaining adult salmon. Also, based on the tree locations
and reasonably expected future mature tree height in an urban setting, these trees are
not likely in the future to contribute to shading and water temperature impacts and, in
turn, habitat for returning and sustaining adult salmon. As a result, the City does not
believe additional analysis or mitigation is warranted for removal of these three trees.
On December 16, 2103, a telephone conference call between City staff and Karen
Walter was held. During the phone call the City further explained the water quality
features proposed and during the discussion the City agreed to provide replacement
plantings for trees removed.
The City staff evaluated the comments received and considered them in the
recommendation to the Hearing Examiner.
18. The comment letter received from Susan Quinzel of 1118 30th ST NE, a homeowner
(parcel # 733800-0150) in the adjacent plat of River Park Estates, expressed concern for
potential impact to her chain link fence on the property line and concern about “resident
and park tree integrity being compromised with the pipe placement”.
The storm line project has been designed to reduce or avoid impacts to existing mature
trees by shifting the alignment south (approximately 30 feet south of the easement) in
the area of a stand of trees and further onto City park property to traverse primarily lawn
areas and avoid disturbance of the root zone of existing mature trees. The Quinzel
Property is located near where the storm line alignment shifts from its location 30 feet
south of the existing utility easement back north, to within the southern 15 feet of the 30-
foot easement. The existing fence on the Quinzel‟s property line is not anticipated to be
disturbed or affected by project construction. According to a 2012 aerial photograph,
there do not appear to be mature trees in the backyard of the Quinzel Property. There
are mature trees on neighboring residential properties to the east and west and on the
City park property to the southeast.
Many years ago, the City planted trees on the perimeter of the park property to screen
and separate the park and residential subdivision; and has a strong interest in
maintaining and ensuring the health and vitality of the trees. The City consulted with
Tom Early, Certified Arborist, of Otak Inc. who recommended that construction not occur
within twenty (20) feet of the trunks and this separation should be sufficient to avoid
adverse affects on the roots and viability of the trees. The project is designed to avoid
construction within twenty (20) feet of the tree trunks.
To further avoid impacts to existing trees, the existing 30-inch storm line will be
abandoned in place. In the unlikely event of unforeseen circumstances and unplanned
construction disturbance, it the City‟s practice to return disturbed areas to close as
original condition as possible.
The City staff evaluated the comments received and considered them in the
recommendation to the Hearing Examiner
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 14 of 21
19. The contents of the case file for this project (SHL13–0006) are hereby incorporated by
reference and made part of the record of this hearing.
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff has concluded that a shoreline substantial development permit should be approved in that
the project and use are consistent with the “Urban Conservancy” shoreline environment
designation, as well as with the approval criteria for the shoreline substantial development
permit. “
1. The City code provides the following review criteria for shoreline substantial development
permits:
“16.08.052 Application – Shoreline substantial development permit – Review
criteria.
A. A substantial development permit shall be granted by the director only when the
development proposed is consistent with the following:
1. Goals, objectives, policies and use regulations of the Auburn SMP;
2. Auburn Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code; and
3. The policies, guidelines, and regulations of the SMA (Chapter 90.58
RCW; Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC).
B. The director may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to
assure consistency of the proposal with the above criteria.”
2. The Shoreline Management rules (WAC 173-27-140) set forth the following two criteria for
all developments within the shoreline jurisdiction.
(A) No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be
granted by the local government unless upon review the use or development is
determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management
Act and the master program.
B) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than
thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the
view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except
where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding
considerations of the public interest will be served.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and the City‟s
Shoreline Management Program (SMP). The City's program identifies the west side of the
Green River in the project area to be the “Urban Conservancy” shoreline environment
designation. Section 3.3.1 at Page 3-2 of the SMP describes the purpose of the “Urban
Conservancy” environment as:
“The purpose of the “Urban Conservancy” environment is to protect and restore
ecological functions of open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands where they exist
in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses consistent
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 15 of 21
with the Comprehensive Plan.”
The proposed project is an environmentally-responsible utility replacement/improvement
and flood alleviation project. The project may temporarily disrupt, but does not permanently
interfere with the recreational use of Brannan Park.
4. Section 3.3.3 of the SMP (Page 3-2) provides the following related Management Policies
applicable to the “Urban Conservancy” environment designation:
“1. Primary allowed uses and their associated development standards should preserve
the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space, floodplain or
sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, either directly or over
the long term. Uses that result in restoration of ecological functions should be allowed if
the use is otherwise compatible with the purpose of the environment and the setting.
2. Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation
conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the "urban conservancy"
designation. These standards should ensure that new development does not result in a
net loss of shoreline ecological functions or further degrade other shoreline values.
3. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever
feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated.
4. Water-oriented uses should be given priority over nonwater-oriented uses. For
shoreline areas with commercial development or adjacent to commercially navigable
waters, water-dependent uses should be given highest priority.
5. Existing mining and related activities may be an appropriate use within the urban
conservancy environment when conducted in a manner consistent with the environment
policies and the provisions of WAC 173-26-241 (3)(h) and when located consistent with
mineral resource lands designation criteria pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 and WAC 365-
190-070. No new mining uses or expansion of existing mines should be permitted within
the shoreline jurisdiction.”
The proposed project is consistent with the Management Policies of the “Urban
Conservancy” Environment. The project will not change the nature of existing uses in the
project site. The function of the public and private roadways and landscape areas on public
and private property will not change. Closer to the Green River, the City park land and
shoreline area will remain low intensity, open space uses. The project itself includes limited
improvements to meet the functional need and will include appropriate low impact
development construction techniques and landscape restoration.
5. The Permitted Use Table of the SMP, Pages 4-19 through 4-24, as a summary of the use
regulations, allows utility uses including “storm drainage outfalls, primary conveyance and
distribution facilities such as pipes and pump stations; (and) accessory utility facilities to
serve allowed development in the „Urban Conservancy‟ shoreline environment.”
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 16 of 21
6. Section 4.7.11 on Page 4-43 the City‟s SMP allows utility uses within the “Urban
Conservancy” environment. Additionally, the program provides the following policy
guidance applicable to utility uses:
“Policies
1. Utility facilities should be designed and located to assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions, preserve the natural landscape and vistas, preserve and protect
fish and wildlife habitat, and minimize conflicts with present and planned land and
shoreline uses.
2. Primary utility production and processing facilities, such as power plants, sewage
treatment plants, water reclamation plants, or parts of those facilities that are non-water-
oriented should not be allowed in shoreline areas.
3. Utilities should utilize existing transportation and utilities sites, rights-of-way and
corridors, whenever possible. Joint use of rights-of-way and corridors should be
encouraged.
4. Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines, cables,
and pipelines, shall be located outside of the shoreline area where feasible. Where no
other option exists, utilities should be placed underground or alongside or under bridges.
5. New utilities facilities should be located so as not to require extensive shoreline
protection structures.
6. Where storm water management, conveyance, and discharge facilities are permitted
in the shoreline, they should be limited to the minimum size needed to accomplish their
purpose and should be sited and designed in a manner that avoids, or mitigates
adverse effects to the physical, hydrologic, or ecological functions.
7. Stormwater conveyance facilities should utilize existing transportation and utility sites,
rights-of-way and corridors, whenever possible. Joint use of right-of-way and corridors
should be encouraged.”
The proposed project is consistent with the SMP policies applicable to utility uses. The
proposed project will not result in loss of shoreline ecological functions; it will preserve the
natural landscape and views of the river environment. The City‟s review and issuance of a
floodplain permit and the approval of the Habitat Impact Assessment (report) will address
the project‟s consistency with the protection of fish and wildlife habitat. On a long term
basis, the project will not interfere with the recreational and transportation uses of the
municipal park, Green River Trail, or the access and enjoyment of the Green River. The
project is not a primary utility production or processing facility (such as a waste water
treatment plant); the project will not interfere with the passive and active recreation
functions. As an upgrade to the existing stormwater facilities, the project nearness to the
River is a function of the existing location and dependent on connection to the existing pump
station and back up generator located in the area of the shoreline jurisdiction. The project
utilizes the existing utility corridor (the existing 30-foot easement) to the extent possible
except where necessary to avoid removal of significant vegetation. The project will be
primarily underground except where manholes and other surface features are necessary for
access and maintenance. As the project is on the landward side of the recent constructed
Reddington Levee, the project will not require alteration of the riverbank or require the
construction of shoreline protection structures. The project site will meet the functional need
of the storm water utility and includes appropriate low impact development construction
techniques, environmental mitigation and landscape restoration.
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 17 of 21
7. As required by the first criteria of the Shoreline Management Rules (WAC 173-27-140), the
project is found to be consistent with policy and provisions of both the Shoreline
Management Act and the local SMP. See Item 1, above. The application has demonstrated
compliance with the applicable requirements of the City‟s Shoreline Master Program. The
utility is a permitted use within the “Urban Conservancy” environment designation of the
200-foot area of shoreline jurisdiction. The work will be located outside the 100-foot critical
areas stream buffer for the Green River.
8. As required by the second criteria of the Shoreline Management Rules (WAC 173-27-140),
the project will not adversely affect the scenic quality of the river environment. Since the
project consists primarily of the underground installation of utilities separated from the Green
River by landscaped park areas, the elevated levee, and planted native vegetation between
the levee and shoreline. While construction of the storm line will result in a temporary loss
of vegetated area, the project as conditioned will provide replacement plantings.
9. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, The Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Plan and the Comprehensive Drainage Plan.
Relevant Comprehensive Plan Policies – Chapter 5, Capital Facilities (Utilities)
Objective 13.4. To ensure that collection, conveyance, storage and discharge of storm
drainage is provided in a sufficient and environmentally responsible manner, in order to
meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its planned growth.
Policies:
CF-36 The City of Auburn Comprehensive Drainage Plan is incorporated as an element
of this Comprehensive Plan.
CF-40 The City should continue to fund and provide storm drainage services through
the existing storm drainage utility. The City's storm drainage utility should be
responsible for implementation, maintenance and operation of the City's comprehensive
drainage system and to seek out sources of storm water pollution and correct them.
CF-42 Drainage facilities serving the larger community should be owned, operated and
maintained by the City's storm drainage utility. Drainage facilities serving individual
properties are discouraged, however if essential, as determined by the City Engineer,
they should be owned, operated and maintained by the property owner in accordance
with a recorded maintenance agreement approved by the City. The maintenance
agreement shall include provisions that will preserve the City‟s ability to ensure the long
term use of the drainage facility, and may include the granting of an easement over the
facility to the City. Maintenance intensive drainage facilities designed to serve as a
multifunctional private resource (e.g. private parks, wetland mitigation) should not be
owned, operated or maintained by the utility. The utility shall ensure that all private and
public storm drainage improvements are designed, constructed, operated and
maintained in accordance with the Comprehensive Drainage Plan and Comprehensive
Plan.
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 18 of 21
CF-43 The City shall encourage the use of regional-scale water quality and quantity
control facilities as a means of controlling drainage and flood waters.
CF-44 Wherever possible, regional detention facilities should be utilized as a multi-
functional community resource. When selecting a site and designing a regional storm
drainage facility, the City should consider other public benefits such as recreational,
habitat, cultural, educational, open space and aesthetic opportunities.
CF-46 Whenever a street is to be substantially reconstructed or a new street built, the
City Engineer shall determine whether drainage facilities in that street right-of-way shall
be constructed to adequately service the street and whether they should be brought up
to the size and configuration indicated by the Comprehensive Drainage Plan. If the
inclusion of water quality and quantity control facilities is not feasible, as determined by
the City Engineer, when street reconstruction occurs, off-site mitigation may be
considered regionally as proposed within the Comprehensive Drainage Plan to meet the
City‟s storm drainage requirements as determined by the City Engineer.
CF-48 In selecting the preferred Comprehensive Drainage Plan sub-basin alternative for
implementation by the City's storm drainage utility, the City shall consider the following
factors:
1. The most efficient and cost effective means of serving a sub basin or combination of
sub basins.
2. The ability of the alternative to implement source control best management practices
and to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts, such as impacts to existing
wetlands, and the degree to which the alternative promotes water quality treatment,
and protects aquatic and riparian habitat.
3. Consistency with Comprehensive Drainage Plan policies and recommendations and
compatibility with stormwater improvement policies and recommendations presented
in other regional stormwater plans.
4. Restrictions or constraints associated with receiving waters.
5. The ability to develop a multi-use facility.
6. The degree to which the alternative preserves, increases, and is compatible with
existing open space.
7. Consistency with existing and future planned development.
8. The advantages and disadvantages of storage versus conveyance while ensuring
adequate treatment for water quality treatment.
9. The degree to which the alternative preserves and enhances existing native
vegetation and existing drainage courses.
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 19 of 21
10. The alternatives ability to reduce flood hazard impacts resulting from the 25-year
design storm event.
CF-49 The City's Storm Drainage Utility shall strive to meet the environmental protection
goals of the Comprehensive Plan through compliance with and implementation of the
policies contained herein. Environmental issues such as water quality and fish habitat
protection shall be considered in all new development applications and new storm
drainage improvements.
CF-51 The City shall seek opportunities where feasible to reintroduce treated urban
runoff back into groundwater system as new and redevelopment occurs to minimize
urbanization impacts to the hydrology of the natural river systems.
CF-52 The City shall evaluate the feasibility and opportunity to improve the water quality
of its existing discharges to the river systems to enhance water quality in response to the
Endangered Species Act.
CF-53 The City shall seek to minimize the impacts to the natural river system‟s
hydrology by encouraging pre-treatment of surface flows of new development and re-
introduction into the groundwater where feasible.
Relevant Comprehensive Plan Policies – Chapter 10, Historic Preservation
HP-1 The City shall encourage the protection, preservation, recovery and rehabilitation
of significant archaeological resources and historic sites.
HP-4 The City should assist appropriate efforts to rehabilitate sites and buildings with
unique or significant historic characteristics.
Relevant Comprehensive Plan Policies – Chapter 11, Parks Recreation and Open Space
PR-6 The City shall continue to provide a broad variety of organized recreational and
cultural opportunities for all residents. Consideration of the diverse interests and abilities
of our residents shall be integral to the development of athletic, cultural, specialized
recreation and leisure and educational programs and facilities offered or maintained by
the City.
PR-7 The City shall seek to retain as open space those areas having a unique
combination of open space values, including: separation or buffering between
incompatible land uses; visual delineation of the City or a distinct area or neighborhood
of the City; unusually productive wildlife habitat; wetlands; floodwater or stormwater
storage; stormwater purification; recreational value; historic or cultural value; aesthetic
value; and educational value.
PR-10 The City shall seek to acquire open space lands which provide significant
environmental or social value. Such open space shall be managed to conserve and
improve the natural, visual, historic and cultural resources associated with the land.
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 20 of 21
PR-12 Development within areas designated for open space uses shall, in general, be
non-intensive in character. Development shall be designed and sited in a manner that
minimizes or mitigates disruption of the most important open space values of the site.
Appropriate uses within designated open space areas may, include (but not necessarily
be limited to): parks and other recreational facilities; agriculture; stormwater storage; and
watershed. It is recognized that designating private property for open space uses does
not establish or promote any public access rights to such property.
The project has been coordinated with the City Parks Department and is compatible with the
exisiting city park. The project will continue to provide a location for visitors to enjoy the
shorelines of the Green River.
10. The proposed project is consistent or is capable of being consistent with the Municipal
Code.
11. The Shoreline Management rules in WAC 173-27-150 set forth the following three criteria
that must be met for approval of a Shoreline substantial development permit. The project
must be consistent with:
the policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act;
the shoreline regulations; and,
the applicable master program.
As noted above, the proposed project and use complies with the stated policies and
procedures of the Act and Rules and, complies with the local Shoreline Master Program.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the application, findings and conclusions of the Staff report, Staff recommends that
the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SHL13-0006)
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Project construction shall generally be consistent with the 30th Street NE Area
Flooding- Phase 1, Project No CP1122, 99% Review Submittal Plans, Sheets 1-34, City
of Auburn Public Works Department, February 2014.
2. Construction shall not begin until the City floodplain permit (FDP13-0014) is issued
including the review and acceptance of the Habitat Impact Assessment (report) as
adequate for the project‟s consistency with the protection of fish and wildlife habitat.
3. The City has received public comments on the project concerning removal of trees
related to both; the affects on fish habitat quality in the Green River and concern for
aesthetics and property damage. Prior to beginning construction, the Planning Director
or designee shall ensure that adequate provisions for tree replacement are provided.
Specifically, the construction plans must show the existing trees to be removed as a
result of the project and the show the location, size and species of replacement trees.
Where appropriate, the tree removal and replacement shall also be coordinated with the
City Parks Department Director or designee. The plans shall also show measures for
Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL13–0006
Date: February 10, 2014
Page 21 of 21
protection and avoidance of disturbance or soil compaction generally within twenty (20)
feet of trees proposed to be protected and retained.
4. The project shall observe and implement recommendations of the Cultural Resources
Assessment for the 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn
WA, Technical Memo # 1302L-1, Cultural Resource Consultants Inc., April 10, 2013.
Specifically, in the unlikely event that ground disturbing or other activities result in the
inadvertent discovery of archaeological deposits, work should be halted in the immediate
area and contact made with the Washington State Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation (DAHP) in Olympia. Work should be halted until such time as
further investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded. In the unlikely event of
the inadvertent discovery of human remains, work should be immediately halted in the
area, the discovery covered and secured against further disturbance, and contact
appropriate law enforcement personnel, DAHP, and authorized representatives of the
concerned Indian tribes.
Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and
information raised subsequent to the writing of this report.
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase 1 Legend
Printed On:9/27/2013
Created by City of Auburn eGIS
Information shown is for general reference
purposes only and does not necessarily
represent exact geographic or cartographic
data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes
no warranty as to its accuracy.
Channel Migration Area (CMA)
Riparian Habitat Zones (RHZ)
Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA)
Floodway
SHL13-0006, City 30th ST NE Storm Line
Printed Date:
Information shown is for general reference
purposes only and does not necessarily
represent exact geographic or cartographic
data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no
warranty as to its accuracy.
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
2/13/2014
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 1 of 19
WASHINGTON STATE
Joint Aquatic Resources Permit
Application (JARPA) Form1,2
USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW.
Part 1–Project Identification
1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith’s Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) [help]
City of Auburn, 30th Street NE Area Flooding
Part 2–Applicant
The person and/or organization responsible for the project. [help]
2a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Truong, Kim
2b. Organization (If applicable)
City of Auburn
2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
25 West Main Street
2d. City, State, Zip
Auburn, WA 98001
2e. Phone (1) 2f. Phone (2) 2g. Fax 2h. E-mail
(253) 931-3000 ( ) ( ) kbtruong@auburnwa.gov
1Additional forms may be required for the following permits:
If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit (RGP), contact the U.S . Army Corps of
Engineers for application information (206) 764-3495.
If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act, you will need to fill out a Specific Project Information Form (SPIF) or
prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at
http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Regulatory/PermitGuidebook/EndangeredSpecies.aspx.
Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. If you need a Shoreline permit, contact the appropriate city or county
government to make sure they accept the JARPA.
2To access an online JARPA form with [help] screens, go to
http://www.epermitting.wa.gov/site/alias__resourcecenter/jarpa_jarpa_form/9984/jarpa_form.aspx.
For other help, contact the Governor’s Office of Regulatory Assistance at 1-800-917-0043 or help@ora.wa.gov.
AGENCY USE ONLY
Date received:
Agency reference #:
Tax Parcel #(s):
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 2 of 19
Part 3–Authorized Agent or Contact
Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11b of this
application.) [help]
3a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Redman, Jessica
3b. Organization (If applicable)
Otak
3c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400
3d. City, State, Zip
Kirkland, Washington 98033
3e. Phone (1) 3f. Phone (2) 3g. Fax 3h. E-mail
(425) 739-7977 ( ) (425) 827-9577 jessica.redman@otak.com
Part 4–Property Owner(s)
Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. Consider both
upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. [help]
Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.)
Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.)
There are multiple upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for
each additional property owner.
Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-managed aquatic lands. If you don’t know,
contact the DNR at (360) 902-1100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete JARPA Attachment E
to apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization.
4a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Chavers LLC
4b. Organization (If applicable)
Parkside East Retirement Home
4c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
2902 I Street NE
4d. City, State, Zip
Auburn, WA 98002
4e. Phone (1) 4f. Phone (2) 4g. Fax 4h. E-mail
( ) ( ) ( )
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 3 of 19
Part 5–Project Location(s)
Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. [help]
There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA
Attachment B for each additional project location.
5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply.) [help]
Private
Federal
Publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.)
Tribal
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) – managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E)
5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) [help]
131 30 Street NE (proposed project starts along the 30 St. NE public right-of-way in front of this address).
5c. City, State, Zip (If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) [help]
Auburn, WA, 98002
5d. County [help]
King
5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. [help]
¼ Section Section Township Range
6 & 7 21N 05E
5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. [help]
Example: 47.03922 N lat. / -122.89142 W long. (Use decimal degrees - NAD 83)
47.33366 N lat./ -122.223575 W long.
5g. List the tax parcel number(s) for the project location. [help]
The local county assessor’s office can provide this information.
Majority of this project is in the public road right-of-way of 30 St. NE. Project passes through lawn of privately
owned Parkside East Retirement Home, Tax Parcel #0001000080. City-owned parcel of Brannan Park, where
the proposed project and new alignment ends is Tax Parcel #0001000081.
5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) [help]
Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known)
See JARPA Attachment C
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 4 of 19
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 5 of 19
5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. [help]
No wetlands are on or adjacent to the project location.
5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. [help]
The Green River is approximately 120 feet from the east end of the project.
5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? [help]
Yes No Don’t know
5l. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. [help]
The majority of the proposed project follows the existing public right-of-way of 30th Street NE. Vegetation and
habitat conditions are disturbed throughout the project. Along 30th Street NE, the vegetation consists of mostly
ornamental bushes and a few red alder. The eastern end of the project site is on private land and the public city
property of Brannan Park. The vegetation here consists mostly of mowed lawn, native and ornamental bushes,
firs, and maples.
5m. Describe how the property is currently used. [help]
The majority of the proposed project follows the existing public right-of-way of 30th Street NE. East of I Street
NE, the project site enters private property and the Parkside East Retirement Home. Brannan Park is located in
the eastern portion of the site and is used for active and passive recreation by nearby residents.
5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. [help]
The properties adjacent to the project site are generally commercial to the west of Auburn Way and residential to
the east. Auburn Municipal Airport lies immediately south of 30th Street NW, west of Auburn Way. To the east of
Auburn Way, Brannan Park lies in a mostly residential neighborhood, bordering the Green River.
5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s) and current
condition. [help]
The majority of the site occurs within the public right of way. Existing roads, driveways, sidewalks, and utilities
are present. Buried utilities include electricity, natural gas, water, sanitary sewer, telephone, fiber optic cables,
and stormwater. The portion of the site east of I Street borders private residences, the Parkside East
Retirement home, and the public Brannan Park.
5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. [help]
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 6 of 19
From the North: From Hwy 167, take 15th St. NW exit. At light take a left onto 15th St. NW. Go east to Auburn
Way North. Turn left at the light at Auburn Way North. Continue north to 28th St. NE and turn right. Continue
east on 28th St. NE. From the South: From Hwy 167, take 15th St. NW exit. At light take right onto 15th St. NW.
Go east to Auburn Way North. Turn left at the light at Auburn Way North. Continue north to 28th St. NE and turn
right. Continue east on 28th St. NE.
Part 6–Project Description
6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. [help]
The purpose of the proposed project is to alleviate flooding in the north central area of the City of Auburn,
thereby protecting local public and private property. The existing gravity storm drain is capacity limited for the
tributary basin flows, and is therefore a major contributing factor to flooding in the area. Currently, significant
flooding in the area occurs about once every two years.
6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. [help]
The project proposes to relieve street flooding as a result of the existing 30-inch underground pipe within 30th
Street having limited capacity to convey storm water to its current Brannan Park Pump Station (BPPS) discharge
point. The city proposes installing a 42-inch gravity line to replace the approximate 3800 linear feet of existing
30-inch pipe. The proposed alignment will follow the existing 30th Street NE route to the east side of Auburn
Way North. The proposed new alignment will continue east along 30th Street NE to I-Street. At this point it
would turn southerly and intersect back into the existing pipe route. From this point, the proposed alignment will
closely follow the existing route easterly in easements, running along the north side of the Parkside Retirement
home and into Brannan Park. To reduce construction impacts to private properties, the easterly portion of the
pipe could be located entirely within Brannan Park, north of the park’s ball fields. The project will then connect
to the upstream inlet structure of the BPPS located adjacent to the Green River. The project would also remove
the baffles currently located in the manholes immediately upstream of the BPPS. The total project length is
approximately 3,700 feet.
6c. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) [help]
Commercial Residential Institutional Transportation Recreational
Maintenance Environmental Enhancement
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 7 of 19
6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help]
Aquaculture
Bank Stabilization
Boat House
Boat Launch
Boat Lift
Bridge
Bulkhead
Buoy
Channel Modification
Culvert
Dam / Weir
Dike / Levee / Jetty
Ditch
Dock / Pier
Dredging
Fence
Ferry Terminal
Fishway
Float
Floating Home
Geotechnical Survey
Land Clearing
Marina / Moorage
Mining
Outfall Structure
Piling/Dolphin
Raft
Retaining Wall
(upland)
Road
Scientific
Measurement Device
Stairs
Stormwater facility
Swimming Pool
Utility Line
Other:
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 8 of 19
6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction
methods and equipment to be used. [help]
Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody.
Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain.
There will be sawcutting and pavement removal along the edges of existing road and at other locations where
necessary for stormwater conveyance pipe installation. The majority of excavation will be along the 30th Street
NE corridor, lawn areas of the Parkside East Retirement Home, and Brannan Park. All excavated material will
be hauled off and disposed of at an approved site.
During construction, appropriate BMPs will be used to prevent sediment and waste materials from entering
downstream water bodies; these practices will include storm drain inlet protection, culvert protection, silt fencing,
wattles, planting, and street cleaning. An erosion and sediment control lead will be on site throughout the
construction window to monitor the efficacy of these practices. A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control
(TESC) Plan will be employed to ensure that the possibility for erosion to occur is minimal.
Standard construction practices will be implemented and a full-time construction inspector will be onsite during
construction.
Anticipated equipment:
Asphalt cutting saw
Dump truck
Excavator
Compactor/roller
Backhoe/loader
Vector truck
Paving machine
Pump/dewatering system
6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (Month/Year) [help]
If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase or
stage.
Start date: _January 2014_ End date: __May 2014__ See JARPA Attachment D
6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. [help]
$ 1,600,000
6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? [help]
If yes, list each agency providing funds.
Yes No Don’t know
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 9 of 19
Part 7–Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation
Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area.
(If there are none, skip to Part 8.) [help]
7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. [help]
Not applicable
No wetlands are on the proposed project area. The closest wetlands occur at Auburn Municipal Airport, adjacent
to the west end of the proposed project site.
7b. Will the project impact wetlands? [help]
Yes No Don’t know
7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? [help]
Yes No Don’t know
7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? [help]
If Yes, submit the report, including data sheets, with the JARPA package.
Yes No
7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating
System? [help]
If Yes, submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package.
Yes No Don’t know
7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? [help]
If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 7g.
If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
Yes No Not applicable
The proposed project will avoid all adjacent wetlands and therefore, mitigation is not expected to be
necessary for the project.
7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was
used to design the plan. [help]
Not applicable (see 7f above).
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 10 of 19
7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted, the extent and duration of the
impact, and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a
similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan. [help]
Activity (fill,
drain, excavate,
flood, etc.)
Wetland
Name1
Wetland
type and
rating
category2
Impact
area (sq.
ft. or
Acres)
Duration
of impact3
Proposed
mitigation
type4
Wetland
mitigation area
(sq. ft. or
acres)
1 If no official name for the wetland exists, create a unique name (such as “Wetland 1”). The name should be consistent with other project documents, such
as a wetland delineation report.
2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System. Provide the wetland
rating forms with the JARPA package.
3 Indicate the days, months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter “permanent” if applicable.
4 Creation (C), Re-establishment/Rehabilitation (R), Enhancement (E), Preservation (P), Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee (B)
Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available:
7i. For all filling activities identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic
yards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. [help]
No fill is proposed to be placed in wetlands.
7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h, describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in
cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help]
No excavation is proposed to be placed in wetlands.
Part 8–Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation
In Part 8, “waterbodies” refers to non-wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) [help]
Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.)
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 11 of 19
8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.
[help]
Not applicable
The Green River lies 120 feet from the east end of the project site. No work will occur closer than 120 feet from
the Green River. Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures will be put in place to avoid potential
water quality impacts during construction. All withdrawn groundwater and surface water runoff from precipitation
events will be held at the BPPS and discharged into the Green River at normal flow and existing discharge limits.
Proposed TESC measures and metered flow and discharge measures are anticipated to avoid water quality
and/or quantity impacts.
8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? [help]
Yes No
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 12 of 19
8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project’s adverse impacts to non-wetland
waterbodies? [help]
If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d.
If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
Yes No Not applicable
No work will occur within or below the Ordinary High Water Mark for the Green Rive r. No work will
occur within 120 feet of the Green River. The project’s avoidance of adverse impacts to non-wetland
waterbodies, as described above in 8a, will not result in a net adverse impact to waterbodies;
therefore, compensatory mitigation is not expected to be necessary for the project.
8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was
used to design the plan.
If you already completed 7g you do not need to restate your answer here. [help]
Not applicable
8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. [help]
Activity (clear,
dredge, fill, pile
drive, etc.)
Waterbody
name1
Impact
location2
Duration
of impact3
Amount of material
(cubic yards) to be
placed in or
removed from
waterbody
Area (sq. ft. or
linear ft.) of
waterbody
directly affected
1 If no official name for the waterbody exists, create a unique name (such as “Stream 1”) The name should be consistent with ot her documents provided.
2 Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent, provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and
indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100-year flood plain.
3 Indicate the days, months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter “permanent” if applicable.
8f. For all activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards)
you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. [help]
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 13 of 19
8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e, describe the method for excavating or dredging,
type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help]
Part 9–Additional Information
Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of
this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question.
9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. [help]
Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent
Date of Contact
( )
( )
( )
9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 of this JARPA on the Washington
Department of Ecology’s 303(d) List? [help]
If Yes, list the parameter(s) below.
If you don’t know, use W ashington Department of Ecology’s Water Quality Assessment tools at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/.
Yes No
Lower reaches of the Green River are listed on the Washington Department of Ecology’s 303(d) List as Category
5 for low dissolved oxygen. However, the River in the vicinity of the project is not listed.
9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? [help]
Go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm to help identify the HUC.
17110013
9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA #) is the project in? [help]
Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/wria.htm to find the WRIA #.
WRIA 9 - Duwamish
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 14 of 19
9e. Will the in-water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for
turbidity? [help]
Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swqs/criteria.html for the standards.
Yes No Not applicable
9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline
environment designation? [help]
If you don’t know, contact the local planning department.
For more information, go to: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/laws_rules/173-26/211_designations.html.
Rural Urban Natural Aquatic Conservancy Other
9g. What is the W ashington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? [help]
Go to http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ForestPracticesApplications/Pages/fp_watertyping.aspx for the Forest
Practices Water Typing System.
Shoreline Fish Non-Fish Perennial Non-Fish Seasonal
9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology’s most current stormwater
manual? [help]
If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet.
Yes No
Name of manual: 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW)
9i. Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? [help]
If Yes, please describe below.
Yes No
9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. [help]
Historically the site appears to have been used for agriculture, based on 1936 aerial photos from King
County, but the project area has been developed in the latter half of the 20th Century and has not been
used for agriculture for several decades.
9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? [help]
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 15 of 19
If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package.
Yes No
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 16 of 19
9l. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project
area or might be affected by the proposed work. [help]
Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout are listed as Threatened and coho salmon are
candidates for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. All four are known to occur in the
Green River. Bull trout are known to use the Green River for migration while steelhead trout, Chinook,
and coho salmon use the Green River for spawning and rearing. The proposed project site is 120 feet
west of the Green River and construction activities are not expected to have any effect on the River or
listed fish species.
9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Priority Habitats and
Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. [help]
Bull trout, Chinook, chum, and steelhead are State-priority species. There are no ESA-designated critical
habitat areas in the project area. The proposed project site and construction activities are not expected
to have any effect on the River or listed fish species.
Part 10–SEPA Compliance and Permits
Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for.
Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/opas/.
Governor’s Office of Regulatory Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help@ora.wa.gov.
For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for completed JARPA.
10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.) [help]
For more information about SEPA, go to www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review.html.
A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application.
A SEPA determination is pending with _City of Auburn_ (lead agency).
I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 10b.) [help]
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 17 of 19
This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below).
Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt?
Other:
SEPA is pre-empted by federal law.
JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 18 of 19
10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) [help]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Local Government Shoreline permits:
Substantial Development Conditional Use Variance
Shoreline Exemption Type (explain):
Other city/county permits:
Floodplain Development Permit Critical Areas Ordinance
STATE GOVERNMENT
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption – Attach Exemption Form
Effective July 10, 2012, you must submit a check for $150 to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
unless your project qualifies for an exemption or alternative payment method below. Do not send cash.
Check the appropriate boxes:
$150 check enclosed. (Check #________________________________)
Attach check made payable to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Charge to billing account under agreement with WDFW. (Agreement # )
My project is exempt from the application fee. (Check appropriate exemption)
HPA processing is conducted by applicant-funded WDFW staff.
(Agreement # )
Mineral prospecting and mining.
Project occurs on farm and agricultural land.
(Attach a copy of current land use classification recorded with the county auditor, or other proof of current land use.)
Project is a modification of an existing HPA originally applied for, prior to July 10, 2012.
(HPA # )
Washington Department of Natural Resources:
Aquatic Use Authorization
Complete JARPA Attachment E and submit a check for $25 payable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
Do not send cash.
Washington Department of Ecology:
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers):
Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) Section 10 (work in navigable waters)
United States Coast Guard permits:
Private Aids to Navigation (for non-bridge projects)
YTYQF
N
l 1111111 10 11 We", 9"11.01
NOTICE OF APPLICATION /NOA\ &
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
30th S[ NE Area Flooding Alleviation Project, Phase I
SEP13-0029
The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Application (NOA) and Determination of Non-Significance
NG) for the following described project. Thepennitepp|icotione8nd|ietedetudieonnovbe
reviewed at the Auburn Planning and Development Department at 1 East N1oiD Street, 2''" F|OOr,
Customer Service Center, Auburn, VVAS8O01,
Proposal: The project iSSitepr8p8[8U0O8Odrep|aCBO0eDtOf8pprOXi[D8te|y3.8OO|iD8@|feetof
the existing 3O-iDCh gravity storm line that has limited capacity with 842-inoh line for the
purpose Of alleviating flooding.
Location: The western 3/5 m ofthe project site is within the right-of-way of 30th ST NE from
approximately 1'OOO feet east ofB8t NE, east to the east side nf|ST. The eastern 2/5" of the
project is from | ST to just west of the existing Brannan Pork (ato,nnvvnter) Pump Station; on the west
bank nf the Green River (revised storm line n|ignrnont). The project |nvvithinthe southern >6of
Section 0-21-05'VV.W1.
Notice ofApplication: October 3O.2O13
Notice mfCompleteness: October 25.2013
Application Date: September 27, 2013
File No. GEP13-0029
Applicant/
Property Owner: Kim Truong. Project Engineer
Public Works Department
City ofAuburn
25VVMain Street
Auburn, VVA98UO1
Studies/Plans Submitted or To Be Submitted With Application:
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 3 m Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Pro*ect
C 1122) Auburn WA, Technical Memo# . Cultural Resource Consultants Inc.,
April 10' 2013.
othGeotechnicalEngineeringSrvices (Report) City of Auburn 3 Street New Area
F-looding Phase 1, GeoEengineers Inc., April 30, 2013.
Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) City of Auburn 30th Street NE Area
Flooding, Ot8k Inc. (FO be prepared prior tO COOStrUCtiOO 8UthV[iz81iOD)
F|OOdp|8iD Habitat ASS8SS0ent for the City of Auburn NE 30th ST Flooding Project, C}tah
Inc. (TD be prepared prior to cVOEt[UCiiOD authorization)
City of Auburn 30th Street NE Area Flooding- Phase \ COOS1rVoti0D [)[8vviOgS. Sheets 1
thrU29. City UfAuburn. (To beprepared prior tO construction authorization)
NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFCIANCE — SEP13-0029 (Continued)
Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed:
F|0Odp|oin Development Permit (City of Auburn)
Public VVOrkS [}ineCLOr approval Of CODSt[UCtiOn p|8OS (City of Auburn)
City Council award Of8 construction contract (City nfAuburn)
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Exemption (City OfAuburn)
Statement of Consistency and List mf Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is
eubiectbzondehaUbeoonoietentvvhhtheAuburnCitvCode.Cnmpn*henaiweP|an'and(Pub|ic
Works) Design and Construction Standards.
Lead Agency: City of Auburn
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse
innpaotonthaenvinonnnent.Anenvironmento|impactatuternent(E|G)iSnotrequiredunderRCVV
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.
Public Comment Period: This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental
impacts of the proposal. All persons may comment on this application. This DNS ia issued under
WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date issued
below. Comments must be in writing and submitted by 5:00pm on November 14, 2013 to the mailing
address of2bVV Main ST, Auburn, WA, B80O1-4QQ8.
Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk
within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by 5:00 p.m. on November 28, 2011
For questions regarding this project, please contact Jeff Dixon, Principal Planner at
or(253)8O4-5U33. Any person wishing to become e party of record, shall
include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and participate in any hearings, if
relevant, and request e copy of decisions once made.
Public Hearing: A public hearing is not required for this proposal.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Nancy LWelch
POSITION/TITLE: Director, Planning and Development Department
ADDRESS: 25 West Main Street
Auburn, Washington S00U1
253) 931-3090
DATE ISSUED: October 30, 2013 SIGNATURE:
Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can
only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal is
required to meet all applicable standards and regulations.
Page 2 of 3
NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFCIANCE — SEP13 -0029 (Continued)
Project Site
N
W E
S
Page 3 of 3
FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIROMENTAL CHECKLIST (SEP13 -0029)
Date:
Project:
Applicant/
Property Owner:
October 23, 2013
30th ST NE Area Flooding Alleviation Project, Phase 1
Kim Truong, Project Engineer
Public Works Department
City of Auburn
25 W Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001
Location: The project is a 3,800 foot storm line replacement. The western 3 /5th of
the project site is within the right -of -way of 30th ST NE from approximately
1,000 feet east of B St NE, east to the east side of I ST NE (existing
storm line alignment). In the eastern 2 /5th of the project, from I ST NE,
the alignment parallels the existing pipe route within easements (outside
or right -of -way) to just west of the existing Brannan Park (stormwater)
Pump Station; on the west bank of the Green River (revised storm line
alignment). The project is within the southern 1/2 of Section 6- 21 -05, W.M.
Parcel No. The western 3 /5th of the project is located within the 30th ST NE right -of-
way. The eastern 2 /5th of the project is located within easements on
private and public property. The parcel numbers of the private property
is 0001000080 and public property is 0001000081.
Parcel Size: The western 3 /5th of the project is located within the 30th ST NE right -of-
way and thus parcel size does not apply. The eastern 2 /5th of the project
is located within easements on private and public property. The private
property of the Parkside Assisted - Living Facility (parcel # 0001000080) is
3.12 acres. The public property (Brannan Park) (Parcel # 0001000081) is
22.78 acres.
Proposal: The project is site preparation and replacement of approximately 3,800
lineal feet of the existing 30 -inch gravity storm line that has limited
capacity with a 42 -inch line for the purpose of alleviating flooding. The
project is the replacement of an existing line conveying flows from a large
portion of the "I Basin" of approximately 240 acres as identified in the
City's Comprehensive Drainage Plan, easterly to the existing
stormwater) pump station. Generally, the project would replace the
existing 30 -inch line with a 42 -inch line; within the western 3 /5th of the
project construction is located within the 30th ST NE right -of -way from B
St NW to Auburn WY N and the replacement line follows the alignment of
the original line. Within the eastern 2 /51h of the project the replacement
will follow a different but generally parallel alignment easterly in
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist — SEP13 -0029 (Continued)
easements to the pump station. To minimize construction impacts, the
eastern portion of the pipe could be located entirely within the City's
Brannan Park, north of the ball fields within easements on private and
public property. The purpose of the project is to alleviate flooding
experienced in the north central portion of the City to protect local public
and private property.
Existing Zoning: The portion of the project within the right -of -way is not zoned. The portion
of the project within private and public property is zoned R20, Residential,
20 dwelling units per acre and P1, Public, respectively.
Existing
Comprehensive
Plan Designation:
A. BACKGROUND:
The portion of the project within private and public property is designated
High Density Residential" and "Public and Quasi - Public ", respectively.
Pursuant to WAC 197 -11- 340(2), the City of Auburn is required to send any Determination
of Non - Significance /Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (DNS /MDNS) which may
result from this environmental review, along with the checklist, to the Washington State
Department of Ecology (DOE), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or other agencies with
jurisdiction, affected tribes, and interested parties. Therefore, the City will not act on this
proposal for fifteen days after the issuance of a DNS /MDNS.
8. Other Environmental Information: Other environmental information includes information
prepared for previous SEPA decisions for the site and vicinity
The vicinity of this project was annexed to the City in 1969 by Ordinance No. 1758. Past
SEPA decisions include:
After original construction, in September of 2000, the city issued a DNS (City File #
SEP00 -0027) for the construction of a bypass line for storm water biofiltration swale to
be used during periods of scheduled maintenance.
Other environmental information includes information prepared for the current proposal:
Cultural Resources i
CP1122) Auburn W.
April 10, 2013.
at NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project
1, Cultural Resource Consultants Inc.,
Geotechnical Engineering Services (Report) City of Auburn 30th Street New Area
Floodinq Phase 1, GeoEengineers Inc., April 30, 2013.
Other environmental information that will be prepared for the proposal includes:
Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) City of Auburn 30th Street NE Area
Flooding, Otak Inc.
Floodplain Habitat Assessment for the City of Auburn NE 30th ST Flooding Project, Otak
Inc.
Page 2 of 7
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist — SEP13 -0029 (Continued)
City of Auburn 30th Street NE Area Flooding- Phase I Construction Drawings, Sheets 1
thru 29, City of Auburn.
10. Other Approvals /Permits Needed:
Floodplain Development Permit (City of Auburn)
Public Works Director approval of construction plans (City of Auburn)
City Council award of a construction contract (City of Auburn)
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Exemption (City of Auburn)
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS:
1. Earth: The project site can be characterized as flat.
Pursuant to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey,
the project site is underlain with urban land (Ur), Oridia silt loam (Os), Briscot silt loam (Br),
Renton (Re) and Woodinville (Wo) soils.
Oridia silt loam is a gently undulating soil formed in alluvium in river valleys. These soils are
characterized by moderate to moderately slow permeability in the subsoil; seasonal high
water table at a depth of 1 to 2 feet; high available water capacity; slow runoff and a slight
erosion hazard. Oridia silt loam is identified as a hydric soil.
Briscot silt loam (Br) is a poorly drained soil formed in alluvium under conifers and grass in
river valleys. It possesses the following characteristics: moderate permeability; a seasonal
water table of 1 to 2 feet; high available water capacity; slow runoff; a slight erosion hazard;
and a moderate stream overflow hazard. Briscot silt loam is identified as a hydric soil.
Renton silt loam (Re) is made up of somewhat poorly drained soils formed in alluvium in
river valleys. Slopes are 0 —1 percent. It possesses the following characteristics:
moderately rapid permeability in the surface layer and very rapid in the substratum; a
seasonal water table at a depth of 1 to 2 feet; moderate to moderately high available water
capacity; slow runoff; a slight erosion hazard; and flood protection is provided.
Woodinville silt loam is made up of nearly level and gently undulating, poorly drained soils
formed under grass and sedges in alluvium on stream bottoms. Slopes range from 0 to 2
percent. It possesses the following characteristics: slow permeability; a seasonal water
table at or near the surface; high available water capacity; slow runoff; a slight erosion
hazard; and a severe stream overflow hazard, unless protected. Woodinville silt loam is
identified as a hydric soil.
The 1973 USDA Soil Conservation Service's "Soil Survey for the King County Area,
Washington," classifies the site's soil as consisting of Urban land soils (Ur). Urban land soils
are soils, which have been modified by the disturbance of natural layers with the addition of
fill material several feet thick to accommodate development. The texture and permeability of
this soil varies.
Page 3 of 7
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist — SEP13 -0029 (Continued)
The majority of the project site is paved roadway, and no change from the existing condition
is proposed as part of the project. The other portions of the project are landscaped areas
associated with the developed assisted living facility and the municipal park.
Given the site's terrain and soil characteristics, the project and associated construction
activity is not expected to result in significant erosion or other soil instability.
However, it is anticipated that some soil erosion could occur during construction activity
associated with the project, which includes approximately 14,600 cubic yards of excavation
for installation of the storm drainage pipe and storm drainage structures. Approximately
13,200 cubic yards of fill will be imported for pipe bedding and trench backfill. Any off -site
disposal of soils will be to an approved offsite source.
To minimize potential erosion impacts to adjacent properties and downstream receiving
waters, the City will prepare and implement a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Plan (TESCP) consistent with Best Management Practices (BMPs) per the 2009 City of
Auburn Surface Water Management Manual (SWMM). In addition, contract specifications
will require implementation of the Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
TESCP)
2. Air: Concur with checklist. Short term impacts on air quality, such as an increase in local
suspended particulate levels, could occur during construction activity associated with the
project. However the project is anticipated to be of a limited duration and to minimize short
term impacts to air quality, contract specifications will require the development and
implementation of dust and emission control measures such as watering and turning off
equipment and vehicles when not in use, as consistent with the City's Construction
Standards.
3. Water:
A. Surface: The east end of the project is located approximately 150 feet from the west
shoreline of the Green River. The construction proposes a connection to the existing
underground inlet pipe to the Brannan Park Pump Station and therefore construction will
not be located closer to the River than the existing pump station. The area around the
pump station consists of landscaped municipal park and trail areas. Contrary to the
checklist response, the project does not include construction within the Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA) per Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Maps; it does not propose construction within the designated 100 -year
floodplain or floodway.
However, the eastern extent of the project is situated in a Riparian Habitat Zone. As a
result, the project requires a Floodplain Development Permit. It is anticipated the project
will be subject to any mitigation measures identified and required by the Habitat Impact
Assessment Report, the standards for flood hazard protection, and any other applicable
standard contained in Auburn City Code (ACC) 15.68, "Flood Hazard Areas" in
conjunction with the issuance of a Floodplain Development Permit from the City.
B. Ground: Concur with checklist. Dewatering may be required during excavation for
underground utilities installation since groundwater is expected to be within five feet of
the surface during winter season. It is anticipated that 55,000 cubic feet of groundwater
Page 4 of 7
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist — SEP13 -0029 (Continued)
will need to be withdrawn, Groundwater will be withdrawn in sequences along the
project alignment and stored in temporary settlement tanks or basins prior to reduce
sediment content prior to discharging back to the existing conveyance system. Contract
specifications will require dewatering to be performed per the City's Construction
Standards.
C. Runoff /Stormwater: Concur with checklist. The project occurs partially within developed
street and partially within landscape areas. The project will restore surfaces to original
conditions at the conclusion of construction. Contract specifications will require a
Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) and measures to reduce
or avoid potential discharges consistent with Best Management Practices (BMPs) per
the City's SWMM to be developed and implemented.
4. Plants: Concur with checklist.
No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site. Per the City's
geographic information system maps, there are no priority habitats or any other fish and
wildlife habitat within proximity of the project site.
Any potential impacts to habitat will be identified by the Habitat Impact Assessment Report
and, if applicable, mitigated by the Habitat Mitigation Plan required in conjunction with
Floodplain Development Permit issued by the City.
5. Animals: Concur with checklist.
No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site. Per the City's
geographic information system maps, there are no priority habitats or any other fish and
wildlife habitat within proximity of the project site.
Any potential impacts to habitat will be identified by the Habitat Impact Assessment Report,
and if applicable, mitigated by the Habitat Mitigation Plan required in conjunction with
Floodplain Development Permit issued by the City.
6. Energy and Natural Resources: Concur with checklist.
7. Environmental Health: Concur with checklist.
Contract specifications will require construction equipment to be maintained in good working
order, potential spills of oils and lubricants to be cleaned up immediately, and
implementation of other environmental health hazard risk reduction measures consistent
with the City's Construction Standards.
8. Noise: Concur with checklist.
Contract specifications will require construction activity to be subject to ACC Section
8.28.010(13)(8), 'Noise Control for Construction Noise', which limits all construction activity -
related noise to 7 :00 am — 7 :00 pm, Monday thru Friday, and 9:00 am — 6:00 pm, Saturday
and Sunday, unless construction activity outside of the aforementioned hours is specifically
authorized per ACC 8,28.010(B)(8)(c), No noise will be generated when the project is
complete.
9. Land and Shoreline Use: Concur with checklist.
A portion of the project site is proposed within a currently paved roadway through developed
industrial, commercial and residential areas. In another portion, the project is through
Page 5 of 7
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist — SEP13 -0029 (Continued)
landscaped areas through residential and park developed areas. The portion of the project
construction located within public right -of -way is designated for "Heavy Industrial" and Heavy
Commercial: by the comprehensive Plan. The portion of the project within private and public
property is designated "High Density Residential" and "Public and Quasi - Public" by the
Comprehensive Plan.
The project site is located ranges from 200 feet to 150 feet from the west shoreline of the
Green River, The Shoreline environment designation of this portion of the Green River is
Urban Conservancy ". Since a portion of the project is within 200 feet of the ordinary high
water mark of the Green River which is designated a 'Waters of the State ", a shoreline
permit or shoreline permit exemption is required. It is anticipated the project will be subject
to any mitigation measures identified and required by the shoreline permit or exemption.
The eastern extent of the project occurs within the 'Riparian Habitat Zone' of the Green
River and as a result, the project requires securing a floodplain development permit. It is
anticipated the project will be subject to any mitigation measure identified and required by
the Habitat Impact Assessment Report that will be prepared, the standards for flood hazard
protection, and any other applicable standard contained in Auburn City Code (ACC) 15.68,
Flood Hazard Areas" in conjunction with the Floodplain Development Permit.
10. Housing: Concur with checklist.
11. Aesthetics: Concur with checklist.
12. Light and Glare: Concur with checklist.
13. Recreation: Concur with checklist.
14. Historic and Cultural Preservation: Concur with checklist. There are no known places or
objects listed on, or proposed for national, state, or local preservation registers.
The assess the potential for historic or archaeological resources, the City commissioned the
following report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the 30th Street NE Area Flooding,
Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn WA Technical Memo # 1302L -1, Cultural Resource
Consultants Inc., April 10, 2013. The report evaluated the environmental and cultural setting
of the project vicinity, consultation to the WA State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP), use of a predictive model and conducting a field survey of the project
site where accessible (including subsurface testing). The report concludes that the area
may lack distinctive archaeological signatures associated with pre- contact -era activities in
an active floodplain, active riverine depositional processes, and multiple episodes of human
landscape modification (e.g. farming or road construction) and given these conditions the
likelihood that intact archaeological deposits would be encountered is extremely low. No
further archaeological investigations are recommended. However, the report goes on to say
that if any historically significant site, building, district, structure, or object is discovered
during construction activity, work should be halted, the area secured, and the Tribes and
DAHP immediately consulted. Work should be halted until such time as further investigation
and appropriate consultation is concluded.
Page 6 of 7
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist — SEP13 -0029 (Continued)
15. Transportation: Concur with checklist. Contract specifications will require the development
and implementation of a traffic control plan during construction that minimizes disruption to
traffic and maintains local access on 30th ST NE, consistent with the City's Construction
Standards.
No permanent new vehicular trips will be generated.
16. Public Services: Concur with checklist.
17. Utilities: Concur with checklist.
C. CONCLUSIONS:
The proposal can be found to not have a probable significant adverse impact on the
environment.
The City reserves the right to review any future revision or alterations to the site or to the
proposal in order to determine the environmental significance or non - significance of the project
at that point in time.
Prepared by: Jeff Dixon, Principal Planner
Page 7 of 7
CTTYQF '
B. ewis' h4 Y 1, JBII JR1,
FINAL
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
mm S][NE Area Flooding Alleviation Project, Phase 1
S[cP13-0029
Proposal: The project ieobapnepmr8dOO8DdFBp|8Dernentof3pproXiDl8tek/3.O00UD88|fB8tOf
the existing 30-inch gravity storm line that has limited capacity with a 42-inch line for the
purpose Of alleviating flooding.
Location: The western n« t»
of the project oiteievvUhinthahg nf3»mSTNEfrom
approximately 1'000 feet east nfBGt NE, east to the east side nf|ST. The eastern 2x t»ofthe
project is from | ST to just west of the existing Brannan Park (atonnvvateh Pump Station; on the west
bank of the Green River (revised storm line o|ignnnent). The project iavvithintheenuthern1/2of
Section O-21-05.VV.PW.
File No. GEP13-0029
Property Owner: Kim Tmong' Project Engineer
Public Works Department
City ofAuburn
25VVMain Gtn*ed
Auburn, VVAS8OO1
Lead Agency: City ofAuburn
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse
impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW
43.21 C.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 tothe public on request.
Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk
within 14 days Vf this decision, Orby5:OO p.m. on December 18, 2013.
For questions regarding this project, p|eoaecontoCtJaff[}ixon.Prinoipa|P|annerat
ur(253) 8O4-5O33.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jeff Tate
POSITION/TITLE: Interim Director, Planning and Development Department
ADDRESS: 25 West Main Street
Auburn, Washington S8OU1
253)931-309 —
DATE ISSUED: December 4, 2013 SIGNATURE:
Note:Thiedetmnninationdoeanotconstituteapprove|nfthapropoae|.App/ovo|oftheprupoea|can
only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The pn]pOao| is
required to meet all applicable standards and regulations.
Ax
NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFCIANCE — SEP13 -0029 (Continued)
Project Site
EVA
kl'sm
Page 2 of 3
CITY OF
All DBURN
WASHINGTON
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION/SEPA NOTICE
Application Number: GEP13-0029
Applicant: Kim Truong, City of Auburn
Location: The vveStBDl 3/5th of the project site is within the
right-Of-way of3Oth 8T NE from approximately
1'000 feet eoe[ of B St NE, east to the east aide of |
ST. The eastern 2/5thOf the project iSfrVDl|8TtO
just west of the existing B[8OD@O Park (St0rOOvvatB[)
Pump Station; oO the west bank of the Green River
revised StO[[D line 8|igOOneOU. The project is within
the southern 1/2 nfGeCtiVO 8-21-05' W.M.
certify that OOOrbefore October 30, 2013 | did send a Notice Of Application for the above
referenced 8pp|iC@LioO. as required by Auburn City [}Ode 16.06.090' to all property OvVOe[S
located within 300 feet of the affected site. Said Notice was mailed pre-paid stamped through
the United States Postal Service 8t least 15 days prior tOthe closing date for public cODlnlentS
noted above.
declare UOdB[ peOghv Of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is
true and correct.
KI
N
G
&
P
I
E
R
C
E
C
O
U
N
T
I
E
S
,
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
1
34
CI
T
Y
O
F
F
I
C
I
A
L
S
Na
n
c
y
B
a
c
k
u
s
Ma
y
o
r
Ke
v
i
n
S
n
y
d
e
r
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
o
f
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
In
g
r
i
d
G
u
a
b
,
P
.
E
.
Ci
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
As
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
o
f
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Ki
m
T
r
u
o
n
g
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
DR
A
W
I
N
G
I
N
D
E
X
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
NO
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
A
r
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
C
P
1
1
2
2
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
N
O
.
1
3
-
1
8
99
%
R
E
V
I
E
W
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
-
F
E
B
R
U
A
R
Y
2
0
1
4
CI
T
Y
O
F
A
U
B
U
R
N
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
S
TH
I
S
P
L
A
N
S
E
T
,
S
H
E
E
T
S
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
t
o
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
A
R
E
A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
B
Y
:
IN
G
R
I
D
G
A
U
B
,
P
.
E
.
,
C
I
T
Y
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
DA
T
E
:
DA
T
E
:
Ki
m
T
r
u
o
n
g
,
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
DA
T
E
:
1
13
-
1
8
CP
1
1
2
2
34
PR
O
J
E
C
T
SI
T
E
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Ti
m
C
a
r
l
a
w
,
S
t
o
r
m
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
Project No. CP1122
SH
T
N
O
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
GE
N
E
R
A
L
1
CO
V
E
R
S
H
E
E
T
,
V
I
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
A
N
D
S
H
E
E
T
I
N
D
E
X
2
LE
G
E
N
D
,
A
B
B
R
E
V
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
,
A
N
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
T
E
S
3
SU
R
V
E
Y
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
A
N
D
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
-
S
T
A
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
1
9
+
5
0
4
SU
R
V
E
Y
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
A
N
D
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
-
S
T
A
1
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
29
+
0
0
5
SU
R
V
E
Y
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
A
N
D
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
-
S
T
A
2
9
+
0
0
T
O
S
T
A
37
+
5
0
6
SU
R
V
E
Y
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
A
N
D
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
-
S
T
A
3
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
47
+
5
0
7
SU
R
V
E
Y
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
A
N
D
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
-
S
T
A
4
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
49
+
5
0
A
N
D
A
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
N
TE
S
C
A
N
D
D
E
M
O
L
I
T
I
O
N
8
TE
S
C
A
N
D
D
E
M
O
L
I
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
-
S
T
A
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
1
9
+
5
0
9
TE
S
C
A
N
D
D
E
M
O
L
I
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
-
S
T
A
1
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
2
9
+
0
0
10
TE
S
C
A
N
D
D
E
M
O
L
I
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
-
S
T
A
2
9
+
0
0
T
O
S
T
A
3
7
+
5
0
11
TE
S
C
A
N
D
D
E
M
O
L
I
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
-
S
T
A
3
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
7
+
5
0
12
TE
S
C
A
N
D
D
E
M
O
L
I
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
-
S
T
A
4
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
9
+
5
0
A
N
D
A
U
B
U
R
N
WA
Y
N
DR
A
I
N
A
G
E
13
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
1
4
+
5
0
14
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
1
4
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
1
9
+
5
0
15
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
1
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
2
4
+
0
0
16
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
2
4
+
0
0
T
O
S
T
A
2
9
+
0
0
17
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
2
9
+
0
0
T
O
S
T
A
3
2
+
5
0
18
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
3
2
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
3
7
+
5
0
19
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
3
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
2
+
5
0
20
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
4
2
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
7
+
5
0
21
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
4
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
9
+
5
0
22
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
A
U
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
N
23
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
24
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
1
4
+
5
0
25
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
1
4
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
1
9
+
5
0
26
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
1
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
2
4
+
0
0
27
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
2
4
+
0
0
T
O
S
T
A
2
9
+
0
0
28
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
2
9
+
0
0
T
O
S
T
A
3
2
+
5
0
29
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
3
2
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
3
7
+
5
0
30
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
3
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
7
+
5
0
31
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
-
S
T
A
4
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
9
+
5
0
A
N
D
AU
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
N
32
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
33
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
34
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
La
r
r
y
D
a
h
l
,
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
DA
T
E
:
DA
T
E
:
Pa
b
l
o
P
a
r
a
,
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
SU
R
F
A
C
E
F
E
A
T
U
R
E
S
/
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
CH
A
N
N
E
L
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
S
Y
M
B
O
L
S
SU
R
V
E
Y
S
Y
M
B
O
L
S
SA
N
I
T
A
R
Y
/
S
T
O
R
M
S
E
W
E
R
S
Y
M
B
O
L
S
GA
S
/
P
O
W
E
R
/
T
E
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
S
Y
M
B
O
L
S
WA
T
E
R
S
Y
M
B
O
L
S
SI
G
N
A
L
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
S
Y
M
B
O
L
S
LI
N
E
T
Y
P
E
S
AB
B
R
E
V
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
T
E
S
:
*
*
*
*
*
*
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
2
LE
G
E
N
D
,
A
B
B
R
E
V
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
T
E
S
FI
L
E
_
N
A
M
E
.
D
W
G
PR
O
J
E
C
T
B
E
N
C
H
M
A
R
K
S
3
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
ST
A
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
1
9
+
5
0
SU
R
V
E
Y
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
A
N
D
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
4
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
ST
A
1
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
2
9
+
0
0
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
SU
R
V
E
Y
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
A
N
D
5
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
ST
A
2
9
+
0
0
T
O
S
T
A
3
7
+
5
0
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
SU
R
V
E
Y
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
A
N
D
6
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
ST
A
3
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
7
+
5
0
SU
R
V
E
Y
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
A
N
D
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
7
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
A
N
D
A
U
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
N
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
SU
R
V
E
Y
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
A
N
D
ST
A
4
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
9
+
5
0
,
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
8
ST
A
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
1
9
+
5
0
TE
S
C
A
N
D
D
E
M
O
L
I
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
9
ST
A
1
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
2
9
+
0
0
TE
S
C
A
N
D
D
E
M
O
L
I
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
10
TE
S
C
A
N
D
D
E
M
O
L
I
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
ST
A
2
9
+
0
0
T
O
S
T
A
3
7
+
5
0
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
11
ST
A
3
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
7
+
5
0
TE
S
C
A
N
D
D
E
M
O
L
I
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
12
AN
D
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
TE
S
C
A
N
D
D
E
M
O
L
I
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
ST
A
4
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
9
+
5
0
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
13
PL
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
1
4
+
5
0
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
##
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
14
PL
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
1
4
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
1
9
+
5
0
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
##
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
15
PL
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
1
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
2
4
+
0
0
##ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
16
PL
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
2
4
+
0
0
T
O
S
T
A
2
9
+
0
0
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
##
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
17
PL
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
2
9
+
0
0
T
O
S
T
A
3
2
+
5
0
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
##
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
18
PL
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
3
2
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
3
7
+
5
0
##ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
19
PL
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
3
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
2
+
5
0
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
20
PL
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
4
2
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
7
+
5
0
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
21
PL
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
4
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
9
+
5
0
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
22
PL
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
AU
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
N
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
23
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
24
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
1
4
+
5
0
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
25
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
1
4
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
1
9
+
5
0
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
26
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
1
9
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
2
4
+
0
0
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
27
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
2
4
+
0
0
T
O
S
T
A
2
9
+
0
0
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
28
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
2
9
+
0
0
T
O
S
T
A
3
2
+
5
0
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
29
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
3
2
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
3
7
+
5
0
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
30
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
ST
A
3
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
7
+
5
0
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
KE
Y
M
A
P
30
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
BR
A
N
N
A
N
P
A
R
K
31
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
ST
A
3
7
+
5
0
T
O
S
T
A
4
7
+
5
0
A
N
D
AU
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
N
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
32
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
33
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
PL
E
A
S
E
C
A
L
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
Y
O
U
D
I
G
BU
R
I
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
N
A
R
E
A
CP
1
1
2
2
13
-
1
8
34
30
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Ar
e
a
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
-
P
h
a
s
e
1
No
.
Da
t
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
DR
A
W
N
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
,
S
C
A
L
E
M
A
Y
B
E
D
I
S
T
O
R
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Th
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
'
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
RECORD DRAWING
CERTIFICATION
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
:
D
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
:
Dr
a
w
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
BY
DA
T
E
SC
A
L
E
:
ON
E
I
N
C
H
AS
D
R
A
W
N
PU
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
25
W
e
s
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Au
b
u
r
n
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
81
1
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
34
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
Brannan Park
Brannan Park
Stormwater
Pump Station
Isaac Evans
Park
Auburn Regional
Golf Course
Auburn 40 Plat (Monterey Park Dev.)
La
b
r
a
d
o
r
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
River Mobile Estates
City of Auburn Property
(former Crista Property)
Riverpointe Development
Riverpark Estates Development
Port of SeattleWetland MitigationSite
Westport Capital Property
Brannan Park
Brannan Park
Stormwater
Pump Station
30th Street NE
26th Street NE
37th Street NE
Isaac Evans
Park
Auburn Regional
Golf Course
Auburn 40 Plat (Monterey Park Dev.)
La
b
r
a
d
o
r
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
River Mobile Estates
City of Auburn Property
(former Crista Property)
Riverpointe Development
Riverpark Estates Development
Port of SeattleWetland MitigationSite
Gre
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
R
o
a
d
S
E
Green River Road SE
RM 29.5RM 29.5
RM 28.5RM 28.5
RM 29.0RM 29.0
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
Gree
n
R
i
v
e
r
Gree
n
R
i
v
e
r
M
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
E
Au
b
u
r
n
W
a
y
N
.
REMOVE
EXISTING
LEVEE
GRAVEL
ACCESS
ROADWestport Capital Property
43rd Street NE Green RiverGreen River
STORMWATER
SWALE
LEVEE SETBACK
ALIGNMENT
PROJECT ELEMENTS
135-12539-10001-06/Fig3-1_FINAL_BaseMapandProposedAlignment.ai/Revised file name: 1303_3172m_ReddingtonRev5-small.ai mdev
Reddington Levee Setback
PROPOSED LEVEE
Levee
Footprint Levee Crest
Minor Contours - 2 footRiver Mile Marker and NumberParcel BoundariesUtility EasementsMajor Contours - 10 foot5.1 MR
Maintenance
Access Zone
Engineered Log JamsRock Barbs with Ballasted Wood
500 500 0
Feet
435 ERICKSEN AVENUE NE, SUITE 103
PO BOX 10668, BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110
PHONE 206 855-9020 - info@crcwa.com
TECHNICAL MEMO #1302L-1
TO: Mark Cole
OTAK
FROM: Glenn D. Hartmann, Principal Investigator
RE: Cultural Resources Assessment for the 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I
Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
DATE: April 10, 2013
The attached short report form constitutes our final report for the above referenced project. There
are no previously recorded cultural resources within the project area and survey did not identify a
potential for as-yet unidentified archaeological deposits to be present within the project area. No
further archaeological work is recommended. Please contact our office should you have any
questions about our findings and/or recommendations.
CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET
Author: Katherine M. Kelly
Title of Report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the 30th Street NE Area
Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Date of Report: April 10, 2013
County: King Section: 06 Township: 21 North Range: 05 East
Quad: Auburn, WA (1994) Acres: Approximately 2
PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes
Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? Yes No
Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No
TCP(s) found? Yes No
Replace a draft? Yes No
Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes # No
Were Human Remains Found? Yes DAHP Case # No
DAHP Archaeological Site #:
•Submission of PDFs is required.
•Please be sure that any PDF
submitted to DAHP has its cover
sheet, figures, graphics, appendices,
attachments, correspondence, etc.,
compiled into one single PDF file.
•Please check that the PDF displays
correctly when opened.
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 2
Management Summary. This cultural resources assessment was conducted for the proposed 30th
Street Northeast in Auburn, Washington. There are no previously recorded cultural resources
within the project area and survey did not identify a potential for as-yet unidentified
archaeological deposits to be present within the project area. No further archaeological work is
recommended.
1. Introduction
Project Description: The north central area of Auburn has a history of surface flooding with
significant flooding occurring about once every two years. The existing gravity storm drain that
runs eastward in 30th Street Northeast from approximately 1,000 feet east of the intersection of
B Street Northwest and 30th Street Northwest to the Brannan Park Pump Station (BPPS) is
capacity limited for the tributary basin flows, and is therefore a major contributing factor to the
flooding in the area.
The proposed improvements for this Project include the installation of a new 42-inch storm line
from the northwest corner of the Auburn Municipal Airport property to the existing BPPS
(Figure 1). The pipe would replace the existing 30-inch concrete pipe generally located along the
30th Street Northeast alignment and the northerly boundary of Brannan Park. The pipe alignment
is anticipated to follow the public right of way until it turns east from I Street Northeast toward
Brannan Park. Then the pipe would be constructed within an existing storm easement across
public and private property. To reduce construction impacts to private properties, the easterly
portion of the pipe could be located entirely within Brannan Park, north of the park’s ball fields.
The project would also remove the floatable capture baffles currently located in the manholes
immediately upstream of the BPPS. Any disturbed roadway and easement area related to the
improvements are to be restored.
For the purpose of this assessment, the area of potential effects (APE) for this project is
understood to be the area described above.
Total Area: Approximately 2 acres
Location: 30th Street NE and Brannan Park in Auburn, King County, Washington
Section 06 of Township 21 North, Range 05 East, Willamette Meridian.
USGS 7.5’ Series Topographic Map: Auburn, WA (1994)
Objective: This assessment was developed with the goal of ensuring that significant cultural
resources are not adversely affected by the proposed project and to determine the potential for
any, as-yet, unrecorded sites within the project area. The assessment conducted by Cultural
Resource Consultants (CRC) was intended, in part, to assist in addressing regulations pertaining
to the identification and protection of cultural resources in compliance with applicable state
regulations (e.g., RCW 27.44, RCW 27.53).
The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires identification of potential
impacts to heritage resources; and, state funded capital projects require Governor’s Executive
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 3
Order 05-05 (GEO 05-05) cultural resources review, including any capital construction projects
and land acquisition projects for the purpose of capital construction. The project will be funded
by a Public Works Trust Fund grant and is therefore subject to GEO 05-05.
Assessment methods consisted of review of project plans, related reports, historic maps, and field
studies, in order to estimate the potential for as-yet unidentified archaeological deposits. This
assessment utilized a research design that considered previous studies, the magnitude and nature
of the undertaking, the nature and extent of potential effects on historic properties, and the likely
nature and location of historic properties within the project, as well as other applicable laws,
standards, and guidelines.
On March 7, 2013, CRC sent letters to the Muckleshoot and Puyallup tribes describing the
project and seeking any additional information about the project area (Attachment A).
2. Environmental Setting
Literature review for this project included a review of environmental data on the project area
illustrated in geologic and soils maps, and reports of recent geological and geomorphological
investigations that described subsurface conditions and the post-depositional processes likely to
affect any cultural deposits in the study area.
Physiographic Province: The project is located within the Tsuga heterophylla vegetation
zone of the Puget Lowland (Franklin and Dyrness 1973). Before extensive historical logging of
the regional area, the project would have been forested with western red cedar and Douglas fir
(Kruckeberg 1991).
Regional Geomorphology: The topography and geology of the project area were formed
during the Late Pleistocene following the advance of several glaciations that originated from
Canada and extended between the Cascade and Olympic mountain ranges into the Puget
Lowland (Kruckeberg 1991).
Soil Survey: Soils mapped for the project include Oridia silt loam, Renton silt loam, and
Urban Land (NRCS 2012). Urban Land is a categorization that describes landscapes created by
the addition of fill, in the Green River valley fill can be up to several meters thick. Renton and
Oridia silt loams are somewhat poorly drained soils formed in alluvium in river valleys.
3. Cultural Setting
Archival research included review of project plans, related reports, and DAHP WISAARD
database for previously recorded archaeological sites and survey reports, in order to estimate the
potential for as yet unidentified archaeological deposits. Relevant ethnographic reports and
syntheses of archaeological, anthropological, and historical sources were also reviewed.
Information regarding historic era cultural features and land-use patterns was acquired by
examining nineteenth century maps. Electronic documents including tribal webpages and
historical society webpages were also consulted.
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 4
The following discussion is adapted from reports of the author’s previous research in the Green
River watershed (Kelly 2008, 2009).
Nelson synthesizes information from various sources (1990: 482-483) to define two prehistoric
cultural sequences in the Puget Sound Region. These include the Littoral Sequence situated
along the coastline and on river deltas, and a poorly understood Riverine Sequence found along
the interior rivers. The earliest component of the Riverine Sequence is the Olcott complex, which
likely dates from 8000 to 4000 B.C. and is characterized by the presence of cobble implements
and leaf-shaped points. The Olcott complex is followed in time by a regional representation of
the Cascade Phase, which spread west of the Cascade Mountains from the Columbia Plateau no
later than 1800 B.C. The western Cascade Phase variant is characterized by the presence of
Cascade and Cold Springs Side-Notched points in association. The next Riverine Sequence
component is a poorly documented phase dating between 1000 and 200 B.C., which is
characterized by the presence of numerous points similar to the Frenchman Springs phase in the
Columbia Plateau. The next subsequent phase is represented by the Biederbost site, which has a
single component dating to 10 ± 80 A.D. and contains predominately large corner-notched
points, end and side scrapers, gravers, and cobble tools. Nelson concludes that the most recent
riverine phase is best represented by the Tokul Creek site, which contains a combination of
cobble tools and small flaked stone tools that are stylistically and technologically identical to the
Cayuse phase in the western Columbia Plateau (1990:483).
Recorded Place Names: Eleven ethnographic place names were recorded by T.T. Waterman
(2001) between Horseshoe Bend (to the north) and the project area. The place names Waterman
recorded derive from geographic landmarks, activities, resources, places or events from myths
and stories. Likely candidates for wayfinding points are location names such as Tse'btsabldop
(bubbling up) or txwspalxad (marshes). Two locations are named for the activities that took place
there: the name for a local skid road, for example, was staxWabsali (arrangement for pulling
something); while sbakw (a ball) or sepo'sadi (where it is thrown about) is a place name base on
the game played on a grassy flat near the river. Those places identified by resources include
t'i'laqWac (strawberries), xabxab (rushes) and tsaxe'lo:sid (a fishing weir). Waterman's
informants completed the story of life on the river with names derived from mythology and local
history: the name of a rock on the hillside overlooking the river was bstlk3ai'yu (wolf) and
relates to a Transformer story, as does the place name cakwabid, located within the bend of
Horseshoe Bend. Waterman also recorded placenames that reference villages or homes. A
settlement on the southern bend of Horseshoe Bend, near cakwabid, was called Pob-Sholku.
South of the project, Waterman notes two named locations. A multi-dwelling village, at the
junction of the Green and White Rivers, was called ?ilalqWu? (striped water). The village
belonged to the Skopamish people and was also used as a winter village by people from the
Naches River (Smith 1940). According to Ballard (1951), the village was also known as Moxt La
Push (two forks) in Chinook jargon; he notes the presence of several fishtraps just southeast of
the village site. The distinctive bend in the river just north of the village was referred to as
Sqwobsti (water lilies) (Waterman 2001).
Traditional Territories: The Green River (in Lushootseed, the Skwup) flows through the
wide lowland valley, which is a remnant of the catastrophic mudflow from Mount Rainier some
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 5
5, 000 years ago (Thrush 2005). The name for the inhabitants of this area, Skwupabsh (or
Skopamish) is a compound word derived from the name of the river Skwup (rising and falling or
attraction/draw) with the suffix absh (meaning “people of”) (Thrush 2005).
Suttles and Lane (1990:485) placed the Green River drainage basin as within the territory of
cultural groups who spoke languages classified as the Southern Lushootseed dialect of the
Southern Coast Salish speakers. The specific group of Southern Lushootseed speakers that
occupied the project area is unclear. Suttles and Lane (1990:Figure 1) appear to show the general
project area as within the territory of the Stkamish (referred to as the St-Kah-mish in the Treaties
and as Sekamish by Hodge [1907-1910]). The Stkamish were situated on the Green River
between the Duwamish to the north and the Yilalkoamish to the south. Ruby and Brown (1992:
140) refer to the Skekomishes or Stakamishes as the White River Indians and state they moved to
the Port Madison Reservation (present day Suquamish Reservation). T.T. Waterman (2001: 16)
states that the StEk’abc or "people of the logjam" were one of many small independent groups
living along the Green River and they may have been the closest group or village to the project
area.
DAHP WISAARD: There are two recorded sites within a mile of the project; both are
historic sites and represent house foundations or standing structures. None of these is within or
immediately adjacent to the project. No precontact archaeological sites, cemeteries, or National
or State Register-eligible sites have been recorded within the project area. Reports of recent
surveys in the area include Cooper and Gantz (2008), Forsman et al. (2001), Kelly (2008, 2009),
Schwartmiller (2002), Stallings (1995), and Zuccotti (2011).
Historical Maps: The trail systems indicated on the early maps served as major
regional routes for the Snoqualmie, the Duwamish and Plateau people (Yakama) as well as
routes to more local destinations such as the Muckleshoot Prairie and Meridian Prairie (GLO
1867, 1868, 1874). The 1867 GLO map for the area indicates the Nelson property, Brannan 's
Barn, several trails, and an "Indian Village" near the confluence of the White and the Green
Rivers (south of the project area).
The history of land use as recorded on area maps indicate a progression from rural to urban, as
land use changed from homesteading, and agricultural development, followed by expansion of
the city center in the post-war years, and extensive development of the transportation corridor
and commercial spaces in the modern era (Anderson 1907; Google 2013; Kroll 1912; Metsker
1936; Thomas 1955; USGS 1900, 1994). Additional impacts to the landscape illustrated on these
maps include river channel modification. Several river channels lasted until the early historic
period, but by the 1940s, the Duwamish-Green River channel was straightened and the flooding
contained (Figure 2).
Local History: By the mid-1850s, British and American settlement in the project
area and the entire Northwest had drastically impacted local Native American groups and their
traditions. In 1854, following negotiations between Puyallup, Nisqually, and Squaxin Island
people and the United States government, the Medicine Creek Treaty led to the abandonment of
most southern Puget Sound villages and compelled Indian people to relocate to the Puyallup,
Muckleshoot, or Squaxin Island reservations (Hedlund et al. 1978; Ruby and Brown 1992). In or
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 6
around 1855 - 1856, dissatisfaction with the poor quality of reservation lands led to uprisings by
the Puyallup, Muckleshoot and other Indian people, resulting in the use of force by military force.
Many Indian families were relocated and interned during this period, and there were violent
episodes between Euro-Americans and local Native American groups, whose lands they were
claiming as homesteads. These events led many settlers in southern Puget Sound to temporarily
abandon their claims.
These broad patterns of Settlement and post-Settlement land use are reflected in the history of
the project area (Cooper and Gantz 2008:5 - 6)
The recorded historic use of the project area is linked to the Brannan family. The brothers
William and Joseph Brannan first tried settling in the White River Valley in the early 1800s.
William married a woman named Elizabeth and homesteaded in Auburn. According to the
1884 GLO map, Brannan Barn was a prominent fixture next to the Green River.
Unfortunately, William, his wife, and their small infant were killed during the early Indian
wars and left their land to Joseph (Stallings 1995).
Joseph spent the next year hunting down “Indian Nelson intending to kill him” for vengeance
for his brother’s death (Hanford 1924). His search was not successful, which led Joseph to
volunteer in Capt. B. L. Henness’ company of mounted rangers, while he stewed upon his
vengeance. While in Henness’ company, Joseph fell in love with the Captain’s daughter, and
after three years, gave up his quest for Indian Nelson and settled down with Sarah Henness
(Hanford 1924). Joseph had married Sarah Henness in 1857 and together they homesteaded
the Brannan Barn land.
Land patents were issued in 1873 and 1878 to Joseph Brannan through the Donation Land
Act. The immediate area remained agricultural, with the land passing through and between
other agriculturalists like Silas G. Hardin in 1907 and the Otsubo family in 1936 (Forsman et
al. 2001; Trudel 2003). The land was purchased by the city in 1966 and Brannan Park was
dedicated in 1973.
4. Research Design
DAHP Predictive Model: Archaeological model probabilities are calculated using
information from two general sources (Kauhi 2009). The calculations can be generated from data
derived from archaeological surveys, if any have been conducted in the study area, or, in the
absence of archaeological fieldwork data, the model largely relies on a consideration of
environmental factors such as elevation, distance to water, soils, and landform type to generate
the estimation of potential. As archaeological projects are conducted in a given area, the results
are added to the data set, and the predictive model becomes more fine-tuned and the degree of
predictive uncertainty drops. The predictive model map overlay, which appears to be based on
landform data, indicates that the project is within an area identified as having a moderate to high
potential for encountering archaeological sites within the footprint of the proposed action.
Geomorphological Context: The project area is within a larger area mapped as quaternary
alluvium, the edges of which are bounded by terraces of Pleistocene glacial (pre-Fraser)
continental glacial drift. These geologic units form the Green River flood plain (DNR 2013).
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 7
The Duwamish-Green River valleys, once a freshwater lake fed by glacial meltwater and runoff
from the ancient Cedar, Duwamish and Puyallup Rivers, was flooded with seawater around
13,500 years ago when marine waters broke through an ice dam in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. As
sea levels rose, Holocene shorelines were inundated, turning the embayments of Puget Sound
into marine fjords (Kruckeberg 1991). The Duwamish embayment (the Duwamish-Green River
Valley), which reached to Sumner, remained a fjord (connected to the sea) until approximately
5,700 years ago. Isolated bedrock hills in the Tukwila area became islands when the Duwamish-
Green River Valley flooded (Lewarch et al. 1996). Around 5,700 years ago, a landslide called
the Osceola Mudflow, which originated on Mount Rainer, filled the channels of many of the
rivers that now empty into Puget Sound (Crandell 1971; Dragovich et al. 1994:20; McKee
1972:206-207; Vallance and Scott 1997). The rivers etched the mudflow deposits, delivering
suspended alluvial sediments to embayment shorelines where they were deposited. The
Duwamish River delta grew north (seaward) at a rate of nine meters a year, reaching its historic
location 2,000 years ago (Dragovich et al. 1994; Kayen and Barnhardt 2007; Zehfuss et al. 2003).
Forsman et al. (2001) indicate that the area would have been accessible to any of the people
living in the region approximately 4,000 years ago, though the landscape would have consisted
of salt marshes. Approximately 2,000 – 1,000 years ago a massive earthquake raised the mouth
of the Duwamish, likely resulting in channel changes that would have affected the project
location as well as the entire Green River watershed (Forsman et al. 2001; Trudel 2003).
Geomorphological data indicates the Green River floodplain is relatively young and was very
active prior to historic and modern era channelization efforts, soils mapped in the project vicinity
indicate the area was subject to seasonal flooding and frequent channel abandonment.
Geotechnical tests and previous archaeological investigations of the area confirm that the
sediment deposits are largely deep, interbedded layers of sand and silt under an organic rich layer
of soil, indicative of alluvial sediments. Archival research did not identify evidence that the
project would cut across any abandoned, in-filled oxbows or meanders. Evidence suggests the
project is within the (formerly) active meander zone of the river.
Archaeological Expectations: While there is ample archaeological evidence for human activity in
the region and the floodplain would have been a suitable location for a variety of precontact-era
activities including hunting and/or gathering of plant resources, the constant threat of river
flooding may have restricted permanent long-term occupation of the area. The project area and
vicinity would have been suitable for short -term occupation. Habitation in the active floodplain
would have been limited to the tops of natural levees during drier seasons, but would have been
unreliable for more than occasional or transitory use. Archaeological evidence of precontact-era
use of the landscape is commonly represented by lithic scatters, trails, or small concentrations of
fire-modified rocks (FMR). To date, however, the only archaeological evidence of land use
within the project vicinity is from the historic period. The pre-Settlement archaeological record
may have been inundated, and deeply buried by serial catastrophic lahars and/or alluvial
deposition, or blurred, destroyed, or obscured by serial flood events and historic and modern
landscape modification.
Historic land use patterns indicate that much of the surface and near-surface environment has
been highly disturbed by logging, farming, and seasonal flooding, and in the modern era, the
development of residential neighborhoods, utility corridors, roads, and parks. The potential that
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 8
the project would disturb intact pre-modern archaeological deposits is very low. If as yet
unrecorded historical archaeological deposits are present in the project, they might include
concentrations of household debris, roads and trails, fence lines, foundations, or other items
related to homesteading.
Given the scope of the project, the local geomorphological context, the degree of post-Settlement
and early modern landscape modification, and a precontact land-use model that precludes
distinctive archaeological signatures, it is highly unlikely that the project will affect intact
precontact-era archaeological deposits. Evidence suggests, rather, that if intact archaeological
deposits were present within the project area, they would be representative of the late historic or
early modern era and would be very shallowly buried or at the surface.
5. Survey Methodology
Field survey was conducted in two phases. First, the author conducted a pedestrian survey of the
entire subject property at close interval transects, which ranged between 3 – 5 meters apart,
depending on terrain and surface visibility. This visual inspection of the project was conducted in
order to identify 1) structural remains, 2) environmental hazards, 3) locations with surficial
expressions of archaeological deposits (e.g., structural foundations, lithic scatters, debris scatters),
and to confirm locations identified as minimally disturbed during the research phase of this
assessment.
Following the surface survey, the author proceeded with subsurface testing. Shovel test probes
(STP) were planned in relatively level, open portions of the project area where ground-disturbing
work is proposed and without obvious evidence of prior disturbance. Few locations meeting
these criteria were identified during the research phase of the project; however, one STP was dug
to confirm the presence of urban fill. Material removed from the STP was screened through ¼
inch metal hardware cloth mesh and examined for cultural content such as flaked stone, bone
fragments, or other artifacts. The walls of the probe were examined for evidence of buried
archaeological deposits, such as charcoal concentrations or rock features. Upon completion of
description and observation, the STP was immediately backfilled.
6. Survey Results
Total Area Examined: The entire project was surveyed.
Date of Survey: March 21, 2013
Weather and Surface Visibility: Weather conditions were sunny and mild. Surface visibility
was variable.
Fieldwork conducted by: Katherine M. Kelly
Notes and photographs are on file with CRC.
Cultural Resources Identified: None.
The project runs east-west along through an urban neighborhood; some commercial development
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 9
is also present (Figures 3 and 4). Generally speaking the location consisted of the road alignment,
gravel shoulders, public utility rights-of-way and the northern portion of Brannan Park.
C Street to Auburn Way N. Utility location information verified that this portion of the project
had been extensively disturbed by utility installation. Observations in the field, based on the
presence of utility vaults, water mains, water and sewer access, cable signage, flagging, and
other utility location markers indicates that prior disturbance associated with utility installation
extends 15 to 20 ft. on either side of the centerline of the road prism. The portion of the project
planned along 30th Street will take place entirely within the eastbound right-of-way and within
areas previously disturbed for utility placement and road construction (Figure 5).
The author walked the length of the project. Soil was not visible within the prism of the road;
however, given roadway construction methods, all the material under the hardened surfaces
(concrete and asphalt) would be expected to be imported fill installed and compacted in order to
create durable roads with adequate drainage.
No subsurface testing was conducted for the following reasons:
• All project work would take place within the existing utility trench in the existing road
prism, which consists entirely of imported fill.
• Information provided by utility providers indicated that the road prism has been
additionally disturbed for underground utility placement.
• Field observations indicate the utility corridor extends beyond the project.
• The entire project corridor consisted of hardened surfaces and imported fill.
Lot between Auburn Way N and I Street NE. The lot was completely cleared of any surface
features and overgrown with grass (Figure 6). Recent tire tracks exposed a muddy, dark loam.
Some angular gravel was present near the 30th Street side of the lot. The author essayed a single
STP (Figure 7) to verify the presence of fill, and encountered a compact layer of well-mixed
gravels and cobbles in sandy loam; a layer of very compact angular gravels; and, at
approximately 60 cmbs, compact, slightly damp sand, with no organic layer between the fill and
sand (Figures 8 - 9; Table 1). These results matched expectations that the landscape would have
been built up over flood deposits.
I Street NE to Brannan Park. The entire project corridor in this area consists of landscape altered
to accommodate residential and park development, with associated connections for cable, water,
sewer, electricity, drainage, and landscaping irrigation (Figures 10 - 11). The initial impression
of the park is that of a manufactured landscape. The topography of the area has been modified to
create spaces that mimic natural landscape features or to facilitate sports. Additional
modifications incorporate natural features or modify existing features to accommodate the
overall park design. The new line will be placed where the old line is currently. The pedestrian
survey of the project area at the northern end of the park did not result in the identification of
historic properties, nor were any surface expressions of archaeological deposits found. No STPs
were excavated in this area as topographical cues corroborated archival research and information
provided by the utility locators and the client.
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 10
7. Project Conclusions and Recommendations
The DAHP predictive model probability calculations are based on known environmental factors
and/or information derived from archaeological research; however, historic land use patterns
indicate that much of the surface and near-surface environment has been highly disturbed and
previous archaeological investigations of the project had negative results.
Field survey confirmed expectations of project conditions derived from a review of by archival
maps, historic records, historic aerial photographs, and previous archaeological surveys. Prior to
the settlement period, the creation of the levee systems, and the construction of Howard Hanson
Dam, the land would have undergone serial flood and scour events. Historic maps, which predate
the modern river channelization, show that these conditions existed until fairly recently. Archival
references indicated that immediately prior to and in the years following the channelization of
the Green River, the land was under consistent and continual cultivation. The results of
subsurface testing verified the subsurface conditions inferred from early records and the soil
survey maps. Pedestrian survey of the project area did not result in the identification of any
historic structures, nor were any archaeological materials found.
Although much of the project was covered with hardened surfaces, micro-topography and
landscape cues (e.g. the presence of drainage ditches, elevations of ground surfaces as compared
to road surfaces, tree size, lot size and house age) informed the author’s understanding of the
project area. The patterns of disturbance were consistent throughout the project. No large tree
stumps were visible, the ground surfaces were smooth and level, empty lots and construction
zones were devoid of large vegetation, and the road was above grade in most locations. In short,
the entire corridor demonstrated that post-settlement pattern of land development in urban
Washington held true in this neighborhood. Farms gave way to residences and commercial
development, which required re-grading and additional clearing, and resulted in carefully
manufactured landscapes designed to focus water flow, support utility infrastructure, and
facilitate efficient traffic patterns.
The absence of artifacts and features within the project corridor may be a result of the lack of
distinctive archaeological signatures associated with the types of precontact-era activities
practiced in active floodplains, a function of the active depositional environment, the
consequence of multiple episodes of landscape modification (e.g. farming or road construction),
or the effect of a combination of all three. Given these project conditions and the fact that the
ground-disturbing activities are planned in areas unlikely to contain intact archaeological
deposits, the likelihood that the intact archaeological deposits would be encountered is extremely
low. No further archaeological investigations are recommended.
In the unlikely event that ground disturbing or other activities result in the inadvertent discovery
of archaeological deposits, work should be halted in the immediate area and contact made with
the DAHP in Olympia. Work should be halted until such time as further investigation and
appropriate consultation is concluded. In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of
human remains, work should be immediately halted in the area, the discovery covered and
secured against further disturbance, and contact effected with law enforcement personnel, DAHP
and authorized representatives of the concerned Indian tribes.
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 11
A proposed inadvertent discovery protocol is attached (Attachment B).
8. Limitations of this Assessment
No cultural resources study can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for
prehistoric sites, historic properties or traditional cultural properties to be associated with a
project. The information presented in this report is based on professional opinions derived from
our analysis and interpretation of available documents, records, literature, and information
identified in this report, and on our field investigation and observations as described herein.
Conclusions and recommendations presented apply to project conditions existing at the time of
our study and those reasonably foreseeable. The data, conclusions, and interpretations in this
report should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions described in this report.
They cannot necessarily apply to site changes of which CRC is not aware and has not had the
opportunity to evaluate.
9. References
Anderson Map Company (Anderson)
1907 Page 15 - Township 21 North, Range 5 East. In King County 1907. Anderson Map
Company, Seattle. Electronic resource, www.historicmapworks.com, accessed March
2013.
Ballard, Arthur
1951 Deposition of Oral Examination of Arthur Conduct Ballard in Muckleshoot Tribe of
Indians on Relation of Napoleon Ross, Chairman of the General Council, Claimant v The
United States of America, Defendant. 2 volumes. Heard before the Indian Claims
Commission.
Cooper, J. B., and E. Gantz
2008 Letter Report to Bob Wuotila Regarding Cultural Resources Survey for the City of
Auburn Brannan Park Light Installation Project. AMEC, Inc., Kirkland.
Crandell, D. R.
1971 Postglacial Lahars from Mount Rainier Volcano, Washington. U. S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 677. U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C.
Dragovich, J. D., P. T. Pringle, and T. J. Walsh
1994 Extent and Geometry of the Mid-Holocene Osceola Mudflow in the Puget Lowland –
Implications for Holocene Sedimentation and Paleogeography. Washington Geology
22(3):3-26.
Forsman, L.R., S. Kramer, D.E. Lewarch, and L. Larson
2001 Proposed Riverpointe Project, Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural
Places Assessment, City of Auburn, King County, Washington. LAAS, Inc., Gig Harbor.
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 12
Franklin, J. F., and C. T. Dyrness
1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Portland.
General Land Office (GLO)
1867 General Land Office Map, Township 21 North, Range 05 East, Willamette Meridian.
Electronic resource, available at www.blm.gov, accessed March 2013.
1868 General Land Office Map, Township 21 North, Range 05 East, Willamette Meridian.
Electronic resource, available at www.blm.gov, accessed March 2013.
1874 General Land Office Map, Township 21 North, Range 05 East, Willamette Meridian.
Electronic resource, available at www.blm.gov, accessed March 2013.
Hanford, C.H.
1924 Seattle and Environs, 1852-1924. Vol. I. Pioneer Publishing Co., Seattle: p150-151.
Hedlund, G., J.A. Ross, and R.K. Sutton
1978 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Green River Watershed Area. Washington
Archaeological Research Center, Project report No. 59. Washington State University,
Pullman.
Kauhi, T. C.
2009 Washington Statewide Archaeology Predictive Model. GeoEngineers, Seattle.
Kayen, R. E., and Barnhardt, W. A.
2007 Seismic stability of the Duwamish River delta, Seattle, Washington. U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 1661-E, 11 p.
Kelly, K. M.
2008 DRAFT Cultural Resources Survey and Archaeological Monitoring Plan for Ten 2008
Green River Levee Rehabilitation Projects. USACE, Seattle.
2009 DRAFT Cultural Resources Survey and Archaeological Monitoring Plan for 2009 Green
River Levee Rehabilitation Projects. USACE, Seattle.
Kroll Map Company (Kroll)
1912 Township 21 North, Range 05 East. In Kroll’s Atlas of King County, Washington. Kroll
Map Company, Seattle. Electronic resource, www.historicmapworks.com, accessed
March 2013.
1926 Plate 015 - T. 21 N., R. 5 E., Muckleshoot Indian Reservation. In Kroll’s Atlas of King
County, Washington. Kroll Map Company, Seattle. Electronic resource,
www.historicmapworks.com, accessed March 2013.
Kruckeberg, A. R.
1991 The Natural History of Puget Sound Country. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 13
Metsker, C. F.
1936 Township 21 N., Range 5 E., Auburn, Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, Wynaco. In
Metsker’s Atlas of King County, Washington. Charles F. Metsker, C. E., Tacoma.
Electronic resource, www.historicmapworks.com, accessed March 2013.
McKee, B.
1972 Cascadia: The Geologic Evolution of the Pacific Northwest. McGraw Hill Book
Company, New York.
Nelson, C. M.
1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. In Northwest Coast, Handbook of North American
Indians, Volume 7, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 481-484. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Ruby, R. H. and J. A. Brown
1992 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
Schwartmiller, R.
2002 Letter to Wayne Jones Regarding Cultural Resources Survey of the River Park Property,
Parcel Number 732860. Cascadia Archaeology, Seattle.
Smith, M. W.
1940 The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, Volume
32. Columbia University Press, New York.
Stallings, R.
1995 A Cultural Resource Survey of the Green River Trail, Phase II, King County,
Washington. BOAS, Inc., Seattle.
Thomas Brothers Map Company
1955 Page 055. In Atlas of King County, Washington. Thomas Brothers. Electronic resource,
www.historicmapworks.com, accessed March 2013.
Thrush, C.
2005 The Skwupabsh and their River: A Tribal history of the Green River Watershed from the
Auburn Narrows to the Cascade Crest. On file at USACE.
Trudel, S.E., D.E. Lewarch, and L. Larson
2003 Proposed Riverpointe Project Addendum Archaeological Resources Assessment, City of
Auburn, King County, Washington. LAAS, Inc., Gig Harbor.
Suttles, W. and B. Lane
1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 485-502. Handbook
of North American Indians, Vol. 7, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 14
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2013 Web Soil Survey. Electronic resource, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, accessed
March 2013
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1900 Tacoma (1900). Washington 1:125,000 topographic quadrangles. Electronic resource,
www.wsulibs.wsu.edu, accessed March 2013. Document provided by the Tacoma Public
Library Northwest Room and Washington State University’s Early Washington Maps
Digital Collection.
1994 Auburn Quadrangle, Washington, 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic). United States
Geological Survey, Denver.
Vallance, J. W., and Scott, K. M.
1997 The Osceola Mudflow from Mount Rainier; sedimentology and hazard implications of a
huge clay-rich debris flow: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 109, p. 143–163.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
2013 Washington Interactive Geologic Map. Division of Geology and Earth Resources –
Washington’s Geologic Survey. WA DNR, Olympia. Electronic resource, available at
https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/geology, accessed March 2013.
Waterman, T. T.
2001 sda?da? gweł dibeł lešucid ?acaciłtalbixw Puget Sound Geography. Vi Hilbert, Jay
Miller, and Zalmai Zahir, contributing editors. Lushootseed Press, Federal Way.
Zehfuss, P. H., B. F. Atwater, J. W. Vallance, H. Brenniman, and T. A. Brown
2003 Holocence Lahars and their by-products along the historical path of the White River
between Mount Rainier and Seattle. In Geological Society of America Field Guide 4.
Geological Society of America, Boulder.
Zuccotti, L. F.
2011 Mary Olson Farm Results of Archaeological Monitoring June 27, 2011. Entrix, Inc.,
Seattle.
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 15
10. Figures
Figure 1. Detail of Auburn, WA (1994) Topographic Map, 7.5’ Series showing project.
Figure 2. Detail of 1898 USGS Topographical Map. Note difference between historic and present day river
alignment (Figure 1).
PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
LOCATION
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 16
Figure 3. Proposed project alignment (western half). Key is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Proposed project plans (eastern half).
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 17
Figure 5. Typical conditions along project corridor between C Street and Auburn Way North, western end. View
is east.
Figure 6. Project alignment, empty lot between Auburn Way North and I Street NE . View is southwest.
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 18
Figure 7. STP-1 at 108 cmbs. Excavated in the empty lot between Auburn Way North and I Street NE.
Figure 8. STP-1 location. UTM Zone 10T.
558903.59E
5242550.21 N
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 19
Figure 9. Project alignment between I Street NE and Brannan Park. View is east.
Figure 10. Project alignment between Brannan Park (left) and residential neighborhood (right). View to the
west.
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 20
Figure 11. Eastern end of project alignment, BPPS collection structure is in the cluster of trees in the photo
center. View to the east.
Table 1. Summary of subsurface test results. Measurements are in centimeters below surface.
Number Location Description
1 10T
558903.59 E
5242550.21 N
0 – 50 cmbs Compact fill – loam and gravels
50 – 63 cmbs Compact angular gravels. A fragment of rubber.
63 – 108 cmbs Compact silt / silty loam, no gravels or cobbles
Terminated at the maximum extent of hand
excavation.
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 21
Attachment A. Copies of letters sent to the Muckleshoot and Puyallup tribes.
PO BOX 10668, BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110
PHONE 206.855.9020 - info@crcwa.com
March 7, 2013
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Laura Murphy, Archaeologist/Cultural Resources
39015 172nd Ave SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project
CP1122 Project, Auburn, King County, WA
Dear Laura:
I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project
and to seek additional information about the project area the Tribe may have that is not readily
available through other written sources. The project is located in Section 6, Township 21 North,
Range 5 East Willamette Meridian at 30th Street NE in Auburn. OTAK, on behalf of the City of
Auburn, is requesting this assessment prior to construction of the 30th Street NE Area Flooding,
Phase 1, Project #CP1122. The proposed improvements include the installation of a new 42-inch
storm line from the northwest corner of the Auburn Municipal Airport property to the existing
BPPS. The pipe would replace the existing 30-inch pipe generally located along the 30th St NE
alignment and the northerly boundary of Brannan Park. The pipe alignment is anticipated to
follow the public right of way until it turns east from I St NE toward Brannan Park. Then the
pipe would be constructed within an existing storm easement across public and private property.
To reduce construction impacts to private properties, the easterly portion of the pipe could be
located entirely within Brannan Park, north of the park’s ball fields. Any disturbed roadway and
easement area related to the improvements are to be restored.
We are in the process of reviewing available information. Background research will include a
site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
review of previously recorded cultural resource reports, and review of pertinent published
literature and ethnographies. Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo.
We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe
have additional information to support our assessment, we would very much like to include it in
our study. Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your
assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Glenn D. Hartmann
President/Principal Investigator
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 22
PO BOX 10668, BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110
PHONE 206.855.9020 - info@crcwa.com
March 7, 2013
Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Brandon Reynon, Cultural Resources
3009 East Portland Ave
Tacoma, WA 98404
Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project
CP1122 Project, Auburn, King County, WA
Dear Brandon:
I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project
and to seek additional information about the project area the Tribe may have that is not readily
available through other written sources. The project is located in Section 6, Township 21 North,
Range 5 East Willamette Meridian at 30th Street NE in Auburn. OTAK, on behalf of the City of
Auburn, is requesting this assessment prior to construction of the 30th Street NE Area Flooding,
Phase 1, Project #CP1122. The proposed improvements include the installation of a new 42-inch
storm line from the northwest corner of the Auburn Municipal Airport property to the existing
BPPS. The pipe would replace the existing 30-inch pipe generally located along the 30th St NE
alignment and the northerly boundary of Brannan Park. The pipe alignment is anticipated to
follow the public right of way until it turns east from I St NE toward Brannan Park. Then the
pipe would be constructed within an existing storm easement across public and private property.
To reduce construction impacts to private properties, the easterly portion of the pipe could be
located entirely within Brannan Park, north of the park’s ball fields. Any disturbed roadway and
easement area related to the improvements are to be restored.
We are in the process of reviewing available information. Background research will include a
site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
review of previously recorded cultural resource reports, and review of pertinent published
literature and ethnographies. Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo.
We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe
have additional information to support our assessment, we would very much like to include it in
our study. Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your
assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Glenn D. Hartmann
President/Principal Investigator
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 23
Attachment B.
Protocols for Discovery of Archaeological Resources
In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during project implementation, the
following actions will be taken:
In work areas, all ground disturbing activity at the location will stop, and the work supervisor
will be notified immediately. The work site will be secured from any additional impacts and the
supervisor will be informed.
The project proponent will immediately contact the agencies with jurisdiction over the lands
where the discovery is located, if appropriate. The appropriate agency archaeologist or the
proponent’s contracting archaeologist will determine the size of the work stoppage zone or
discovery location in order to sufficiently protect the resource until further decisions can be made
regarding the work site.
The project proponent will consult with DAHP regarding the evaluation of the discovery and the
appropriate protection measures, if applicable. Once the consultation has been completed, and if
the site is determined to be NRHP-eligible, the project proponent will request written
concurrence that the agency or tribe(s) concurs that the protection and mitigation measures have
been fulfilled. Upon notification of concurrence from the appropriate parties, the project
proponent will proceed with the project.
Within six months after completion of the above steps, the project proponent will prepare a final
written report of the discovery. The report will include a description of the contents of the
discovery, a summary of consultation, and a description of the treatment or mitigation measures.
Protocols for Discovery of Human Remains
If human remains are found within the project area, the project proponent, its contractors or
permit-holders, the following actions will be taken, consistent with Washington State RCWs
68.50.645, 27.44.055, and 68.60.055:
If ground-disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains, then all activity will cease that
may cause further disturbance to those remains. The area of the find will be secured and
protected from further disturbance. The project proponent will prepare a plan for securing and
protecting exposed human remains and retain consultants to perform these services. The finding
of human skeletal remains will be reported to the county medical examiner/coroner and local law
enforcement in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains will not be touched, moved,
or further disturbed. The county medical examiner/coroner will assume jurisdiction over the
human skeletal remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non-
forensic. If the county medical examiner/coroner determines the remains are non-forensic, then
they will report that finding to DAHP, which will then take jurisdiction over the remains. DAHP
will notify any appropriate cemeteries and all affected tribes of the find. The State Physical
Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non-Indian and
CRC Technical Memo #1302L1
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase I Project (CP1122) Auburn, WA
Page 24
report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the affected tribes. DAHP will then handle
all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition
of the remains.
Lead Representative and Primary Contact
OTAK
10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400, Kirkland, WA 98033
Primary Contact: Mark Cole, 425-739-7975
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
39015 172nd Ave SE, Auburn, WA 98092
Primary Contact: Laura Murphy, 253-939-3311
Puyallup Tribe of Indians
3009 East Portland Avenue, Tacoma, WA 98404
Lead Representative: Herman Dillon Sr., Tribal Council Chairman, 253-573-7828
Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
PO Box 48343, Olympia, WA 98504-8343
Lead Representative: Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer, 360-586-3066
Primary Contact: Rob Whitlam, State Archaeologist, 360-586-3080
Primary Contact for Human Remains: Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist, 360-586-
3534
King County Medical Examiner’s Office
325 – 9th Avenue, Box 359792, Seattle, WA 98104
Lead Representative: Richard Harruff, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Examiner, 206-731-3232
King County Sheriff’s Office
516 Third Ave, Room W-116, Seattle, WA 98104
Lead Representative: Steven D. Strachan, Sheriff, 206-296-4155
Geotechnical Engineering Services
WK6WUHHW1($UHD)ORRGLQJ3KDVH
$XEXUQ, Washington
for
2WDN,QFDQGWKH&LW\RI$XEXUQ
February 1, 2014
Earth Science + Technology
Geotechnical Engineering Services
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase 1
Auburn, Washington
for
Otak, Inc. and the City of Auburn
February 13, 2014
8510 154th Avenue NE
Redmond, Washington 98052
425.861.6000
February 13, 2014 | Page i
File No. 0153-040-00
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ..................................................................................... 1
SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................................................................................... 1
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................... 3
Field Explorations ................................................................................................................................... 3
Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................................. 3
PREVIOUS STUDIES ...................................................................................................................................... 3
SITE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Geology ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Surface Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 3
Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Conditions ..................................................................................... 4
General ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Pavement Section ........................................................................................................................... 4
Fill……….. .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Alluvial Deposits .............................................................................................................................. 4
Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................................. 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 5
General ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Earthquake Engineering ........................................................................................................................ 6
General ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Surface Fault Rupture ..................................................................................................................... 6
Liquefaction ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Temporary Shoring Support and Excavations ...................................................................................... 7
General ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Temporary Cut Slopes ..................................................................................................................... 8
Shored Excavations ......................................................................................................................... 8
Temporary Dewatering........................................................................................................................... 9
General ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Pumped Wells ................................................................................................................................ 10
Well Points ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Open Pumping ............................................................................................................................... 10
Other Shoring and Dewatering Considerations – Retirement Facility .............................................. 11
Pipeline Design .................................................................................................................................... 11
Earth Pressures ............................................................................................................................. 11
Pipe Bedding ................................................................................................................................. 11
Trench Backfill ............................................................................................................................... 12
Excavation Backfill ............................................................................................................................... 12
General .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Re-use of On-Site Soils .................................................................................................................. 12
Structural Fill Placement and Compaction .................................................................................. 12
Manhole Structures ............................................................................................................................. 13
General .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Foundation Support ...................................................................................................................... 13
Manhole Backfill ............................................................................................................................ 14
Lateral Earth Pressures ................................................................................................................ 14
Hydrostatic Uplift ........................................................................................................................... 14
Page ii | February 13, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 0153-040-00
Table of Contents (continued)
Drainage and Erosion Measures......................................................................................................... 15
LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 15
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figures 2 through 4. Site Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Field Explorations
Figure A-1 – Key to Exploration Logs
Figures A-2 through A-6 – Log of Explorations
Figures A-7 and A-8 – Sieve Analysis Results
Appendix B. Previous Studies
Appendix C. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
February 13, 2014 | Page 1
File No. 0153-040-00
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the 30th Street NE Area
Flooding, Phase 1 project for the City of Auburn, Washington. The proposed location of the project
is shown in the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 and in the Site Plans, Figures 2 through 4.
We understand that the existing 30-inch-diameter gravity storm drain system that runs eastward
along 30th Street NE from approximately 375 feet west of the intersection of “C” Street NE and
30th Street NE to the Brannon Park Pump Station (BPPS) structure located northeast of Brannan
Park is currently capacity limited and contributes to local flooding. The proposed improvements
include installation of a new 42-inch storm line to replace the 30-inch line. Along 30th Street NE,
the 30-inch line will be removed and replaced with the 42-inch line. Between “I” Street NE and the
BPPS structure, the 30-inch line will be abandoned in-place and a new 42-inch line will be installed
near to and parallel to the 30-inch line, but within the park boundaries to reduce impacts
to adjacent private properties. The total project length is about 3,700 feet. We understand that
the pipeline will be about 8 to 12 feet deep along 30th Street NE and “I” Street NE. The pipeline
will extend deeper east of “I” Street NE as the tie in to the existing pump station will be about
18 feet deep.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our services were completed in general accordance with the Subconsultant Agreement between
Otak, Inc. (Otak) and GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) executed on February 22, 2013. The
purpose of our geotechnical engineering services was to evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater
conditions as a basis for providing geotechnical recommendations for earthwork and site
preparation, trench backfill, construction of temporary cut slopes and shoring systems, control of
ground water during excavation, and pipe support considerations. Our specific scope of services
included the following tasks:
1. Review Previous Geologic and Subsurface Information
Review subsurface information in our files, our previous BPPS geotechnical report, and other
available geotechnical subsurface information in the vicinity regarding subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions.
2. Plan the Exploration Program and Obtain Permits
a. Complete a site visit to locate the proposed borings, plan the traffic control operations,
and develop permit applications.
b. Submit permit applications, traffic control plans, and boring exploration plans to the
City of Auburn, as appropriate.
3. Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing
a. Complete a site visit to meet with utility representatives and clear boring locations.
This will include subcontracting a private utility locator to aid in locating utilities near
the planned boring locations.
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
Page 2 | February 13, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 0153-040-00
b. Explore subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site by drilling five borings
to depths of 16½ to 26½ feet. Install piezometers in two of the borings for
subsequent groundwater monitoring.
c. Read the piezometers one additional time prior to completion of our report.
d. Perform laboratory tests on representative samples of the soils, including tests for
moisture content, density, and particle size distribution.
e. Evaluate pertinent physical and engineering characteristics of the soils based on the
results of the field exploration, laboratory testing and our experience.
4. Provide Geotechnical Design Recommendations
a. Describe site conditions including detailed subsurface soil conditions encountered
based on the results of Tasks 1 and 3 above. A geologic description of the area will be
provided based on published information and our experience in the area.
b. Provide recommendations for earthwork and site preparation including suitability of
on-site soils for reuse in trench backfill, placement and compaction of trench backfill,
and mitigation of unsuitable soil conditions. This will include an evaluation of the
effects of weather and/or construction equipment on site soils.
c. Perform engineering analyses and provide conclusions and recommendations for
conventional trenching techniques including the following:
Geotechnical parameters for trench shoring design including lateral pressures,
and partial shoring considerations;
Excavation and temporary slope considerations;
Pipe support including bedding and backfilling; and
Construction dewatering considerations including depth to groundwater and
estimated permeability coefficients based on laboratory sieve analyses.
d. Provide recommendations for erosion control during construction.
5. Geotechnical Communications, Design Report and Meetings
a. Provide a summary of subsurface conditions encountered as information becomes
available, and attend one or two design team meetings, as requested.
b. Prepare a written report presenting our conclusions and recommendations along with
supporting boring logs, laboratory data, and other appropriate figures.
6. Plans and Specifications Review
a. Review plans and specifications and provide comments and additions with respect to
geotechnical considerations.
7. Construction Support
a. Complete periodic site visits during construction to observe if the construction is
proceeding in accordance with the plans and our recommendations, and to provide
additional recommendations for pipeline support, if required. We assume that up to
four site visits will be requested during construction.
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
February 13, 2014 | Page 3
File No. 0153-040-00
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Field Explorations
Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling five borings, designated B-1 through B-5.
The borings were completed to depths of 16½ to 26½ feet below the existing ground surface (bgs)
using trailer-mounted, continuous-flight, hollow-stem auger drilling equipment. Piezometers were
installed in two of the borings, B-1 and B-5, and thus these two borings are also referred to as
monitoring wells.
The locations of the explorations completed for this project are presented on the Site Plan,
Figures 2 through 4. Details of the field exploration program and logs of the explorations are
presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory Testing
Soil samples were obtained during the exploration program and taken to our laboratory for further
evaluation. Selected samples were tested for the determination of moisture content, gradation
characteristics, and Atterberg limits (plasticity characteristics). A description of the laboratory
testing and the test results are presented in Appendix A.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
We reviewed the logs of borings and test pits previously completed by GeoEngineers and others
near the project alignment. The approximate locations of the closest explorations are shown on
the Site Plans, Figures 2 through 4. The boring and test pit logs from these studies are presented
in Appendix B.
SITE CONDITIONS
Geology
Published geologic information for the project vicinity includes a geologic map of the Auburn
quadrangle (Mullineaux, 1965). The surface geologic unit in the project area is alluvium (Qaw)
deposited by the Green River. Alluvium is composed of silt, sand and gravel deposited in
streambeds and fans. The recent alluvium is located in the Green River valley and is likely
underlain by Quaternary-age river and glacial deposits from the Vashon Stade of the Fraser
Glaciation. Features and deposits formed during the Vashon Stade and Frasier glaciations include
recessional outwash deposits composed of sand and gravel, lacustrine (lake deposited) clay, silt
and sands, and glacial till deposits composed of compacted mixtures of clay, silt, sand, gravel and
boulders.
Surface Conditions
The new storm line alignment begins on 30th Street NE north of the airport and extends to the east
within the road right-of-way to “I” Street NE. Near the intersection with “I” Street NE, the new storm
line will turn to the south for about 100 to 150 feet, then turn to the east and traverse along a
private driveway adjacent to a retirement facility and continue east through Brannan Park.
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
Page 4 | February 13, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 0153-040-00
The new storm line will tie into the existing pump station located northeast of the northeast corner
of the park.
The existing ground surface is relatively level along the project alignment. The streets are paved
with asphalt concrete. The park is grass covered with an asphalt trail extending along the northern
boundary close to the proposed pipe alignment. Groups of conifers are present between the trail
and the north boundary of the park. Site features are shown in the Site Plans, Figures 2 through 4.
Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Conditions
General
Our borings encountered a variable pavement section, where located in the existing roadways,
overlying fill and/or river alluvium. Subsurface soils encountered in our explorations are consistent
with the geologic mapping, mainly consisting of alluvial deposits ranging from silt to sand with
varying amounts of gravel. The alluvium becomes more granular and cleaner (that is, contains less
percent fines and silt) in the eastern portion of the alignment. Each of these units is discussed in
more detail below:
Pavement Section
Three of our borings were completed within existing roadways and encountered a variable
thickness of asphalt concrete surfacing. We encountered a 6- to 9-inch thickness of asphalt
concrete. A 3-inch-thick layer of base course was encountered beneath the asphalt in the borings.
Fill
Boring B-1, located on 30th Street NE west of Auburn Way, encountered very dense fill consisting of
silty gravel with sand and cobbles. Although the remaining borings did not encounter fill, we
anticipate that portions of the existing roadways are underlain by fill which may be variable in
density and type of soil.
Alluvial Deposits
Most of the borings encountered soft to medium stiff silt and sandy silt interbedded with loose silty
sand in the upper portion of the boring. Cleaner loose to medium dense sand was encountered
below these upper siltier deposits at a depth of 15 to 17 feet in borings B -2 and B-3, respectively.
Boring B-1 did not encounter cleaner sand at the depth explored (16.5 feet), but based on nearby
borings completed by others, we anticipate that cleaner sand deposits may be present below the
depth explored.
Borings B-4 and B-5, located in Brannan Park, encountered medium dense clean sands and
gravels at depths of 8 and 13 feet, respectively. The boring completed for the original pump
station encountered clean sand below a depth of 10 feet. All of the borings with the exception of
boring B-1 terminated in these cleaner sand and gravel deposits.
Groundwater Conditions
We observed groundwater at depths between approximately 5 and 10 feet during drilling.
Groundwater was measured at a depth of 4.7 feet in monitoring well B-1 and at a depth of 6 feet in
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
February 13, 2014 | Page 5
File No. 0153-040-00
monitoring well B-5, 3 days after completing the drilling. Based on our experience in this area,
we anticipate that ground water is within about 5 feet of the surface during the wet winter and
spring months, and somewhat lower during the remainder of the year. Groundwater is expected to
fluctuate as a function of season, precipitation, and rise and fall of the nearby Green River.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
We conclude that the new storm sewer replacement can be satisfactorily completed with
conventional earthwork equipment and techniques. Our explorations typically encountered upper
deposits of silt and silty sand underlain by cleaner sand and gravel deposits. A summary of the
primary site preparation and design considerations for the proposed project is provided below.
The summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with
the complete recommendations presented in this report. Recommendations for shoring are
discussed in detail in a following section.
■ Excavation in the soils can be accomplished with conventional equipment, but will require
shoring to limit the excavation in the roadways and also likely required in the park due to the
presence of loose to medium dense sand and gravel deposits that would require flatter slopes
for long-term stability, as discussed below.
■ Subsurface conditions along the pipe invert are anticipated to consist of soft to medium stiff
silt and loose sand west of “I” Street NE and loose to medium dense sand and gravel east of
“I” Street NE.
■ Dewatering using pumped wells or well points will be necessary for the eastern portion of the
project, and likely necessary for all of the portion east of Auburn Way, to prevent failure of the
excavation bottom due to heave or boiling of the underlying cleaner sand deposits. The
dewatering should be fully functional and the site dewatered prior to beginning the excavation
and should be used until the pipeline is completely backfilled. Dewatering considerations are
discussed in a following section.
■ Sheet piles or other types of positive shoring support will be required where the excavation is
close to the existing retirement facility foundations.
■ Where open cuts may be feasible, assuming the site soils are dewatered prior to excavation,
we recommend temporary slopes be inclined at 1½H:1V (horizontal to vertical) or flatter at the
site. These slopes may need to be modified depending on the excavation depth, seepage
conditions, localized sloughing, and dewatering methods utilized during construction.
■ The subsurface soils contain a high percentage of fines (silt and clay) and are therefore
moisture-sensitive. The upper silt soils will not be suitable for reuse as trench backfill.
The underlying sand and gravel will not be suitable for use as structural fill or trench backfill
during the wet weather. Therefore, we recommend import fill be available for the majority, if
not all, of the trench backfill.
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
Page 6 | February 13, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 0153-040-00
Earthquake Engineering
General
The seismic design of the proposed improvements can be completed using the design criteria
presented in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
seismic design information. The AASHTO Guide Specifications recommend a 7 percent probability
of exceedance in 75 years (nominal 1,000-year earthquake) design event for development of
a design spectrum. Based on these criteria, we recommend the parameters for site class,
seismic zone, acceleration coefficient and spectral acceleration coefficients presented in the
following table.
TABLE 1. AASHTO SEISMIC PARAMETERS
AASHTO Seismic Parameter Recommended Value
Site Class D
Seismic Design Category (SDC) for 0.30 < SD1 ≤ 0.50 D
Effective Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient
AS = FpgaPGA = (1.09)(0.408) 0.445
Design Spectral Acceleration Coefficient at 0.2 Second period
SDS = FaSs = (1.138)(0.906) 1.03
Design Spectral Acceleration Coefficient at 1.0 Second period
SD1 = FvS1 = (1.797)(0.302) 0.542
Surface Fault Rupture
Based on our knowledge of regional geology in the vicinity of the site, distance to known active
faults, and the substantial thickness of glacial and postglacial sediments beneath the sit e, we
conclude that the potential for surface fault rupture is remote.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where soils experience a rapid loss of internal strength as pore
water pressures increase in response to strong ground shaking. The increased pore water
pressure may temporarily meet or exceed soil overburden pressures to produce conditions that
allow soil and water to flow, deform, or erupt from the ground surface. Ground settlement, lateral
spreading and/or sand boils may result from soil liquefaction. Structures supported on or within
liquefied soils may suffer foundation settlement or lateral movement that can be damaging to the
buildings. Based on our analyses, the potential exists for liquefaction within zones of the loose to
medium dense sand deposits encountered in the boring completed at the site.
The evaluation of liquefaction potential depends on numerous site parameters, including soil grain
size, soil density, site geometry, static stresses and the design ground acceleration. Typi cally, the
liquefaction potential of a site is evaluated by comparing the cyclic shear stress ratio (the ratio
of the cyclic shear stress to the initial effective overburden stress) induced by an earthquake to
the cyclic shear stress ratio required to cause liquefaction. The resistance to liquefaction
and estimated ground settlements resulting from earthquake-induced liquefaction was analyzed
using empirical procedures by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) that relate settlement to the standard
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
February 13, 2014 | Page 7
File No. 0153-040-00
penetration test (SPT) data. Liquefaction potential of the site soils was evaluated using a design
acceleration equal to the effective peak ground accelerations coefficient provided above in
Table 1.
Analysis of the SPT data indicates that there is a potential for liquefaction within portions of the
alluvial deposits in the upper 20 to 40 feet (based on the boring completed for the pump station
which terminated at a depth of 47½ feet). Liquefaction-induced free-field ground settlement of the
potentially liquefiable zones above a depth of 40 feet is estimated to be up to 6 inches for a
design-level earthquake. However, as the depth of the pipeline and associated manholes will be
close to a depth of 10 to 18 feet, the potential for liquefaction and liquefaction-induced settlement
will be somewhat less.
The magnitude of liquefaction-induced ground settlement will vary as a function of the
characteristics of the earthquake (earthquake magnitude, location, duration and intensity) and the
groundwater conditions at the time of the earthquake.
The design and construction procedures discussed in this report will not mitigate the possible
liquefaction effects and associated damage to the pipe caused by differential settlements, should
they occur. In order to reduce the risk of potential damage from liquefaction, it would be necessary
to support the pipe and manhole structures on piles or improved ground such that the soils below
the corridor do not liquefy. However, in our experience, very few pipe alignments are designed to
mitigate liquefaction because of the significant costs for mitigation.
Temporary Shoring Support and Excavations
General
Shoring and temporary slope inclinations must conform to the provisions of Title 296 Washington
Administrative Code (WAC), Part N, “Excavation, Trenching and Shoring.” The soils encountered at
the site are classified as Type C soil in accordance with the provisions of Title 296-155 WAC,
Part N, “Excavation, Trenching, and Shoring.” Regardless of the soil type encountered in the
excavation, shoring, trench boxes or sloped sidewalls will be required under Washington Industrial
Safety and Health Act (WISHA). The contract documents should specify that the contractor is
responsible for selecting excavation and dewatering methods, monitoring the excavations for
safety and providing shoring, as required, to protect personnel and structures.
Excavation, shoring, and construction dewatering activities must be coordinated to ensure
successful harmonization of the efforts and to avoid conflicts.
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
Page 8 | February 13, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 0153-040-00
Temporary Cut Slopes
In general, temporary cut slopes should be inclined no steeper than about 1½H:1V above the
groundwater table. This guideline assumes that all surface loads are kept at a minimum distance
of at least one half the depth of the cut away from the top of the slope and that significant seepage
is not present on the slope face. In our opinion, any excavations below the water table will be very
unstable and will either require temporary shoring or dewatering, or both, to complete the
excavations successfully. Even with dewatering, some sloughing and raveling of the temporary
slopes should be expected. For open cuts at the site we recommend that:
■ Construction traffic, equipment, stockpiles or building supplies not be allowed within a distance
of 5 feet from the top of the cuts.
■ Exposed soil along the slopes be protected from surface erosion using waterproof tarps or
plastic sheeting.
■ Surface water is diverted away from the open excavations.
■ The general condition of the slopes be observed periodically by a geotechnical engineer to
confirm adequate stability.
If temporary cut slopes experience excessive sloughing or raveling during construction, it may
become necessary to modify the cut slopes to maintain safe working conditions and protect
adjacent facilities or structures. Slopes experiencing excessive sloughing or raveling can be
flattened, supported with shoring, or additional dewatering can be provided if the poor slope
performance is related to groundwater seepage.
Shored Excavations
Excavations deeper than 3 feet should be shored or laid back at a stable slope if workers are
required to enter. Below the groundwater table, caving should be anticipated and thus shoring will
be required. Because of the diversity of available shoring systems and construction techniques,
the design of temporary shoring is most appropriately left up to the contractor proposing to
complete the installation. However, we recommend that the shoring be designed by a Professional
Engineer (PE) licensed in the State of Washington, and that the PE-stamped shoring plans and
calculations be submitted to the City of Auburn and the Engineer for review prior to construction.
The following paragraphs present general recommendations for the type of shoring system and
design parameters that we conclude are appropriate for the subsurface conditions at the project.
We anticipate that the excavations will be shored using trench boxes, conventional sheet piles, a
braced system, or a slide rail system. The lateral soil pressures acting on temporary supports will
depend on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the inclination of the ground surface
behind the wall, and the groundwater level. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least one
thousandth of the height of the wall (i.e., wall height times 0.001), soil pressures will be less than if
movement is restrained. The design of temporary shoring should allow for lateral pressures
exerted by the adjacent soil, and for surcharge loads resulting from structures, traffic, construction
equipment, temporary stockpiles adjacent to the excavation, etc. Lateral load resistance can be
mobilized through the use of braces, tiebacks, anchor blocks and passive pressures on members
that extend below the bottom of the excavation. Temporary shoring used to support trench
excavations typically uses internal bracing such as hydraulic shoring or trench boxes.
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
February 13, 2014 | Page 9
File No. 0153-040-00
We recommend that yielding walls retaining native soils be designed using an equivalent fluid
density of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), for horizontal ground surfaces. For non-yielding
(i.e., braced) systems, we recommend that the shoring be designed for a uniform lateral pressure
of 26*H in pounds per square foot (psf), where H is the depth of the planned excavation in feet
below a level ground surface. These values assume that the ground behind the shoring has been
dewatered such that the ground water table is at least 2 feet below the base of the excavation.
Temporary dewatering recommendations are discussed in a subsequent section of this report.
If the dewatering system is not designed to lower the groundwater level behind the shoring walls
(e.g. sheet pile walls with dewatering system inside the shored excavation), hydrostatic pressures
must be included in the shoring design. For this condition, temporary shoring should be designed
using a lateral pressure equal to an equivalent fluid density of 85 pcf, for horizontal ground
conditions adjacent to the excavation.
The above lateral soil pressures do not include traffic, structure or construction surcharges that
should be added separately, if appropriate. Shoring should be designed for a traffic influence
equal to a uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf acting over the depth of the trench. More
conservative pressure values should be used if the designer deems them appropriate.
The soil pressure available to resist lateral loads against shoring is a function of the passive
resistance that can develop on the face of below-grade elements of the shoring as those elements
move horizontally into the soil. The allowable passive resistance on the face of embedded shoring
elements may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 1 60 pcf for native soils below the
water table. This passive equivalent fluid density value includes a factor of safety of about 1.5.
Temporary Dewatering
General
The purpose of this report section is to present geotechnical and hydrogeological data that will
influence temporary construction dewatering and to describe in general terms various types
of dewatering techniques that may be feasible at the site. Detailed dewatering designs for
construction are not within our scope of services.
As discussed above, static groundwater was measured at 4.7 feet in monitoring well B-1 and at a
depth of 6 feet in monitoring well B-5. Most of the soils along the alignment consist of siltier soils
underlain by clean sand deposits which may be under some pressure. This sequence of soils can
result in failure of the excavation bottom if the area is not adequately dewatered. Therefore, it will
be critical to implement a dewatering program which can lower the groundwater level to a
minimum of 2 feet below the lowest anticipated level of excavation prior to beginning excavating.
We recommend the groundwater level be maintained a minimum of 2 feet below the bottom of the
lowest point of the excavation during construction or that level necessary to stabilize the shoring.
The level will depend upon the dewatering method, the size of the excavation and other factors.
The dewatering should be maintained until the pipeline is in place and the backfill is within 3 feet
of the surface.
Based on the soil conditions encountered and the planned depth of the storm sewer pipeline, we
anticipate that dewatering using pumped wells or well points will be necessary east of “I” Street NE
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
Page 10 | February 13, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 0153-040-00
and possibly between Auburn Way and “I” Street NE. We recommend that the design of the
dewatering system be performed by an experienced dewatering specialist who is a PE or a
Licensed Hydrogeologist in the State of Washington. The contractor should be required to submit
the proposed dewatering system design and plan layout to the City of Auburn and the Engineer for
review and comment prior to beginning construction.
The level of effort required for dewatering will depend to some extent on the time of year during
which construction is accomplished. Less seepage into the work areas, especially west of
Auburn Way, should be expected if construction is accomplished in the late summer or early fall
months, and correspondingly, more seepage should be expected during the wetter periods of the
year. However, even during the drier months we anticipate that the sand and gravel deposits
encountered in Brannan Park will be saturated and produce significant water during dewatering.
A general discussion of the dewatering methods anticipated for the project is presented below.
Pumped Wells
Individually pumped wells may be considered for dewatering the construction areas. Pumped wells
that have been properly installed and developed are capable of producing the high discharge rates
that are necessary to dewater highly permeable sand deposits. Pumped wells are generally the
most effective dewatering method in areas where dewatering to deeper than about 20 feet bgs is
necessary.
We recommend that all dewatering wells installed for this project be properly developed to remove
fine sediment from the immediate vicinity of the well screens. Proper development is essential for
producing efficient wells and greatly reduces the turbidity of the water discharged from the well.
Filter packs consisting of graded sand, or sand and fine gravel should be installed around the well
screens in areas where the aquifer contains a high percentage of fine sand and silt.
Well Points
Well points are effective for dewatering all types of soils, whether pumping small amounts of water
from silt or large quantities of water from coarse sand and gravel. The volume of water generated
by a well point system is typically less than the volume generated by a corresponding system of
pumped wells because the well points are generally completed at a shallower depth. Because of
the shallower completion depth, the volume of aquifer that contributes water to a well point system
is less than for a comparable deep well system.
Well point systems are most suitable for dewatering shallow excavations where the water table
must be lowered no more than about 20 feet bgs. Multiple well point stages are generally required
beyond that depth because of the physical limitations of suction lift.
Open Pumping
This dewatering method involves removing water that has seeped into the excavation by pumping
from a sump that has been excavated at one end of the excavation or trench. Drainage ditches
that are connected to the sump are typically excavated along the sidewalls at the base of the
excavation or trench. The excavation for the sump and the drainage ditches should be backfilled
with gravel or crushed rock to reduce the amount of erosion and associated sediment in the water
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
February 13, 2014 | Page 11
File No. 0153-040-00
pumped from the sump. In our experience, a slotted casing or perforated 55-gallon drum that is
installed in the sump backfill provides a suitable housing for a submersible pump.
The amount of water removed from the excavation by open pumping should be minimized because
of high turbidity levels. Temporary storage of dewatering effluent from the sumps in a settlement
tank or basin may be required to meet discharge permit requirements and reduce sediment
content prior to discharging the water to surface water courses. In general, we do not believe that
open pumping will adequately dewater most of the alignment, particularly the east side of the
alignment.
Other Shoring and Dewatering Considerations – Retirement Facility
We understand that the new storm line will be about 7 feet horizontally from the north side of the
existing retirement facility. We recommend that a positive type of shoring such as sheet piles or a
slide rail system be used where the bottom of the excavation extends below a 45 degree line
extending outward from the existing foundations. The use of sheet piles with well points inside of
the sheets would reduce the risk of settlement due to dewatering. Alternatively, the dewatering
and excavation and backfill along this segment could be done sequentially to limit the time
dewatering is required. We recommend that a survey along the north side of the building be
completed prior to beginning dewatering and shoring, and that at least two settlement survey
points be established and surveyed prior to beginning construction. These survey points should be
monitored on a daily basis during installation of the storm line near the building. If sheet piles are
used, the residences of the building should be informed that some vibrations will likely be felt
during the installation process.
Pipeline Design
Earth Pressures
We recommend that the pipeline be designed considering the full weight of the overburden soils
above the pipes. The overburden soil weight can be evaluated assuming a n average total unit
weight of 125 pcf. Resistance to uplift below groundwater can be developed by the dead weight of
the structure and friction along the sides of the structure. Frictional resistance can be computed
using a coefficient of friction of 0.40 applied to the lateral soil pressures. This coefficient of friction
is an allowable value and includes a factor of safety. We recommend that lateral soil pressures for
uplift resistance be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 18 pcf. This value assumes the
groundwater table is above the pipeline.
Pipe Bedding
We recommend that all structural fill placed as pipe bedding meet the criteria for gravel backfill for
pipe zone bedding as described in Section 9-03.12(3) of the 2012 Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications. Pipe bedding material should be placed in
accordance with WSDOT Standard Specification 7-08.3(1)C. Where soft or loose soils are
encountered below the pipe alignment, we recommend they be removed to a depth of 12 inches
below the invert, or to firm material as directed by the engineer.
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
Page 12 | February 13, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 0153-040-00
Trench Backfill
We recommend that trench backfill be compacted as recommended in the “Excavation Backfill”
section of this report. A geotechnical engineer should observe the preparation for, placement, and
compaction of structural fill. An adequate number of in -place density tests should be performed in
the fill to evaluate if the specified degree of compaction is being achieved.
Excavation Backfill
General
All backfill should consist of clean sand or sand and gravel, or the moisture conditioned on-site
soils compacted as described below. As discussed below, re-use of a portion of the existing native
sand deposits might be feasible based on the existing moisture content, while the native silt will
not be practical for use as structural fill. Re-use of the on-site soils will only be feasible in dry
weather conditions. We suggest import fill be available for the majority of trench backfill.
Re-use of On-Site Soils
Most of the existing native soils tested have moisture contents above the optimum content
required for adequate compaction. The upper 5 to 10 feet of on-site soils have a high percentage
of fines (silt) and will not be suitable for use as trench backfill material. The remainder of sand
soils excavated above the water table might be suitable for use as trench backfill during dry
weather. The sand material excavated below the water table will need to be drained of excess
water prior to use.
Structural Fill Placement and Compaction
Structural fill soil must be free of significant debris, organic contaminants and rock fragments
larger than 6 inches. The suitability of soil for use as structural fill will depend on its gradation and
moisture content. As the amount of fines (soil particles passing U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve)
increases, the soil becomes more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate
compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. Structural fill placed during wet weather or on wet
subgrades should contain no more than 5 percent fines. During dry weather, the fines content may
be higher, provided the fill is at a suitable moisture content, or can be moisture-conditioned, and
compacted to the specified degree.
Structural fill should be mechanically compacted to a firm, non-yielding condition. The structural fill
should be placed in lifts not exceeding 1 foot in thickness. Each lift should be conditioned to the
proper moisture content and compacted to the specified density before placing subsequent lifts.
Structural fill should be compacted to the following criteria:
1. Pipe bedding material should be placed in accordance with WSDOT Standard Specifications
Section 7-08.3(1)C. This bedding material should be compacted by tamping. Where soft or
loose soils are encountered below the pipe alignment, we recommend they be removed to a
depth of 12 inches below the invert, or to firm material as directed by the engineer.
2. Backfill placed above the bedding material should consist of on-site material that is of
structural fill quality, or imported granular material that meets the criteria for common borrow
as described in WSDOT Standard Specifications Section 9-03.14(3). Common borrow will be
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
February 13, 2014 | Page 13
File No. 0153-040-00
suitable for use as structural fill during dry weather conditions only. If structural fill is placed
during wet weather, the structural fill should meet the criteria for gravel borrow as described in
WSDOT Standard Specification Section 9-03.14(1), with the exception that the fines content
(portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) be reduced to 5 percent maximum.
3. All trench backfill placed outside of roadways should be compacted in lifts to at least
90 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) determined in general accordance with the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 1557 test procedure.
4. All trench backfill placed under roadways or sidewalks should be compacted to at least
95 percent of MDD (ASTM D 1557) within the uppermost 2 feet of the trench. Fill and trench
backfill below 2 feet should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the MDD (ASTM D 1557).
5. Structural fill placed for crushed surfacing base course below pavements should be compacted
to at least 95 percent of the MDD (ASTM D 1557).
We recommend that a geotechnical engineer observe the preparation for, placement, and
compaction of structural fill. An adequate number of in -place density tests should be performed in
the fill to evaluate if the specified degree of compaction is being achieved.
Manhole Structures
General
We anticipate that new manhole structures will be about 12 to 18 feet below existing grades.
We anticipate that loose to medium dense sand will be exposed at the bottom of most of these
excavations.
Foundation Support
We recommend that the manholes be supported on a 1-foot-thick pad of 1¼ minus crushed rock
or 2- to 4-inch quarry spalls to provide a stable base for the manholes. A nonwoven geotextile
(Mirafi 600X or equivalent) may need to be placed across the bottom of the excavation prior to
placing the crushed rock or quarry spalls, depending on the conditions along the exposed bottom.
The crushed rock or quarry spalls should be tamped or rolled to the extent possible.
All loosened soils should be removed or compacted to the extent possible prior to placing the
crushed rock.
Below-grade facilities can be designed using an allowable soil bearing of 2,000 psf provided all
loosened soils have been removed or recompacted and 12 inches of crushed rock placed as
recommended above. We recommend the geotechnical engineer evaluate the exposed subgrade
to confirm conditions are as assumed during design and provide modified recommendations, if
appropriate.
We estimate that settlement of manholes supported as recommended above in this report should
be less than about 1 inch. To reduce the potential for differential settlement between the
manholes and pipeline, the contractor should use special care when preparing the manhole
subgrade, and compacting the backfill and pipe bedding material where the pipeline enters and
exits the manhole.
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
Page 14 | February 13, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 0153-040-00
All manholes should be designed with a sufficient safety factor to resist flotation.
Manhole Backfill
We recommend that all backfill placed around the manholes be placed as structure fill meeting the
requirements described above in the “Excavation Backfill” section of this report.
Lateral Earth Pressures
We recommend that permanent below grade manhole structures be designed for lateral pressures
corresponding to at rest soil pressure. As the groundwater table can be at or near the surface, we
recommend designing the walls using the buoyant density of the soil plus the full hydrostatic water
pressure. For this condition, we recommend that the walls be designed using a lateral equivalent
fluid density equal to 85 pcf.
We recommend that seismic loading against the manhole walls be approximated using a uniform
lateral pressure equal to 7H psf, where H is the depth in feet of the structure. This seismic lateral
pressure is in addition to and should be superimposed upon the static soil and hydrostatic
pressures given previously.
These lateral soil pressures do not include traffic or other surcharges that should be added
separately, if appropriate. Surcharge loads should be included as appropriate.
The soil pressure available to resist lateral loads is a function of the frictional resistance against
the vault base and the passive resistance that can develop on the face of below -grade elements of
the structure as those elements move horizontally into the soil. For manhole foundations bearing
on compacted crushed rock or quarry spalls prepared as recommended in this report, an allowable
coefficient of sliding friction of 0.4 between concrete and the compacted crushed rock or quarry
spalls. The allowable passive resistance on the face of embedded foundation elements may be
computed using an equivalent fluid density of 160 pcf assuming the backfill and surrounding
native soils have the potential to become saturated.
Hydrostatic Uplift
The base of the manholes will extend below the typical groundwater levels: therefore, buoyancy
and uplift must be evaluated. Resistance to uplift may be developed by the dead weight of the
structure and friction along the sides of the structure, and/or by the weight of backfill soils above
an exterior perimeter lip added to the foundation slab. Frictional resistance may be computed
using a coefficient of friction of 0.40 applied to the lateral soil pressures assuming the vaults are
backfilled as recommended above. This coefficient of friction is an allowable value and includes a
factor of safety. We recommend that lateral soil pressures for uplift resistance be computed using
an equivalent fluid density of 18 pcf. This value assumes the groundwater table is near the
surface. We do not recommend use of side frictional resistance during seismic events due to the
potential for loss of soil strength due to liquefaction. If additional uplift resistance is required
during a design seismic event, we recommend adding an exterior perimeter lip to the base of the
manholes, and using the weight of the backfill soil above the perimeter lip for resistance.
The weight of the backfill soil should be based an average buoyant soil density of 60 pcf. We
recommend that a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 be used in designing against hydrostatic uplift.
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
February 13, 2014 | Page 15
File No. 0153-040-00
Drainage and Erosion Measures
Potential sources or causes of erosion and sedimentation depend upon construction methods,
slope length and gradient, amount of soil exposed and/or disturbed, soil type, construction
sequencing and weather. The project impact on erosion-prone areas can be reduced by
implementing an erosion and sedimentation control plan. The plan should be designed in
accordance with applicable provisions of the City of Auburn Code. Site monitoring should be
performed by qualified personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures
and repair and/or modify them as appropriate. Provisions for modifications to the erosion control
system based on monitoring observations should be included in the plan. The plan should
incorporate basic planning principles including:
■ Prevent erosion from occurring by minimizing the area of vegetative disturbance, providing
blanket protection of disturbed areas, and grading to avoid concentration of surface runoff
onto or off of cut or fill slopes or natural slopes.
■ Intercept surface runoff onto or off of disturbed areas to control sediment transport. This may
be accomplished by use of interceptor swales, perimeter dikes, brush barriers, etc.
■ Provide redundancy in erosion control facilities.
■ Implement permanent erosion control facilities and hydroseed all finished slopes as soon as
practical during the project. Temporary erosion protection may be necessary until permanent
erosion protection is established.
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of City of Auburn, Otak, and their authorized
agents for the project site. The data should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding
or estimating purposes, but our report and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of
the subsurface conditions.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in
accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area
at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should
be understood.
Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or
figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original
document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.
Please refer to Appendix C, “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for additional information
pertaining to use of this report.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate on this project. Should you have any questions
concerning this report or if we can be of additional service, please call.
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
Page 16 | February 13, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 0153-040-00
REFERENCES
International Code Council, 2009, “International Building Code.”
Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., August 1987, “Evaluation of Settlement in Sands Due to Earthquake
Shaking,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8.
U.S. Geological Survey, “Seismic Design Maps and Tools, U.S. Seismic Design Maps.”
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/usdesign.php accessed April 25, 2013.
Mullineaux, D.R., compiler, 1965. Geologic Map of the Auburn Quadrangle, King and Pierce
Counties, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-406, scale
1:24,000.
Washington Administrative Code, Title 296, Part N, “Excavation, Trenching and Shoring.”
Washington State Department of Transportation, 2012, “Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge
and Municipal Construction.”
Earth Science + Technology
Type Name of Services Here
Name of Project Here
for
Type Client Name Here
Type Date of Report Here
Isaac Evans ParkIsaac Evans Park
Brannan ParkBrannan Park
Dykstra ParkDykstra Park
Auburn Regional Golf CourseAuburn Regional Golf Course
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
I
S
t
N
E
B
S
t
N
W
C
S
t
N
E
22Nd St NE
37Th St NE
M
S
t
N
E
J
o
h
n
R
e
d
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
R
d
24Th St NE
28Th St NE
31St St NE
E
S
t
N
E
H S
t
N
E
L
S
t
N
E
40Th St NE
37Th St NW
29Th St NW
J
S
t
N
E
26Th St NE
Pi
k
e
S
t
N
E
K
S
t
N
E
M Dr
N
E
39Th St NE
35Th St NE
18Th St NE
O
S
t
N
E
I
P
l
N
E
21St St NE
32Nd Pl NE
30Th St NW
23Rd St NE 10
0
T
h
A
v
e
S
E
M Pl
N
E
2
6
T
h
P
l
N
E
Em
e
r
a
l
d
D
o
w
n
s
D
r
J
S
t
N
E
35Th St NE
K
S
t
N
E
E
S
t
N
E
26Th St NE
E
S
t
N
E
21St St NE
Au
b
u
r
n
W
a
y
N
GreenRiverR
dSE
µ
Vicinity Map
Figure 1
30th Street NE Area Flooding Phase 1Auburn, Washington
King
Pierce
KitsapMason
Thurston
Jefferson
Tacoma
Seattle Bellevue
§¨¦90
§¨¦5
§¨¦405
UV16 UV167
UV3
UV163
1,000 1,0000
Feet
Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps, Street Maps 2005
Notes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission.
Transverse Mercator, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1983North arrow oriented to grid northOf
f
i
c
e
:
R
e
d
m
o
n
d
P
a
t
h
:
\
\
r
e
d
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
\
G
I
S
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
0
0
_
F
1
_
V
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
Ma
p
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
:
4
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
3
E
L
Figure 2
Figure 3 Figure 4
Ó!´Ó!´
ED
ED
Ó!´
30TH ST NE
E
S
T
N
E
C
S
T
N
E
EC B-5EC B-4
GEI B-1
EC TP-1
EC TP-15
Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community
Site Plan
30th Street NE Area Flooding Phase 1Auburn, Washington
Figure 2
µ
200 0 200
Feet
Notes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended toassist in showing features discussed in an attacheddocument. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master fileis stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as theofficial record of this communication.
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet
Legend
Ó!´Boring by Earth Consultants
ED Test Pit by Earth Consultants
Ó!´Boring by GeoEngineers
Of
f
i
c
e
:
R
E
D
P
a
t
h
:
\
\
r
e
d
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
\
G
I
S
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
0
0
_
F
2
_
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
.
m
x
d
Ma
p
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
:
1
7
A
p
r
i
l
2
0
1
3
g
l
o
h
r
m
e
y
e
r
EC TP-1
EC B-4
GEI B-1
Ó!´
Ó!´
I
S
T
N
E
30TH ST NE
A
U
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
N
31ST ST NE
GEI B-2
GEI B-3
Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community
Site Plan
30th Street NE Area Flooding Phase 1Auburn, Washington
Figure 3
µ
150 0 150
Feet
Notes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended toassist in showing features discussed in an attacheddocument. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master fileis stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as theofficial record of this communication.
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet
Legend
Ó!´Boring by GeoEngineers
Of
f
i
c
e
:
R
E
D
P
a
t
h
:
\
\
r
e
d
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
\
G
I
S
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
0
0
_
F
3
_
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
.
m
x
d
Ma
p
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
:
1
7
A
p
r
i
l
2
0
1
3
g
l
o
h
r
m
e
y
e
r
GEI B-2
Ó!´
Ó!´Ó!´
30TH ST NE
31ST ST NE
L
S
T
N
E
M DR
N
E
K
S
T
N
E
M
S
T
N
E
JO
H
N
R
E
D
D
I
N
G
T
O
N
R
D
N
E
B-1
GEI B-5 GEI B-4
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community
Site Plan
30th Street NE Area Flooding Phase 1Auburn, Washington
Figure 4
µ
150 0 150
Feet
Notes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended toassist in showing features discussed in an attacheddocument. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master fileis stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as theofficial record of this communication.
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet
Legend
Ó!´Boring by GeoEngineers
Ó!´Completed in 1996 byGeoEngineers for Pump Station
Of
f
i
c
e
:
R
E
D
P
a
t
h
:
\
\
r
e
d
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
\
G
I
S
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
0
0
_
F
4
_
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
.
m
x
d
Ma
p
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
:
2
5
A
p
r
i
l
2
0
1
3
g
l
o
h
r
m
e
y
e
r
GEI B-4
B-1
Earth Science + Technology
Type Name of Services Here
Name of Project Here
for
Type Client Name Here
Type Date of Report Here
APPENDIX A
Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
February 13, 2014 | Page A-1
File No. 0153-040-00
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING
Field Explorations
Subsurface conditions were explored at the site by drilling five borings, designated B-1 through B-5.
The borings were completed to depths ranging from 16½ t0 26½ feet below the existing ground
surface. The drilling was performed by Geologic Drill, Inc. under subcontract to GeoEngineers on
April 6 2013. The locations of the explorations were estimated by measuring distances from site
features in the field by taping and pacing and should be considered approximate. The locations
are shown on the Site Plans, Figures 2 through 4.
The borings were completed using trailer-mounted, continuous-flight, hollow-stem auger drilling
equipment. A geotechnical engineer from our firm continually monitored drilling operations,
examined and classified the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples, observed
groundwater conditions, and prepared a detailed log of each boring.
The soils encountered in the borings were generally sampled at 2½ or 5-foot vertical intervals with
a 2-inch outside diameter split-barrel standard penetration test (SPT) sampler. The samples were
obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140 -pound rope and cathead
hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration was
recorded. The blow count ("N-value") of the soil was calculated as the number of blows required for
the final 12 inches of penetration. This resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative
density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Where very dense
soil conditions preclude driving the full 18 inches, the penetration resistance for the partial
penetration is entered on the logs. The blow counts are shown on the boring logs at the respective
sample depths.
Soils encountered in the explorations were visually classified in general accordance with the
classification system described in Figure A-1. A key to the log symbols is also presented in
Figure A-1. The logs of the explorations are presented in Figures A-2 through A-6. The logs are
based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils
and groundwater conditions encountered. The logs also indicate the depths at which these soils or
their characteristics change; although, the change may actually be gradual. If the change occurred
between samples in the borings, it was interpreted. The densities noted on the boring log are
based on the blow count data obtained in the boring and judgment based on the conditions
encountered.
Observations of groundwater conditions were made during drilling. The groundwater conditions
encountered during drilling are presented on the boring logs. Groundwater conditions observed
during drilling represent a short term condition and may or may not be representative of the long
term groundwater conditions at the site. Groundwater conditions observed during drilling should
be considered approximate.
The borings were backfilled in accordance with Washington State Department of Ecology
regulations.
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
Page A-2 | February 13, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 0153-040-00
Piezometer Installation
Piezometers (monitoring wells) were installed in two of the borings, B-1 and B-5, following drilling.
The monitoring wells consist of 1-inch-diameter schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe.
The lower portion of the pipe is slotted (0.02-inch slot width) to allow entry of water in the well.
Clean 10-20 sand was placed in the borehole annulus surrounding the slotted portion of the PVC
pipe. Bentonite chips were placed above the sand pack to form a surface seal. The monitoring
wells are protected by at-grade steel monuments. Specific information regarding well construction
is shown on the boring logs. Groundwater levels measured in the monitoring wells are presented in
the report text.
Laboratory Testing
General
Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to GeoEngineers’ laboratory and
evaluated to confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering properties of
the soil samples. Representative samples were selected for laboratory testing consisting of
moisture content testing, sieve analyses, and Atterberg limits (plasticity characteristics). The tests
were performed in general accordance with test methods of American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) or other applicable procedures.
Moisture Content Testing
Moisture contents tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 for
representative samples obtained from the exploration. The results of these tests a re presented on
the exploration log in Appendix A at the depths at which the samples were obtained.
Sieve Analyses
Full sieve analyses were performed on three selected samples in general accordance with
ASTM D-422. The wet sieve analysis method was used to determine the percentage of soil greater
than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve. The results of the sieve analyses were plotted, classified
in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), and presented in
Figures A-7 and A-8.
Atterberg Limits Testing
Atterberg limits tests were performed on selected fine-grained soil samples. The tests were used
to classify the soil as well as to evaluate index properties. The liquid limit and plastic limit were
estimated through a procedure performed in general accordance ASTM D 4318. The results of the
Atterberg limits tests indicated that the fine-grained soils are non-plastic.
Sheen Classification
NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface
conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are
not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
CC
Asphalt Concrete
NS
SS
MS
HS
NT
Shelby tube
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS
%F
AL
CA
CP
CS
DS
HA
MC
MD
OC
PM
PI
PP
PPM
SA
TX
UC
VS
Graphic Log Contact
Distinct contact between soil strata or
geologic units
Approximate location of soil strata
change within a geologic soil unit
Approximate location of soil strata
change within a geologic soil unit
Measured groundwater level in
exploration, well, or piezometer
Measured free product in well or
piezometer
GRAPH
Topsoil/
Forest Duff/Sod
Direct-Push
Crushed Rock/
Quarry Spalls
Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number
of blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or
distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight
and drop.
A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the
drill rig.
FIGURE A-1
2.4-inch I.D. split barrel
SYMBOLS TYPICAL
KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS
CR
Bulk or grab
Piston
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
DESCRIPTIONSLETTER
Distinct contact between soil strata or
geologic units
TS
GC
PT
OH
CH
MH
OL
GM
GP
GW
DESCRIPTIONS
TYPICAL
LETTER
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT
OF FINES)
MAJOR DIVISIONS
POORLY-GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS
WITH HIGH ORGANIC
CONTENTS
CLEAN SANDS
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
CLEAN
GRAVELS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
SAND
AND
SANDY
SOILS
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
SW
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE
CL
WELL-GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SANDS
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND
- SILT MIXTURES
LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILTMIXTURES
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT
OF FINES)
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50
SANDS WITH
FINES
SP
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
ML
SC
SM
NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
PASSING NO. 4
SIEVE
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
SAND - CLAY MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK
FLOUR, CLAYEY SILTS WITH
SLIGHT PLASTICITY
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW
PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS
OR DIATOMACEOUS SILTY
SOILS
ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OF
MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
MORE THAN 50%
PASSING NO. 200
SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%
RETAINED ON NO.
200 SIEVE
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY
CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
GRAPH
SYMBOLS
AC
Cement Concrete
Sampler Symbol Descriptions
Groundwater Contact
Material Description Contact
No Visible Sheen
Slight Sheen
Moderate Sheen
Heavy Sheen
Not Tested
Laboratory / Field Tests
Percent fines
Atterberg limits
Chemical analysis
Laboratory compaction test
Consolidation test
Direct shear
Hydrometer analysis
Moisture content
Moisture content and dry density
Organic content
Permeability or hydraulic conductivity
Plasticity index
Pocket penetrometer
Parts per million
Sieve analysis
Triaxial compression
Unconfined compression
Vane shear
2
14
18
18
18
50/5"
5
3
1
5
9 inches asphalt pavement
3 inches crushed rock base course
Brown silty fine to coarse gravel with sand and
cobbles (very dense, moist) (fill)
Gray silt with fine to medium sand and
occasional gravel (soft to medium stiff, moist
to wet)
Dark gray silty fine sand (loose, wet)
%F = 31%
AC
GM
ML
SM
1
2
3
4
5
SA
1.0
3.0
5.0
15.0
16.5
Concrete surface
seal
Bentonite seal
2-inch Schedule 40
PVC well casing
10-20 colorado
silica sand backfill
2-inch Schedule 40
PVC screen,
0.02-inch slot width
31
Logged By
NLTDrilled
Date Measured
Drilling
Method4/6/20134/6/2013
Horizontal
Datum
Vertical Datum
DOE Well I.D.: BHN 225
A 2 (in) well was installed on 4/6/2013 to a depth of 5 (ft).
4/9/2013Easting (X)
Northing (Y)
Drilling
Equipment
16.5
Top of Casing
Elevation (ft)
StartEnd
Checked By
4.7
XL Trailer Mounted Drill Rig
Elevation (ft)
Groundwater
Driller
Depth to
Water (ft)
SMJTotal
Depth (ft)Hollow-Stem Auger
Notes:
Hammer
Data
Surface Elevation (ft)
49.3
54
Rope and Cathead
Geologic Drill
Exploration, Inc.
Flush-mount
monument
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
De
p
t
h
(
f
e
e
t
)
0
5
10
15
In
t
e
r
v
a
l
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
50
45
40
Co
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
S
a
m
p
l
e
Re
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
(
i
n
)
Bl
o
w
s
/
f
o
o
t
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Gr
o
u
p
Cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
a
m
e
Wa
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
WELL LOG
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
(p
c
f
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
Log of Monitoring Well B-1
30th Street NE Area Flooding Phase 1
Auburn, Washington
0153-040-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-2
Sheet 1 of 1Re
d
m
o
n
d
:
D
a
t
e
:
4
/
3
0
/
1
3
P
a
t
h
:
P
:
\
0
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
\
0
0
\
G
I
N
T
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
0
0
.
G
P
J
D
B
T
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
/
L
i
b
T
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
:
G
E
O
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
8
.
G
D
T
/
G
E
I
8
_
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
_
W
E
L
L
1
AL
2
3
4
SA
5
6
18
18
12
18
18
18
4
1
7
17
8
13
6 inches asphalt pavement
3 inches crushed rock base course
Gray-brown silt with fine sand (soft, wet)
Non-plastic silt
With thin lenses of silty fine sand
Dark gray sandy silt (stiff to very stiff, wet)
Black fine sand with occasional gravel (loose to
medium dense, wet)
AC
ML
ML
SP
%F = 61%
Gravel at 17.5 feet
39
26
Total
Depth (ft)
Hammer
Data
System
Datum
StartEnd
Checked By
Logged By
NLTDrilled
Notes:
SMJ
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth to
Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)
Northing (Y)
XL Trailer Mounted Drill Rig
Geologic Drill
Exploration, Inc.Drilling
Method Hollow-Stem Auger21.5
Rope and Cathead Drilling
Equipment
4/6/20134/6/2013
54
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
De
p
t
h
(
f
e
e
t
)
0
5
10
15
20
In
t
e
r
v
a
l
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
50
45
40
35
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
a
m
e
Te
s
t
i
n
g
Re
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
(
i
n
)
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Co
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
S
a
m
p
l
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
f
o
o
t
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Gr
o
u
p
Cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Wa
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
Log of Boring B-2
30th Street NE Area Flooding Phase 1
Auburn, Washington
0153-040-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-3
Sheet 1 of 1Re
d
m
o
n
d
:
D
a
t
e
:
4
/
3
0
/
1
3
P
a
t
h
:
P
:
\
0
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
\
0
0
\
G
I
N
T
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
0
0
.
G
P
J
D
B
T
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
/
L
i
b
T
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
:
G
E
O
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
8
.
G
D
T
/
G
E
I
8
_
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
_
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
REMARKS
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
(p
c
f
)
1
2
3
4
SA
5
6
7
18
18
18
18
12
11
1
4
17
24
21
7 inches asphalt pavement
3 inches crushed rock base course
Gray silty fine sand with occasional gravel (loose
to medium dense, wet)
Gray silty fine sand to sandy silt (loose soft, wet)
Dark gray silty fine sand (medium dense, wet)
Dark gray fine sand with silt (medium dense, wet)
AC
SM
SM/ML
SM
SP-SM
%F = 43%29
Total
Depth (ft)
Hammer
Data
System
Datum
StartEnd
Checked By
Logged By
NLTDrilled
Notes:
SMJ
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth to
Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)
Northing (Y)
XL Trailer Mounted Drill Rig
Geologic Drill
Exploration, Inc.Drilling
Method Hollow-Stem Auger21.5
Rope and Cathead Drilling
Equipment
4/6/20134/6/2013
56
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
De
p
t
h
(
f
e
e
t
)
0
5
10
15
20
In
t
e
r
v
a
l
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
55
50
45
40
35
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
a
m
e
Te
s
t
i
n
g
Re
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
(
i
n
)
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Co
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
S
a
m
p
l
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
f
o
o
t
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Gr
o
u
p
Cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Wa
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
Log of Boring B-3
30th Street NE Area Flooding Phase 1
Auburn, Washington
0153-040-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-4
Sheet 1 of 1Re
d
m
o
n
d
:
D
a
t
e
:
4
/
3
0
/
1
3
P
a
t
h
:
P
:
\
0
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
\
0
0
\
G
I
N
T
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
0
0
.
G
P
J
D
B
T
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
/
L
i
b
T
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
:
G
E
O
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
8
.
G
D
T
/
G
E
I
8
_
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
_
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
REMARKS
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
(p
c
f
)
1
2
3
4
SA
5
18
8
13
18
0
4
27
40
21
21
3 inches sod
Brown silty fine sand (very loose to loose, moist
to wet)
Brown silty fine to coarse gravel with sand
(medium dense, wet)
Black fine to coarse sand with gravel to fine to
coarse gravel with sand (medium dense to
dense, wet)
Dark gray fine to medium sand with gravel
(medium dense, wet)
SOD
SM
GM
SW-GW
SP
%F = 4%18
Total
Depth (ft)
Hammer
Data
System
Datum
StartEnd
Checked By
Logged By
NLTDrilled
Notes:
SMJ
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth to
Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)
Northing (Y)
XL Trailer Mounted Drill Rig
Geologic Drill
Exploration, Inc.Drilling
Method Hollow-Stem Auger21.5
Rope and Cathead Drilling
Equipment
4/6/20134/6/2013
58
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
De
p
t
h
(
f
e
e
t
)
0
5
10
15
20
In
t
e
r
v
a
l
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
55
50
45
40
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
a
m
e
Te
s
t
i
n
g
Re
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
(
i
n
)
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Co
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
S
a
m
p
l
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
f
o
o
t
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Gr
o
u
p
Cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Wa
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
Log of Boring B-4
30th Street NE Area Flooding Phase 1
Auburn, Washington
0153-040-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-5
Sheet 1 of 1Re
d
m
o
n
d
:
D
a
t
e
:
4
/
3
0
/
1
3
P
a
t
h
:
P
:
\
0
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
\
0
0
\
G
I
N
T
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
0
0
.
G
P
J
D
B
T
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
/
L
i
b
T
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
:
G
E
O
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
8
.
G
D
T
/
G
E
I
8
_
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
_
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
REMARKS
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
(p
c
f
)
18
7
8
0
18
18
2
19
13
21
21
23
3 inches sod
Brown silt with fine sand (soft, wet)
Non-plastic silt
Dark gray fine to medium sand with silt and
occasional gravel (medium dense, wet)
Black gravelly fine to coarse sand (medium
dense, wet)
%F = 4%
Gray fine to medium sand with silt and gravel
(medium dense, wet)
Dark gray fine to medium sand with gravel
(medium dense, wet)
SOD
ML
SP-SM
SW
SP-SM
SP
1
AL
2
3
SA
4
5
6
1.0
8.0
10.0
25.0
26.5
Concrete surface
seal
Bentonite seal
2-inch Schedule 40
PVC well casing
10-20 colorado
silica sand backfill
2-inch Schedule 40
PVC screen,
0.02-inch slot width
38
14
Logged By
NLTDrilled
Date Measured
Drilling
Method4/6/20134/6/2013
Horizontal
Datum
Vertical Datum
DOE Well I.D.: BHN 396
A 2 (in) well was installed on 4/6/2013 to a depth of 10
(ft).
4/9/2013Easting (X)
Northing (Y)
Drilling
Equipment
26.5
Top of Casing
Elevation (ft)
StartEnd
Checked By
6.0
XL Trailer Mounted Drill Rig
Elevation (ft)
Groundwater
Driller
Depth to
Water (ft)
SMJTotal
Depth (ft)Hollow-Stem Auger
Notes:
Hammer
Data
Surface Elevation (ft)
51.0
57
Rope and Cathead
Geologic Drill
Exploration, Inc.
Flush-mount
monument
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
De
p
t
h
(
f
e
e
t
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
In
t
e
r
v
a
l
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
55
50
45
40
35
Co
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
S
a
m
p
l
e
Re
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
(
i
n
)
Bl
o
w
s
/
f
o
o
t
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Gr
o
u
p
Cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
a
m
e
Te
s
t
i
n
g
Wa
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
WELL LOG
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
(p
c
f
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
Log of Monitoring Well B-5
30th Street NE Area Flooding Phase 1
Auburn, Washington
0153-040-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-6
Sheet 1 of 1Re
d
m
o
n
d
:
D
a
t
e
:
4
/
3
0
/
1
3
P
a
t
h
:
P
:
\
0
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
\
0
0
\
G
I
N
T
\
0
1
5
3
0
4
0
0
0
.
G
P
J
D
B
T
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
/
L
i
b
T
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
:
G
E
O
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
8
.
G
D
T
/
G
E
I
8
_
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
_
W
E
L
L
FI
G
U
R
E
A
-
7
SI
E
V
E
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
EXPLORATION
NUMBER
DEPTH
(ft) SOIL CLASSIFICATION
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
15
12½
15
17½
Dark gray silty fine sand (SM)
Dark gray sandy silt (ML)
Dark gray silty fine sand (SM)
Dark gray fine to medium sand with gravel (SP)
0153-040-00 SAS: SAS 04-11-2013
SYMBOL
3/8” 3” #20 #200 #40 #60 #100 1.5” #10 #4 3/4”
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
PE
R
C
E
N
T
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
.
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES GRAVEL
COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE FINE BOULDERS
FI
G
U
R
E
A
-
8
SI
E
V
E
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
EXPLORATION
NUMBER
DEPTH
(ft) SOIL CLASSIFICATION
B-5 15 Black gravelly fine to course sand (SW)
0153-040-00 SAS: SAS 04-11-2013
SYMBOL
3/8” 3” #20 #200 #40 #60 #100 1.5” #10 #4 3/4”
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
PE
R
C
E
N
T
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
.
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES GRAVEL
COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE FINE BOULDERS
APPENDIX B
Previous Studies
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
February 13, 2014 | Page B-1
File No. 0153-040-00
APPENDIX B
PREVIOUS STUDIES
This appendix includes:
■ The log of one boring completed by GeoEngineers, Inc. in 1996 for the pump station.
■ The logs of two borings completed by Earth Consultants in 1990 for a development north of
30th Street NE.
■ The logs of two test pits completed by Earth Consultants in 1997 for a development south of
30th Street NE and west of the Airport.
APPENDIX C
Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
February 13, 2014 | Page C-1
File No. 0153-040-00
APPENDIX C
REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1
This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of
this report.
Geotechnical Services Are Performed For Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of City of Auburn, Otak, Inc., and their
authorized agents. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained
herein is not applicable to other sites.
GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a
geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs
of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the
same project. Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical
engineering or geologic report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site.
Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of
our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with
reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would
otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and
budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and
generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared.
This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.
A Geotechnical Engineering Or Geologic Report Is Based On A Unique Set Of
Project-Specific Factors
This report has been prepared for the City of Auburn 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase 1 project
in Auburn, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project-specific factors
when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers
specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was:
■ not prepared for you,
■ not prepared for your project,
■ not prepared for the specific site explored, or
■ completed before important project changes were made.
For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect:
■ the function of the proposed structure;
■ elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure;
■ composition of the design team; or
■ project ownership.
1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org .
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
Page C-2 | February 13, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 0153-040-00
If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the
opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications
or confirmation, as appropriate.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was
performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by
manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as
floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers
before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable.
Most Geotechnical and Geologic Findings Are Professional Opinions
Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced
sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those
points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field
and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about
subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes
significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should
not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions.
Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not over-rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These
recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers’
professional judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers’ recommendations can be finalized only by
observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot
assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform
construction observation.
Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during
construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the
explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed
during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities
are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction
observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with
unanticipated conditions.
A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject To Misinterpretation
Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You
could lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team
after submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design
team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or
geologic report. Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre-bid and
preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation.
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
February 13, 2014 | Page C-3
File No. 0153-040-00
Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs
Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their
interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in
a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural
or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but
recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals believe they can make cont ractors liable for unanticipated
subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly
problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it
with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not
prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage
them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of
information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors
have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give
contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated
conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule.
Contractors Are Responsible For Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects
Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor’s procedures,
methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job
site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and to
adjacent properties.
Read These Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience
practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and
natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that
could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory
“limitations” provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers
if you are unclear how these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” apply to your project
or site.
Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Reports Should Not Be Interchanged
The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ
significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that
reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental
findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground
storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address
geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project.
30TH STREET NE AREA FLOODING, PHASE 1 Auburn, Washington
Page C-4 | February 13, 2014 | GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 0153-040-00
Biological Pollutants
GeoEngineers’ Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or
assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any
interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing,
preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn
regarding Biological Pollutants, as they may relate to this project. The term “Biological Pollutants”
includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their
byproducts.
Earth Science + Technology
Type Name of Services Here
Name of Project Here
for
Type Client Name Here
Type Date of Report Here
30th Street NE Flood Alleviation Project Phase 1
2
30th St NE Flood Alleviation Project - Tech Memo_FINAL.docx
Introduction
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to address the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe’s concerns regarding
increased stormwater discharges and potential water quality impacts on the Green River resulting from the
proposed 30th Street NE Flood Alleviation project.
The City of Auburn (City) is currently implementing Phase 1 of the 30th Street NE Flood Alleviation project.
The need for this project was identified as part of the approved 2009 Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage
Plan (Capital Improvement Project 13). Phase 1 of the project includes replacement of an existing 30-inch-
diameter storm line with a new 42-inch-diameter storm line from the northwest corner of the airport property
to the existing Brannan Park Pump Station (PS). The project will relieve street flooding that results from the
limited capacity of the existing 30-inch-diameter storm line to convey stormwater to the Brannan Park PS.
The project is currently in the final stages of design, and construction is expected to commence in the spring
or summer of 2014.
King County is currently constructing the Reddington Levee Setback project as part of its overall flood
management strategy for the lower Green River. The 2013 project, which is nearing construction completion,
has set back the Reddington Levee along the left bank of the Green River through a portion of the city,
including Brannan Park. Part of the new levee occupies the site of a stormwater swale that treated low flows
from the Brannan Park PS. A new stormwater swale has been constructed in replacement on the City-owned
property to the north (the former CRISTA Ministries property). An overview of both projects is shown in Figure
1.
30th Street NE Flood Alleviation Project Phase 1
3
30th St NE Flood Alleviation Project - Tech Memo_FINAL.docx
Figure 1. Overview map of 30th Street NE Flood Alleviation project and King County Reddington Levee Setback project
Water Quantity Impacts
The Brannan Park PS receives stormwater runoff generated in portions of the G, H, and I subbasins in
northeast Auburn. The tributary area is approximately 520 acres; land use consists of a mix of industrial,
commercial, and residential development. An overview of the Brannan Park PS drainage area is shown in
Figure 2.
30th Street NE Flood Alleviation Project Phase 1
4
30th St NE Flood Alleviation Project - Tech Memo_FINAL.docx
Figure 2. Brannan Park Pump Station drainage area
30th Street NE Flood Alleviation Project Phase 1
5
30th St NE Flood Alleviation Project - Tech Memo_FINAL.docx
Phase 1 of the 30th Street NE Flood Alleviation project will not increase the area draining to the Brannan
Park PS. The project will, however, increase the hydraulic capacity of the storm line along 30th Street NE,
and will reduce street flooding in the area. The Brannan Park PS has a peak pump capacity of 57 cubic feet
per second (cfs) with all six pumps operating. Previous modeling analysis undertaken by Brown and Caldwell
indicated that the full capacity of the Brannan Park PS cannot be utilized under existing conditions due to
the limitations in the upstream conveyance system. The 30th Street NE Flood Alleviation project will there-
fore result in an increase in peak inflow to the Brannan Park PS during large storm events, and allow the full
capacity of the existing pumps to be utilized. While the project will increase peak flows to the Green River, it
will not increase them above the flow rate that the pump station was originally designed to convey. The 30th
Street NE Flood Alleviation project does not include any upgrades to the existing pumps at the station.
Water Quality Impacts
Prior to the Reddington Levee Setback project, the Brannan Park PS pumped low flows to a stormwater
swale located to the north of the station alongside the Green River. High flows were pumped directly to the
river without water quality treatment. The King County Reddington Levee Setback project required that the
existing swale be relocated to the City-owned property about one-quarter mile to the north.
The original stormwater swale was constructed in 2001. In 2012, Brown and Caldwell evaluated the hydrau-
lic capacity of the swale to determine the water quality design flow rate. It was estimated that the swale
provided effective water quality treatment (i.e., 80 percent total suspended solids [TSS] removal) for flow
rates up to 7.7 cfs. This corresponds to approximately 43 percent of the total annual runoff volume routed to
the Brannan Park PS. The original facility therefore did not meet the current requirement of providing water
quality treatment for runoff up to the 6-month storm event, or approximately 91 percent of the total annual
runoff volume. However, as the 30th Street NE Flood Alleviation project is not a redevelopment project and
the city could not require King County to be responsible for an upgrade the City’s goal was to provide the
same level of treatment in the new swale as was provided by the original swale. The City therefore provided
the required treatment flow rate of 7.7 cfs to King County as the basis for its water quality facility sizing. The
design and construction of the new stormwater swale was included in the Reddington Levee Setback
project. The project also included the design and construction of a new force main to convey flow from the
pump station north to the new stormwater swale. It was determined in the design analysis that the pump
station did not need to be upgraded.
The new stormwater swale is designed to provide the same level of TSS removal as the original swale. The
30th Street NE Flood Alleviation project will not increase the flows routed to the water quality treatment
facility and will therefore not have a negative impact on water quality in the Green River. New development
or redevelopment projects within the basin would be required to provide onsite water quality treatment in
accordance with the standards in the current manual (City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual,
November 2009).
Conclusions
The 30th Street NE Flood Alleviation project will result in increased peak flow to the Green River during large
storm events, but the peak flows will not exceed the flow rate that the pump station was originally designed
to convey. The provision of a new stormwater swale to the north of the pump station provides the same level
of water quality treatment as the original swale.
Floodplain Habitat Assessment for
City of Auburn NE 30th Street
Flooding Project
Prepared for:
City of Auburn
25 West Main St.
Auburn, WA 98001
Prepared by:
Otak, Inc.
10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400
Kirkland, WA 98033
Otak Project No. 32187
August 26, 2013
Revised February 13, 2014
Table of Contents
Floodplain Habitat Assessment for NE 30th Street Flooding Project, City of Auburn
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding i
Section 1—Introduction and Background
Section 2—Project Area Description
Section 3—Project Area Habitats
Section 4—Project Description
Section 5—Impacts Assessments
Section 6—Effects Determination
Section 7—References
Table 1. Federally Listed Species that May Occur in King County
Appendices
Appendix A—Figures
Section 1—Introduction and Background
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 1
Introduction and Background
This Floodplain Habitat Assessment (HA) addresses the potential impacts of a proposed
project to alleviate flooding in the north central area of the City of Auburn, thereby
protecting local public and private property. A portion of the proposed project will occur in
regulatory floodplains within the City of Auburn, King County, Washington. This Habitat
Assessment was prepared to comply with the requirements of the City of Auburn Municipal
Code (AMC) 15.68.135 and with Appendix A of the Auburn SMC, and with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under its obligations to demonstrate compliance
with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
In September 2008, a Biological Opinion (BiOp) was issued by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) concerning the effects of certain elements of the National Flood
Insurance Policy (NFIP) overseen by FEMA. The BiOp was provided to FEMA as part of a
formal consultation process under the ESA, and addressed the effects of certain elements of
the NFIP overseen by FEMA. The BiOp determined that the ongoing implementation of
the NFIP was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Puget Sound Chinook salmon,
Puget Sound steelhead, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, and Southern Resident killer
whales. Implementation of the NFIP was likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat
for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, and Southern
Resident killer whales.
As part of the BiOp, NMFS issued a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative to avoid jeopardy
and adverse modification of critical habitat, including modification of the NFIP and how the
NFIP is administered by FEMA. FEMA has issued a Model Ordinance to comply with
elements of the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA), and to provide Puget Sound
communities with guidance to manage floodplain development and permitting in accordance
with the RPA. The Model Ordinance is designed to provide communities with a set of rules
protecting human development from flooding, and rules to minimize the impact of new
developments and redevelopment on public safety, public health, property, water quality,
and aquatic and riparian habitat. In support of the Model Ordinance and to ensure that new
development does not adversely affect the species determined to be at jeopardy in the BiOp
or their designated critical habitat, FEMA has provided draft regional guidance for
floodplain habitat assessment to communities in the Puget Sound Basin (FEMA, 2011). The
City of Auburn has incorporated portions of the draft regional guidance into the AMC in
order to demonstrate ESA compliance for certain activities within the regulatory floodplain.
This document represents an assessment of floodplain habitat within the proposed project
area in the City of Auburn, and an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed
project to the floodplain occurring within the project footprint, and to the listed species and
their designated critical habitat addressed by the BiOp.
Section 2—Project Area Description
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 2
Project Area Description
Location and Extent
The City of Auburn is located in the southern portion of King County, in the Green River
valley between the Puget Sound and the foothills of the Cascade Mountains. Figure 1 in
Appendix A represents a vicinity map of the City, and shows the relative position of the City
in King County, its municipal limits, and the approximate site for the proposed project.
The project site within the City includes consists of a corridor extending approximately
3,700 feet in a roughly east-west alignment (Figure 2) along 30th Street NW and 30th Street
NE, and within a utility easement through residential properties and a City-owned park. The
project corridor is located at 47o20’01.71” N and -122o13’41.17” W on the western end of
the project corridor, and at 47o20’00.50” N and -122o12’48.80” W on the eastern end of the
project corridor. The project alignment runs primarily through paved roadway within public
right-of-way, but crosses a City-owned parcel (parcel #004600017) at the intersection of 30th
Street NE and Auburn Way N; a privately-owned parcel (parcel #0001000080) within a
utility easement; and City-owned Brannan Park (parcel #0001000081) near the Green River
at the eastern end of the corridor. As noted, ownership is primarily City of Auburn, with a
utility easement through one privately-held parcel.
Rivers and Streams
The City is located in the lower Green River drainage (HUD 171100130399), within the
Duwamish-Green Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9. The Green River occurs near
the eastern end of the project corridor, approximately 120 feet from the Ordinary High
Water Mark of the river at the project’s closest point (Figure 2 in Appendix A). The Green
River is categorized by the City of Auburn as a Class I stream (Auburn Shoreline Master
Program, 2010) and by Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as a Type S
stream (DNR/FPARS 2013). Both Class I streams as defined by the City and Type S streams
as defined by DNR Forest Practices are designated as “shorelines of the state” as defined in
Chapter 90.58 of the Regulatory Code of Washington (RCW). The Green River is under
shoreline jurisdiction for the City of Auburn and has shoreline management areas associated
with it (see below).
According to FEMA mapping data for effective flood insurance rate maps in the project
vicinity (1995 FIRMs), no portion of the project corridor is located in the Special Flood
Hazard Area for the Green River subject to the 100-year flood event. The project corridor is
not located within the channel migration zone (CMZ) or the floodway for the Green River,
but approximately 130 linear feet of the project corridor is located within the Riparian
Habitat Zone (RHZ) of the regulated floodplain of the Green River (Figure 3 in Appendix
A). No other streams are located within the project corridor.
Shorelines
Shoreline environments are geographical divisions of the shoreline within which
management policies and regulations and development standards specific to that
Section 2—Project Area Description
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 3
environment apply. The City has established three shoreline environments, extracted from
the Auburn Shoreline Master Program (2010) and designated below:
1. Shoreline Residential
2. Urban Conservancy
3. Natural
Shoreline Residential Environment
The purpose of the “Shoreline Residential” environment is to accommodate residential
development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this chapter. An additional
purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.
The criteria for including land within the Shoreline Residential Environment are as follows:
1. Characterized by primarily single- or multi-family residential development; or
2. Planned or platted for residential development.
Urban Conservancy Environment
The purpose of the “Urban Conservancy” environment is to protect and restore ecological
functions of open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and
developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The criteria for including land within the Urban Conservancy Environment are as follows:
1. Area planned for development that is compatible with maintaining or restoring the
ecological function of the area; and
2. Area is not generally suitable for intensive water-dependent uses.
Natural Environment
The purpose of the “Natural” environment is to protect those shoreline areas that are
relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline
functions that would become irreversibly impaired as a result of human development and
activity. These systems require that only very low intensity uses be allowed in order to
maintain ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. Consistent with the policies of
the designation, the City of Auburn should include planning for restoration of degraded
shorelines within this environment
The criteria for including land within the Natural Environment are as follows:
1. The shoreline is ecologically intact (as described in WAC 173-26-211(5)(a)(iii)) and
therefore currently performing an important, irreplaceable function or ecosystem-
wide process that would be damaged by human activity;
Section 2—Project Area Description
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 4
2. The shoreline is considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of
particular scientific and educational interest; or
3. The shoreline is unable to support new development or uses without significant
adverse impacts to ecological functions or risk to human safety
Within the project corridor, designated Urban Conservancy shoreline environment occurs at
the eastern end of the project. The Urban Conservancy shoreline environment extends 200
feet landward of the OWHM for the Green River, and approximately 80 linear feet of the
project corridor is contained the Urban Conservancy shoreline. Figure 4 (Appendix A)
shows the position of the eastern end of the project corridor relative to the designated
shoreline environment.
Critical Areas Associated with Streams
No critical areas associated with streams are contained within the proposed project corridor.
The project corridor does not extend to the Green River or into the standard 100-foot
buffer designated by the City for the Green River. No wetlands occur within the project
area, based on review of available data and a site visit conducted July 12, 2013 by Otak
scientists.
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
Per AMC 16.10.080 and Appendix A of the Auburn SMC, Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas are defined as primary, secondary, or tertiary as follows:
1. “Critical habitat” are those habitat areas which meet any of the following
criteria:
a. The documented presence of species or habitat listed by federal or state
agencies as “endangered,” “threatened,” or “sensitive”; or
b. The presence of unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries;
c. Category I wetlands, as defined in these regulations; or
d. Class I streams, as defined in these regulations.
2. “Secondary habitat” is habitat which is valuable to fish and wildlife and
supports a wide variety of species due to its undisturbed nature, a diversity of
plant species and structure, presence of water, or the area’s size, location, or
seasonal importance.
3. “Tertiary habitat” is habitat which is not classified as critical or secondary. It
is habitat which, while supporting some wildlife and performing other valuable
functions, does not currently possess essential characteristics necessary to
support diverse wildlife communities. Tertiary habitat also includes habitat
which has been created purposefully by human actions to serve other or
multiple purposes, such as open space areas, landscape amenities, and
detention facilities.
Section 2—Project Area Description
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 5
No primary or secondary Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas are contained within the
project corridor. The nearest primary habitat is associated with the Green River, a Class I
stream with federally listed salmonid species. The open space associated with Brannan Park
may be considered as tertiary wildlife habitat, providing some green space and native and
ornamental vegetation for common wildlife species within a broader urban habitat matrix.
Section 3—Project Area Habitat
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 6
Project Area Habitat
Background Research
The following documents, data sources, and existing sources of information were consulted
in order to adequately describe ESA listed species and their habitats in or near the proposed
project corridor and more generally within the City of Auburn.
City of Auburn Municipal Code and Critical Areas Ordinances
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program
City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, amended 2011
National Marine Fisheries Service distribution of Threatened and Endangered
Species (www.nwr.noaa.gov)
National Marine Fisheries Service critical habitat maps
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/criticalhabitat.htm)
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Essential Fish Habitat
mapper (http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html )
Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Report Green/Duwamish and Central
Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island)
http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/reports/Recon.aspx
Salmon Habitat Plan: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Water Resource
Inventory Area 9
http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/plan-implementation/HabitatPlan.aspx
King County Green-Duwamish River Watershed website:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/watersheds/green-river.aspx
US Fish and Wildlife Service distribution of Threatened and Endangered Species
(www.fws.gov/westwafwo/speciesmap.html)
US Fish and Wildlife Service critical habitat maps (http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/ )
o Bull trout final critical habitat maps
(http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/finalcrithab/index.cfm?unit=2 )
USFWS National Wetland Inventory maps (www.fws.gov/wetlands/ )
USFWS and NMFS habitat recovery plans, when published for ESA listed species in
the project vicinity of City of Auburn
o USFW: www.fws.gov/pacific
o NMFS: www.nwr.noaa.gov
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service soil survey
maps (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ )
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Database
(http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm )
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife SalmonScape
(http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/ )
Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Assessment
(www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index.html )
Section 3—Project Area Habitat
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 7
otak
Protected Species Identification
This Habitat Assessment addresses the potential effects of the proposed project in a portion
of the regulatory floodplain of the Green River in the City of Auburn. Table 1 presents the
ESA-listed aquatic species, obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2013)
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2013), that may occur in King County.
Most of these listed species occur at a distance of many miles from the City, and only three
species occur in or near the City of Auburn (WDFW PHS database, 2013; WDFW
Salmonscape, 2013).
Species indicated with black font occur near but not within the project corridor, and are
within the City of Auburn UGA. Species indicated in grey font do not occur in or near the
City of Auburn at all, and will not be addressed further in this Habitat Assessment. Although
the Southern Resident Killer Whales are far removed from the City of Auburn, the species is
included for analysis in this Habitat Assessment due to the species’ inclusion in the BiOp
and potential impacts to Chinook salmon that may indirectly affect the Southern Resident
Killer Whale subpopulation.
Table 1. Federally Listed Species that May Occur in King County,
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status WA State
Status
Regulatory
Agency
Aquatic Species
Bull Trout,
Coastal/Puget Sound
DPS*
Salvelinus
confluentus Threatened Candidate USFWS
Chinook Salmon,
Puget Sound ESU**
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha Threatened Candidate NMFS
Steelhead, Puget
Sound DPS*
Oncorhynchus
mykiss Threatened None NMFS/
USFWS
Bird Species
Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus
marmoratus Threatened Threatened USFWS
Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened Endangered USFWS
Carnivorous Mammals
Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Threatened USFWS
Gray Wolf Canis lupus Endangered Endangered USFWS
Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos Threatened Endangered USFWS
Marine Species
Humpback Whale Megaptera novaengliae Endangered Endangered NMFS
Southern Resident
Killer Whale Orcinus orca Endangered Endangered NMFS
Steller Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus Threatened Threatened NMFS
Section 3—Project Area Habitat
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 8
otak
Plant Species
Golden Paintbrush Castilleja levisecta Threatened Endangered USFWS
*DPS: Distinct Population Segment
**ESU: Evolutionarily Significant Unit
Designated Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as “(i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species…on which are found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species…upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species.” The term “conservation”, as defined in
section 3(3) of the ESA, means “…to use and the use of all methods and procedures which
are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the
measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary”; i.e. the species is recovered
and has been removed from the list of threatened and endangered species. Section 3 also
states that the entire range of a species will not usually fall within critical habitat.
Designated critical habitat for listed species is associated with Primary Constituent Elements
(PCEs), which are physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of a species,
and on which its designated or proposed critical habitat is based. PCEs typically include
ecological elements such as space for individual and population growth, and for normal
behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed
dispersal; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the
species’ historic, geographic, and/or ecological distribution.
On January 15, 1992, critical habitat was designated for the northern spotted owl under
Section 7 of the ESA, and was revised on August 13, 2008. On May 24, 1996 critical habitat
was designated for the marbled murrelet and was revised on October 5, 2011. Critical habitat
was designated for the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout on September 26, 2005 and revised
October 18, 2010; and critical habitat was designated for Puget Sound Chinook salmon on
February 16, 2000 and finalized on September 2, 2005.
No designated critical habitat for northern spotted owl or marbled murrelet exists within
many miles of the City of Auburn (USFWS critical habitat maps, 2013). Only designated
habitat for Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout and Puget Sound Chinook salmon, which does
not occur within the project corridor but does occur nearby in the Green River, will be
addressed further in this Habitat Assessment.
Section 3—Project Area Habitat
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 9
otak
Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires that essential
fish habitat (EFH) must be identified by NMFS for federally managed marine fish. In
addition, federal agencies must consult with NMFS on all proposed actions undertaken or
funded by the agency that may affect EFH. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council
(PFMC) has designated EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery, for federally managed
groundfish, for coastal pelagic fisheries, and for highly migratory species. The Pacific salmon
management unit includes Chinook, coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and pink salmon (O.
gorbushcha).
The EFH designation for the Pacific salmon fishery includes all streams, lakes, ponds,
wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except above the impassable barriers identified
by PFMC. The Green River in the project vicinity is designated as EFH for Pacific salmon—
specifically, Chinook and coho salmon.
Species Specific Information
Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
Bull trout in the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS were listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife on November 1, 1999 (Federal
Register 64[210]:58910-58933). Information on the life history, habitat needs, and presence
or absence of this fish species in the vicinity of the City of Auburn is presented below.
Life History and Habitat Characteristics
Bull trout are a species of char, a genus of cold water adapted fish belonging to the salmon
and trout family. Bull trout are associated with the clear waters of mountain streams and
lakes, the coastal rivers of the Pacific Northwest, and in some cases the marine waters of the
Puget Sound. In addition to clean-flowing and cold water, bull trout are associated with
complex in-stream habitat and generally undisturbed riparian and stream conditions—deep
pools, abundant and large wood in the system, overhanging banks, clean gravels free of fine
sediment, etc. Bull trout exhibit a variety of life history strategies: individuals may be
anadromous and move from their natal streams to the marine environment; individuals may
be long-distance migratory but freshwater fluvial residents that move into large rivers from
smaller stream; adfluvial forms may migrate from natal streams into lake systems; or they
may show resident forms with a high degree of site fidelity and complete their life cycles in
their natal headwater or tributary streams.
Bull trout may live up to 12 years, generally achieving sexual maturity and spawning
capability at four to seven years. Individuals that show life cycles involving out-migration
from their natal streams generally do so at two years of age. Bull trout diet consists of
aquatic invertebrates as juveniles, with a switch to piscivory as individuals mature and
Section 3—Project Area Habitat
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 10
otak
increase in size. Along with other salmonids, they are considered apex predators as adults in
freshwater systems.
Bull trout require specific habitat conditions suitable to their life history needs. For example,
water temperature conditions during the summer are an important component of rearing
and growth of bull trout. Goetz (1989) suggests optimum water temperature for bull trout
rearing below 55o F, a thermal parameter associated with the higher altitude streams and
rivers where this species rears. Sub-lethal effects are evident at temperatures exceeding
optimum (Lantz, 1970). High summer water temperatures (up to 69.4 F) in freshwater
systems likely preclude or limit summer use by bull trout, and summer temperatures of 55o F
or less are preferred. Bull trout typically spawn in the late summer and fall, and prefer larger
streams (if accessible) that have a cold groundwater upwelling component (Pratt, 1984)—
typically spawning when water temperatures drop into the mid to low 40oF range. Water
temperature above 59 F is believed to limit bull trout distribution, which may partially
explain the often patchy distribution within some watersheds (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
Bull trout require stable and non-turbid stream flow during storm events for winter rearing,
to include stable stream banks and channels, and low proportions of fine sediment. For
example, bull trout greater than four inches in length prefer holding velocities of around five
inches/second, and bull trout less than four inches in length prefer holding velocities of four
inches/second (Spence et al., 1996).
Population Status
Bull trout use the Lower Green River for habitat essential to maintaining abundance,
distribution, and productivity of the DPS unit, even though the Lower Green River is
considered outside of the core habitat (USFWS, 2010). Bull trout are rare in the Lower
Green River, and were probably not historically abundant in the system throughout the 20th
Century (USFWS, 2010). However, the lower Green River reaches have the potential to
provide foraging, migrating, and overwintering (FMO) habitat for bull trout, and use of the
river habitat for adult bull trout foraging on other anadromous salmonid species is also
recognized as important (USFWS, 2010).
This species is particularly susceptible to human-induced disturbances that result in an
overall loss of appropriate habitat for this species: including loss of riparian vegetation due
to land use alterations; increased input of fine sediments due to increase in impervious
surfaces; alteration of channel morphology and hydrologic regimes; increase in water
temperatures; and decrease in water quality due to stormwater-borne contaminants.
Species Occurrence In and Near the Project Vicinity
Populations of bull trout have been documented within WRIA 9, and include the entire
lower river reaches of the Green River as a critical habitat subunit of secondary importance
(USFWS, 2010). While this species may occur in the nearby Green River and potentially
Section 3—Project Area Habitat
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 11
otak
utilize the river as a migratory corridor, the proposed project will not occur within habitat
that is utilized or potentially utilized by this species.
Designated Critical Habitat for Bull Trout
Critical habitat was designated for the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout on September 25,
2005, with revisions finalized on October 18, 2010. Designated critical habitat for
Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout includes and includes all waterways historically accessible to
this species, and includes the Green River and portions of the lower reaches of the
Duwamish River (USFWS, 2010). The Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for bull trout
are briefly described in this section, and PCEs for bull trout in the vicinity of the proposed
project and within the City of Auburn are evaluated later in this document.
Eight Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) are associated with designated critical habitat
for bull trout, derived from the final rule listing designated critical habitat for bull trout
(USFWS, 2005):
1. Water temperatures that support bull trout use, at least seasonally. Bull trout have
been documented as occurring in streams with temperatures ranging from 32oF to
72oF, but as noted above, are generally limited to streams with temperatures below
59oF.
2. Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools,
and undercut banks, all of which provide heterogeneity in terms of flows, depths,
and spatial habitat structure.
3. Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure survival of bull
trout life stages from egg through juvenile. Notably, this should include minimal
amounts of fine (<0.25 inch diameter) sediment in the system.
4. A natural hydrograph, with peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges. If
the stream system is regulated, it should be operated under a biological opinion that
addresses bull trout or demonstrates the capacity to support bull trout populations
by showing minimal fluctuations in daily and day to day flows.
5. Springs, seeps, and groundwater sources that provide cold water sources.
6. Migratory corridors with minimal impediments to movement between spawning,
rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats.
7. An abundant food base (riparian contributions to the aquatic food web, aquatic
macroinvertebrates, and forage fish).
8. Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction,
growth, and survival of bull trout are not inhibited.
Section 3—Project Area Habitat
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 12
otak
Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
In May 1999, the Federal Government listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU as
threatened under the ESA. Furthermore, the NMFS adopted a detailed 4(d) Rule in July
2000 codified at 50 CFR 223.203, to prohibit take of 14 groups of salmon and steelhead
(including Puget Sound Chinook) listed as threatened under ESA. The Rule took effect on
September 8, 2000, and became effective within the Threatened ESU on January 8, 2001.
Life History and Habitat Characteristics
The Chinook salmon is the largest of the Pacific salmon, averaging 36 inches in length and
18 to 22 pounds in weight as adults. Chinook salmon spawn in fresh water, migrate to
marine waters, and remain in the ocean for three to four years before returning to their natal
streams to spawn. Spawning females may dig several redds in deep waters with large gravels,
between 0.5 and 4 inches in diameter (Emmet et al., 1991). As with all of the anadromous
salmonid species, adults die shortly after spawning, contributing significant in-stream
nutrient enrichment to the fluvial freshwater trophic system.
Once laid, the eggs hatch in 33 to 178 days depending on water temperature, dissolved-
oxygen concentrations, and other physical factors (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). The hatched
alevin reside in the nests for two to three weeks while absorbing their yolk sacs, and the
juvenile fry rear in their natal streams for varying lengths of time depending on hatch date
and water temperatures—from three months to two years.
The Chinook salmon associated with the Green River are a fall run, and adults return to the
river during the months of August, September, and October and spawn shortly thereafter,
usually in the mainstem of the system and its tributaries where flow and substrate size are
appropriate for the species. Eggs hatch in late winter and early spring, and fall-run Chinook
fry usually feed for a short time then undergo smoltification and migrate to the ocean. Some
fry rear for a year, especially juveniles in systems with lakes, before smolting and migrating to
the Pacific Ocean (Wydoski and Whitney, 2003; Emmet et al., 1991). Similar to other
salmonids and char, Chinook juveniles feed primarily on invertebrates and alter their diet to
reflect piscivory as they mature.
During the downstream migration of juveniles, low dissolved-oxygen concentrations and
high water temperatures can hamper their swimming ability. Juveniles that remain in stream
systems for longer periods will move upstream to take advantage of better water quality
conditions and to escape extreme flow events. Juvenile preference for winter habitat has not
been well studied, but there is an indication that selective use of areas of lower flow
conditions—flow refugia areas associated with side or off-channel habitat—is an important
habitat component for juvenile Chinook. Use of the main channel, side channels,
overhanging banks with cobble substrate, and backwater areas have also all been reported
(Healy, 1991).
Section 3—Project Area Habitat
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 13
otak
Population Status
Fall-run Chinook in the Green River are considered a threatened run, based on the Salmon
Stock Inventory data (SaSI, 2013) from WDFW. Fall-run Chinook within the Green River in
Auburn are considered as a threatened run based on the Salmon Stock Inventory data (SaSI,
2013) from WDFW and declines in escapement numbers have been observed since 2001,
with more pronounced declines since 2006.General trends that correlate with the status of
the run as threatened include loss of habitat, harvesting, continued operation of
hydroelectric facilities and infrastructure, and competition or hybridization with hatchery
brood stocks. Limiting factors for the species (SBRF, 2005) include:
Loss of channel area and complexity due to bank protection and diking of the river
and major tributaries, cutting off the channel from its floodplain;
Dearth of in-channel large woody debris;
Flood flows that scour redds (fish nests made in gravel) at high frequencies;
Increased sediment input to streams as a result of slope failures;
Poor quality riparian forests;
Loss of wetlands due to draining for land conversion that eliminates habitat and
reduces water retention;
In-redd mortality due to siltation or water quality contamination;
Urbanization (road construction, commercial and residential construction, additional
bank hardening) that further reduces Chinook salmon viability in the basin; and
Artificial barriers (dams, tide gates, diversions, culverts, pump stations) that prevent
juveniles from reaching rearing habitat.
Species Occurrence In and Near the Project Vicinity
No Chinook salmon occur within the project corridor, although the nearby Green River
provides spawning habitat for this species (WDFW, 2013), as well as potential for rearing,
foraging, migratory, and overwintering habitat depending upon the life history stage.
Designated Critical Habitat for Chinook
Designation of critical habitat for listed species is based on two criteria. Designated critical
habitats are: 1) occupied and contain physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or
protection, or (2) are not presently occupied but are considered essential for the
conservation of the species (FR, 2005b). Critical habitat has been designated for Chinook
salmon and includes all waterways historically accessible to this species, including the Green
River.
Critical habitat was designated for Puget Sound Chinook salmon on September 2, 2005 and
includes the Green River. No designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon occurs within
the proposed project corridor, however. The Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for
Section 3—Project Area Habitat
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 14
otak
Chinook salmon are briefly described in this section, and PCEs for Chinook salmon in the
Green River are evaluated later in this document.
Six PCEs are associated with designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook, derived
from the final rule listing designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon (USFWS, 2005a):
1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity, water quality, and substrate
conditions that support spawning incubation and larval development.
2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and
maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water
quality, natural cover, and forage that support juvenile development
3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction, with water quantity, water
quality, and natural cover conditions that support juvenile and adult mobility and
survival
4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction, with water quantity, water quality, and salinity
conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh and
salt water, as well as natural cover and forage supporting juvenile and adult survival
and growth
5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction, with water quantity, water quality,
natural cover, and forage supporting survival and growth
6. Offshore marine areas with water-quality conditions and forage supporting survival
and growth
Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
On May 7, 2007, the National Marine Fisheries Service announced the listing of the Puget
Sound DPS of steelhead as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (NMFS
2008). The listing was published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2007 and took effect on
June 11, 2007. The geographic boundaries of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS include all the
river basins of Puget Sound, of which the Green River is a part. The listing includes all
naturally spawned winter- and summer-run steelhead populations within Puget Sound
drainages below natural and man-made impassable barriers.
Life History and Habitat Characteristics
Steelhead are an anadromous form of rainbow trout, rearing in freshwater as juveniles for
one to three years, and then outmigrating to marine waters to mature to adulthood,
eventually returning to spawn in their natal freshwater habitat. Unlike other anadromous
Section 3—Project Area Habitat
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 15
otak
salmonids, steelhead are iteroparous and can spawn multiple times, often returning to marine
waters between freshwater spawning bouts. Adult winter-run steelhead return to spawn from
mid-December until early June, and spawning generally begins in mid-February and finishes
in early June, with a peak in spawning activity from March to April.
Steelhead juveniles and adults alike require cold, clean water for development and spawning,
with low levels of sediment and adequate dissolved oxygen. Adults spawn in areas with
predominantly gravel substrate and adequate escape cover. Developing and juvenile
steelhead also require adequate escape cover, as well as refugia from flow, disturbance
events, and excessively warm water temperatures.
Population Status
The winter and summer steelhead runs within the Green River in Auburn are considered
threatened runs, based on the Salmon Stock Inventory data (SaSI, 2013) from WDFW and
declines in escapement numbers since 2006. Limiting factors related to habitat for steelhead
and all other anadromous salmonids in the mainstem Green River include fish access into
tributaries, floodplain connectivity, large woody debris, riparian habitat conditions, and
reaches with high temperatures and/or low dissolved oxygen (WSCC, 2002).
Species Occurrence In and Near the Project Vicinity
Steelhead are not present in the proposed project corridor. According to WDFW and
StreamNet maps, winter and summer steelhead are known to utilize the Green River.
Southern Resident Killer Whale (Orcinus orca)
The Eastern North Pacific southern resident killer whale population was listed as
endangered under the ESA in November 2005, as well as being listed as a depleted stock
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 2003. Critical habitat for southern resident
killer whales was designated in November 2006, and consists of much of the marine waters
associated with the Puget Sound, Straits of Juan de Fuca, and a core summer area
surrounding the San Juan Islands.
Life History and Habitat Characteristics
Southern resident killer whales are a geographically distinct community of a type of killer
whale termed a ‘resident’ form, which is a form organized around stable matrilineal pod
groups. The southern resident form resides for a good portion of the year in the inland
waters of Washington State and southern British Columbia, including the Puget Sound,
Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Strait of Georgia. The southern resident form currently consists
of three pods: J, K, and L, consisting of approximately 88 individuals.
Southern resident killer whales are almost wholly piscivorous, foraging on salmon and other
marine fish. The southern resident killer whale population may in fact be regarded as salmon
specialists, with approximately 96 percent of their diet being comprised of salmon, with
Chinook salmon making up the largest proportion of salmonid prey species.
Section 3—Project Area Habitat
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 16
otak
Within their range, southern resident killer whales utilize habitat that is strongly correlated
with salmon abundance, and characterized by generally deeper water (>5 m in depth) and
higher relief underwater topography.
Population Declines
Concerns about the population trends associated with the pods comprising the southern
resident killer whales were raised in the BiOp (2008), and included population declines that
had occurred during the mid-1990s as well as estimates that current populations are likely
depleted. Factors that are likely contributing to the killer whale decline or inhibiting their
recovery include quantity and quality of prey (primarily salmonids), accumulation of toxins in
the tissues of these apex predators, and disturbances associated with shipping and marine
vessel traffic.
Species and Designated Critical Habitat Occurrence in the Project Vicinity
The proposed project corridor is many miles from the Puget Sound and other marine waters.
No southern resident killer whales or designated critical habitat for southern resident killer
whales occur in or near the proposed project vicinity.
Habitat Narrative: Existing Land Use and Floodplain Habitat
The following information was derived from the City of draft Auburn Shoreline Master
Program update (2008), the Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance and Assessment Report for
WRIA 9 (WSCC, 2000), the Salmon Habitat Plan, the Lower Green River Baseline Habitat Survey
Report (Anchor, 2004), and site visits conducted by Otak scientists in July 2013. The
identified shoreline planning segments in the City included all of the 100 year floodplain
habitat and floodway habitat for the Green River and White River in the Auburn city limits,
and comprises more than 2,150 acres of land in the City. The portion of the Green River
that passes through the City of Auburn is considered to belong to the lower Green River
system.
Land Use and Zoning
The existing land use patterns in the City’s shoreline jurisdiction are composed primarily of
residential, commercial, industrial, parks and open space, and recreational areas. Residential
use is currently the predominant land uses, encompassing the majority of the shoreline
jurisdiction and floodplain habitat, followed by industrial and commercial uses. The parks,
open space and recreational areas are mostly found along
Floodplain Habitat, Primary Association, and Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)
Habitats of primary association for Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout are occur in
the lower Green River near the project, but are outside of the project corridor. Primary
Constituent Elements (PCEs) associated with designated critical habitat for bull trout and
Chinook salmon are associated with freshwater spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat for
Section 3—Project Area Habitat
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 17
otak
Chinook, and with migratory corridor habitat for bull trout. Some of the PCEs are not
relevant at the landscape context in which the City is located—e.g. estuarine, nearshore, and
off-shore habitats for Chinook. Bull trout are unlikely to use the mainstem Green River in
the project vicinity for rearing or foraging—the PCEs associated with bull trout designated
critical habitat are largely impaired in the Green River as it flows through Auburn. The
potential for high water temperatures, lack of aquatic habitat complexity, artificial
hydrograph, and disturbed riparian zones are all factors that would contribute to an overall
poor habitat quality for this species. It is likely that the PCE associated with the Green River
that is most relevant to bull trout is migratory corridor habitat.
Water Quality
Portions of the lower Green River watershed have water temperature problems, including
reaches of the river upstream and downstream of the project vicinity. A Total Maximum
Daily Load clean-up plan has been developed by Ecology to address these concerns. High
water temperatures are linked to three broad and non-point source anthropogenic impacts to
the river system: Riparian vegetation disturbance and loss of shade (clearing vegetation,
livestock grazing, etc); channel morphology impacts (removal of large woody debris, roads,
dikes, etc.); and changes to river hydrology (altered streamflow patterns, draining of
wetlands, extraction/return of water, low flows due to diversions, etc.). Point sources such
as wastewater treatment plant discharges or stormwater outfalls can also contribute to
temperature increases in fluvial systems. Additional water quality concerns within the reaches
of the Green River flowing through the City’s UGA center around fine sediment loading
into the river, likely as a result of forest practices and land use (roads, timber harvest) further
up in the watershed, as well as urbanization and infrastructure development within the City.
The Green River upstream and downstream of the City of Auburn is listed by the
Washington Department of Ecology as a 303(d) Category 4A water body for temperature,
and as a Category 2 water body for dissolved oxygen parameters. Previous water quality
concerns have included total suspended solids and dissolved metals, although water quality
sampling in the mid to late 1990’s did not indicate significant problems (WSCC, 2000).
Water Quantity
Water quantities in the Green River are managed by the Army Corps of Engineers at
Howard Hanson dam, in order to prevent flooding in Auburn and to augment low flows in
the dry months of July, August, September, and October—a particularly important window
of time for in-migrating adult Chinook a salmon. The Corps attempts to operate the dam to
provide for a variety of resource needs, including protection of wild winter steelhead redds
through fry emergence, adequate summer low flows for juvenile steelhead and salmon
rearing, and sufficient flows for Chinook spawning. Because these goals cannot necessarily
all be met in any given year, priority is given to managing flows for steelhead rearing and
Chinook spawning. Nonetheless, low flows have been identified as a potential limiting factor
for adult salmon migration (WSCC, 2000), and low flows in tributaries to the Green River
Section 3—Project Area Habitat
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 18
otak
that have been historically utilized by spawning salmonids also remain a concern (NHC,
2005).
Fifty percent exceedances for seven-day low flows in the Green River in Auburn range from
more than 1200 cfs in the late winter and spring, to less than 300 cfs during late summer and
early autumn months (NHC, 2005). A substantial proportion of the flow in the Green River
within the City of Auburn derives from groundwater/hyporheic inputs from the nearby
White River (WSCC, 2002).
Overall, the total impervious area for the Green River in the City of Auburn, from river mile
23.8 to 31.4, was calculated at 42% in 1998 (NHC, 2005). Hydrologic modifications have
occurred as a result of land use patterns and activities in the reach, and include removal of
vegetation through clearing and/or timber harvest as well as construction of dikes, levees,
and shoreline hardening. Stormwater runoff has increased in the basin, particularly in
tributaries to the Green River. This has resulted in larger and more frequent peak flows in
the winter, and reduced recharge of shallow aquifers that historically sustained low flows in
the summer. Implications of altered hydroperiod parameters in the lower Green River
include altered in-migration timing of returning adult salmonids, thermal stress, and reduced
habitat availability and suitability during the summer (e.g. shallower riffles, reduced pool
sizes, etc.).
Vegetation Communities and Habitat Structures
Riparian vegetation in the Green River basin has been historically cleared as a result of
various land practices, including timber extraction, agriculture, and residential or commercial
development. Riparian conditions were considered to not be properly functioning along the
lower mainstem Green River (WSCC, 2000). The majority of the forested vegetative
communities in and near the City of Auburn are comprised of younger mixed deciduous-
coniferous or deciduous-dominated habitat with forbs and/or shrubs and grass-dominated
communities comprising about half of the remaining riparian habitat. Bare ground and
pavement make up approximately one third of the riparian habitat within 300 feet of the
Green River (WSCC, 2000). Mature coniferous forest does not exist within the City. Over 80
percent of the riparian zone is currently considered to provide poor shade, organic
matter recruitment, and sediment filtration because native vegetation communities have
largely been converted to grass or shrubs and because development often extends to within
75 feet of the channel
Within the City of Auburn UGA, much of the riparian vegetation along the river’s left bank
has been cleared for development of residential parcels. Remaining habitat in the built-out
areas of the City is largely confined to a thin band of mostly herbaceous vegetation, shrubs,
and deciduous trees such as red alder (Alnus rubus) and black cottonwood (Populus
balsamifera). Non-invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and reed
canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) are common along the disturbed margins of this habitat.
Grass lawns and ornamental plant species are associated with the residential parcels that
Section 3—Project Area Habitat
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 19
otak
occur in portions of the riparian zone, and spatial and taxonomic complexity is simplified in
these impacted riparian habitats.
Other portions of the riparian habitat within the City’s UGA are substantially less impacted
by development. Looking downstream, the right bank of the Green River within Auburn is
comprised of mostly deciduous forested riparian habitat, although the Auburn Golf Course
occupies almost a mile of the river’s riparian edge. Vegetative communities associated with
the left bank riparian habitat consist of a mix of deciduous-dominated forest with a
subdominant and younger coniferous component; shrub communities; and wetland
communities. Black cottonwood, red alder, and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) tend to be
the dominant deciduous tree species, with numerous willow (Salix spp), salmonberry (Rubus
spectabilis), and red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) providing a shrub component to the
understory. Coniferous species are generally represented by Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii)
and western red cedar (Thuja plicata).
Much of the lower Green River is leveed or contains revetments along the shoreline; 80% of
the subwatershed has a levee or revetment along at least one bank in response to flooding
concerns (WRIA 9 Steering Committee, 2005). Habitat complexity is limited in these reaches
of the Green River due to the presence of levees and revetments, reduction in floodplain
connectivity, loss of off-channel habitat, and reduction in large wood and associated
instream habitat such as pool units. Pool units that are present are generally formed by
manmade structures such as rip-rap or bridge abutments.
Spawning Substrate
Within the lower Green River basin, spawning gravel occurs only in the upper third (river
mile 25 to 32) of the basin (WRIA 9 Steering Committee, 2005). Installation of levees and
other flood control features have confined the Green River, resulting in flows that have
scoured away spawning gravels in much of the lower Green River basin. The presence of the
Howard Hansen Dam in the upper portion of the Green River watershed has resulted in the
middle and lower reaches of the system, including the reach associated with the proposed
project, becoming starved of coarser sediment (WSCC, 2000). Fine sediment is not as
constrained by the dam presence, and an overall increase in the proportion of fines in the
system relative to coarser material more suitable for spawninig has reduced the availability of
suitable spawningn habitat.
Floodplain Refugia
Floodplain refugia are very limited in the lower Green River. As noted above, most of the
river is contained within levee and/or revetment systems, which removes floodplain habitat
from access by salmonids. Historically, floodplain habitat and tributaries represented an
important habitat for juvenile salmonids, providing refugia from high flows and abundant
off-channel rearing habitat. Development, alteration of tributary channel morphology, and
confinement of the mainstem Green River between levees and dikes has eliminated or
Section 3—Project Area Habitat
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 20
otak
removed much of this important habitat (WRIA 9 Steering Committee, 2005). In addition,
the historic diversion of the White River and Cedar/Black River has resulted in an overall
lowering of the Green River bed, further disconnecting off channel juvenile salmonid rearing
habitat.
Section 4—Project Descriptions
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 21
Project Description
Final Project
The project proposes to relieve street flooding as a result of the existing 30-inch
underground pipe within 30th Street having limited capacity to convey storm water to its
current Brannan Park Pump Station (BPPS) discharge point. The city proposes installing a
42-inch gravity line to replace the approximate 3800 linear feet of existing 30-inch pipe. The
proposed alignment will follow the existing 30th Street NE route to the east side of Auburn
Way North. The proposed new alignment will continue east along 30th Street NE to I-
Street. At this point it would turn southerly and intersect back into the existing pipe route.
From this point, the proposed alignment will closely follow the existing route easterly in
easements, running along the north side of the Parkside Retirement home and into Brannan
Park. To reduce construction impacts to private properties, the easterly portion of the pipe
could be located entirely within Brannan Park, north of the park’s ball fields. The project will
then connect to the upstream inlet structure of the BPPS located adjacent to the Green
River. The project would also remove the baffles currently located in the manholes
immediately upstream of the BPPS. The total project length is approximately 3,700 feet.
No loss of floodplain habitat for listed species is anticipated to occur for any proposed
project activity.
Post-construction operation of the conveyance system will not change the flow rates at the
outfall to the Green River. Under existing conditions, water is pumped from the BPPS into a
surface water conveyance/infiltration facility (swale) that discharges to the Green River.
Although the up-sized 42-inch pipe will convey more water at a faster flow rate into the
BPPS, the BPPS has enough capacity to detain the additional water and pump water into the
surface water conveyance/infiltration facility (swale) at the same rate as existing conditions.
There will be no increase in direct discharge to the Green River via the existing bypass
system. As noted above, the BPPS currently discharges into the existing swale. When the
swale system reaches maximum capacity, a bypass coveys flows directly from the swale
system into the river. The proposed improvement only increases the size of the stormwater
line leading into the pump to provide more capacity and direct more water to go into the
pump station. The capacity of the pump station is sufficient to accommodate the additional
water from the upsized stormwater line leading into it. The release rate of the pump system
into the swale, the maximum capacity of the swale, and the flow rates and frequencies of the
bypass outfall from the swale into the river will remain unchanged.
Under existing conditions, water that is pumped up to the surface water
conveyance/infiltration facility from the BPPS flows through the facility, and is treated via a
combination of infiltration and flowing through the broad, vegetated swale portion of the
facility. No alteration of flow path and water quality treatment within the
conveyance/infiltration facility will occur as a result of the project, and no changes to the
Section 4—Project Descriptions
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 22
otak
existing quality of water discharging into the Green River are anticipated due to post-
construction operation of the facility.
Construction Process
Construction will occur beginning in December 2013 and will last for approximately six
months. Construction will not involve any in-water work or any work within 100 feet of the
Green River. There will be sawcutting and pavement removal along the edges of existing
road and at other locations where necessary for stormwater conveyance pipe installation.
The majority of excavation will be along the 30th Street NE corridor, lawn areas of the
Parkside East Retirement Home, and Brannan Park. All excavated material will be hauled off
and disposed of at an approved site.
During construction, appropriate BMPs will be used to prevent sediment and waste
materials from entering downstream water bodies; these practices will include storm drain
inlet protection, culvert protection, silt fencing, wattles, planting, and street cleaning. An
erosion and sediment control lead will be on site throughout the construction window to
monitor the efficacy of these practices. A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC)
Plan will be employed to ensure that the possibility for erosion to occur is minimal or
avoided altogether.
Standard construction practices will be implemented and a full-time construction inspector
will be onsite during construction.
Protection Measures
The proposed work will not involve any in-water work or any work within 100 feet of the
Green River. Soil disturbances will only occur in the vicinity of the stormwater conveyance
pipe, and will not involve loss of or adverse impacts to existing floodplain habitat. Best
management practices (BMPs) and temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC)
measures will be deployed to avoid mobilization/export of sediment from the project site
into the Green River. No adverse impacts due to post-construction operation of the facility
are anticipated, as the project has been designed to result in no changes to the existing
quantity and quality of water discharged to the Green River.
Section 5—Impacts Assessment
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 23
Impact Assessment
Direct Effects
Direct impacts associated with the proposed project the regulatory floodplain of the City of
Auburn involve impacts to floodplain habitat associated with construction activity. Listed
species are not and will not be present within project vicinity. No direct, project-related
adverse effects to floodplain habitat or function for listed species will occur as a result of
permitted activities taking place within the floodplain. No direct effects to federally listed
species or floodplain habitat will occur as the result the proposed project.
Indirect Effects
Indirect effects are those effects resulting from the project that will occur later in time, but
are still reasonably certain to occur. Potential indirect effects to listed species occurring
outside of the project alignment would be limited to adverse impacts to water quality or
water quantity resulting in a degradation of these parameters compared to baseline
conditions. Changes to water quality ,water quantity, and/or flow regime of the Green River
are not anticipated to occur as a result of the project. No adverse habitat effects from the
proposed project are anticipated to occur to existing floodplain habitat and/or the Green
River.
The proposed activity is not anticipated to result in any degradation to water quality, or
alteration of water quantities or flow regimes to habitat within the Green River. No indirect
effects to federally listed species are anticipated to occur as the result of the proposed
project.
Effects from Interrelated or Interdependent Activities
No interrelated or interdependent activities are anticipated as a result of the proposed
project. As such, no indirect effects deriving from such activities are anticipated for the
proposed project.
Cumulative Effects
Most of the development within the City of Auburn’s regulated floodplain habitat has
already occurred, and additional permitted activities are anticipated to be limited in scale and
quantity as a consequence of previous activities and existing development. Impacts to the
developed floodplain habitat have occurred or are existing impacts under baseline
conditions, and further impacts that would adversely modify existing baseline conditions are
not anticipated as a result of permitted floodplain activities. Cumulative effects that adversely
impact federally listed species occurring within the Green River, or adversely modify
designated critical habitat for such species, are not expected to occur as a result of permitted
floodplain activities in the City of Auburn.
Section 6—Effects Determination
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 24
Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout
Use of the regulatory floodplain habitat in the City of Auburn by Coastal/Puget Sound bull
trout does not occur. No direct effects to this species will occur as a result of permitted
floodplain activities. Indirect effects resulting from the proposed project activities are not
anticipated to transfer to the in-river habitat of the Green River, and no adverse indirect
effects to existing floodplain habitat and function are anticipated to occur due to the project.
The proposed project, therefore, will have No Effect on Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout.
Designated Critical Habitat for Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout
Designated critical habitat for Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout is associated with the Green
River and does not occur within the project vicinity, and indirect effects resulting from the
proposed project activities are not anticipated to transfer to in-river habitat associated with
the designated critical habitat for bull trout. Due to a lack of project effects to the Green
River and no adverse project-related impacts to existing floodplain habitat, the proposed
project will have No Effect on designated critical habitat for Coastal/Puget Sound
bull trout.
Puget Sound Chinook
No direct effects to Puget Sound Chinook will occur as a result of the proposed activity.
Indirect effects resulting from proposed project activities are not anticipated to transfer to
in-river habitat, and adverse modifications to existing floodplain habitat and function are not
anticipated as a result of the project. The proposed project, therefore, will have No Effect
on Puget Sound Chinook.
Designated Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook
Designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook is associated with the Green River and
does not occur within the project vicinity, and indirect effects resulting from the proposed
project are not anticipated to transfer to in-river habitat associated with designated critical
habitat for Chinook. Due to a lack of project effects to the Green River and no adverse
project-related impacts to existing floodplain habitat, the proposed project will have No
Effect on designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook.
Puget Sound Steelhead
No direct effects to Puget Sound steelhead will occur as a result of the proposed activity.
Indirect effects resulting from proposed project activities are not anticipated to transfer to
in-river habitat, and adverse modifications to existing floodplain habitat and function are not
anticipated as a result of the project. Due to a lack of project effects to the Green River and
no adverse project-related impacts to existing floodplain habitat, the proposed project will
have No Effect on Puget Sound steelhead.
Section 6—Effects Determination
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 25
otak
Southern Resident Killer Whale
No habitat for southern resident killer whales occurs in or near the City of Auburn. No
direct effects to this species will occur as a result of the proposed project. No impacts to the
prey species for southern resident killer whales—most notably Chinook salmon—will occur
as a result of the proposed project occurring within the regulatory floodplain of the City of
Auburn. No indirect effects resulting from the proposed project will occur to this species.
Thus, the proposed project will have No Effect on southern resident killer whales.
Essential Fish Habitat Analysis
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires that essential
fish habitat (EFH) must be identified by NMFS for federally managed marine fish. In
addition, federal agencies must consult with NMFS on all proposed actions undertaken or
funded by the agency that may affect EFH. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council
(PFMC) has designated EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery, for federally managed
groundfish, and for coastal pelagic fisheries.
For the proposed project occurring within the City of Auburn, only species of the Pacific
salmon fishery could potentially be affected, as any potential project would occur within the
Snoqualmie River drainage, which is a freshwater system. The EFH designation for the
Pacific salmon fishery includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies
currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California,
except above the impassable barriers identified by PFMC. The Pacific salmon management
unit includes Chinook, coho, and pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbushcha).
Within the City of Auburn, EFH occurs for Puget Sound Chinook, pink salmon, and coho
salmon. All three species are known to occur in the Green River, and the river provides
rearing habitat and potential spawning habitat for these species.
The proposed project will not directly impact EFH for Pacific salmon. Indirect effects
resulting from the proposed project are not anticipated to transfer to in-river habitat, and no
changes to Green River water quality and flow regime are anticipated to occur as a result of
the project. The proposed project will not adversely affect EFH for the Pacific salmon
fishery.
Section 7—References
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 26
Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages
83-138 In W.R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid
fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
Maryland.
Emmet, R.L., S. L. Stone, S. A. Hinton, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and
abundance of fishes and invertebrates in west coast estuaries, Volume II: Species life history
summaries. ELMR Report No. 8 NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments
Division, Rockville, Maryland. 329pp.
Federal Register. 2005a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Bull Trout; Final Rule. Federal Register 70: 56212-56260.
Federal Register. 2005b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; Final Rule Federal Register 70: 52630-52678.
Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, a literature review. Eugene,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Willamette National Forest. 53 p.
Healy M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 311-394 In C.
Groot and L. Maargolis. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. University of British Columbia press,
Vancouver, BC.
Lantz, R.L. 1970. Influence of water temperature on fish survival, growth and behavior.
Pages 182-193 In: J. Morris (ed.), Proceedings of a symposium on forest land uses and the
stream environment. Oregon State Univ. Corvallis.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Making endangered species act determinations of
effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. Environmental and Technical
Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch.
NMFS. 2009. Endangered Species Act salmon listings. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northwest Regional Office, Seattle, Washington. Obtained from website:
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Index.cfm
Northwest Hydraulics Consultants, Inc. 2005. Assessment of Current Water Quantity
Conditions in the Green River Basin. Prepared for WRIA 9 Steering Committee.
Pratt, K.L. 1984. Habitat use and species interactions of juvenile cutthroat (Salmo clarki lewisi)
and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the upper Flathead River basin. M.S. thesis. University
of Idaho, Moscow.
Section 7—References
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 27
otak
Rieman, B.E.; McIntyre, J.D. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation
of bull trout. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station, Ogden, UT, In: General Technical Report INT 297-305.
SBSRF. 2005. Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan. Prepared by Snohomish
Basin Salmon Recovery Forum.
Snohomish River Basin Salmonid Recovery Technical Committee. 2002. Snohomish River
Basin Salmonid Habitat Conditions Review. Snohomish County Department of Public Works,
Surface Water Management Division. Everett, WA.
Solomon, F. and M. Boles, 2002. Snoqualmie Watershed Aquatic Habitat Conditions Report:
Summary of 1999-2001 Data. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks.
http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2002/kcr1212/PART_01.pdf.
Spence, B.C., GA Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem
approach to salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research
Services Corp., Corvallis, OR
Washington Department of Ecology. 2008. 303d listed waters in 2002/2004 Water Quality
Assessment. Obtained from website:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2002/2002-index.html
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9
(WRIA 9) Steering Committee. August 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan –Making Our Watershed
Fit for a King. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Forum.
USFWS. 2010. Bull Trout Critical Habitat webpage.
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/CriticalHabitat.html
USFWS. 2013. Threatened and endangered species list. Obtained from website:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html
WDFW. 2013. Priority habitat and species map for the project site. Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
WDFW. 2013. SalmonScape website located at:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html
WSCC. 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report—
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds. Final report. Washington State
Conservation Commission.
Section 7—References
Continued
Floodplain Habitat Assessment
City of Auburn NE 30 th Street Flooding 28
otak
Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 2003. Inland fishes of Washington. University of
Washington Press. Seattle.
Appendix A —Figures
Ê
1 inch = 300 feet
0 300 600
30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase 1 Legend
Printed On:9/27/2013
Created by City of Auburn eGIS
Information shown is for general reference
purposes only and does not necessarily
represent exact geographic or cartographic
data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes
no warranty as to its accuracy.
Channel Migration Area (CMA)
Riparian Habitat Zones (RHZ)
Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA)
Floodway
#########
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
################
########
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#####
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
######
#
#########
#
#
#
#
#
#
######
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#############
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##########
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
################
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#####
#
#
#
#
#####
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
###
###############
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#####
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
###
#######
####
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#########
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
####
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
####
####################
#
#
#
#
########
Auburn
Regional
Golf
Course
Auburn
Regional
Golf
Course
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
City of
Auburn
Brannan Park
Issac Evans Park
Green River Trail Site
North Green River Park
State Park - Auburn Narrows
Dykstra Park
I
S
t
N
E
J
o
h
n
R
e
d
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
R
d
22nd St NE
R
i
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
D
r
N
E
M
S
t
N
E
31st St NE
30th St NE
26th St NE
21st St
N
E
24th St NE
16th St NE
17th St NE
19th Dr NE
Pi
k
e
S
t
N
E
V
S
t
N
E
20th St N
E
SE 304th St
L
S
t
N
E
18th St NE
10
4
t
h
A
v
e
S
E
J
S
t
N
E
K
S
t
N
E
N
S
t
N
E
22nd Way NE
28th St NE
1 0 6th Pl S E
14th St NE
SE 304th Pl
O
St
NE
R
S
t
N
E
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
S
E
SE 300th St
SE 302nd St
Pi
k
e
P
l
N
E
SE 301st St
M D
r
NE
SE 303rd Ct
1
0
6
t
h
A
v
e
S
E
U
S
t
N
E
26
t
h
P
l
N
E
18
t
h
P
l
N
E
M Pl NE
Pike
Pl N
E
R
S
t
N
E
N St N
E
M
S
t
N
E
20th St NE
M
S
t
N
E
M S
t
NE
I
S
t
N
E
SE 304th St
21st St NE
L S
t
NE
J
S
t
NE
K
S
t
N
E
16th St NE
28th St NE
17th St NE
P
i
k
e
S
t
N
E
20th St NE 20th St NE
K
S
t
N
E
24th
S
t
N
E
K St N
E
O
S
t
N
E
Gr
e
e
n
R
i
ve
r
R
d
M
S
t
N
E
10
4t
h
A
v
e
S
E
SE
30
7
t
h
P
l
22nd St NE
SE
3
0
4t
h
W
a
y
14th St NE
File name: working_SMParea.pdf
Created/last edited by: DNE
Date last updated: 10/18/06
Map data are the property of the sources listed below.
Inaccuracies may exist, and Adolfson Associates, Inc. implies no
warranties or guarantees regarding any aspect of data depiction.
SOURCE: City of Auburn GIS, 2006; King County GIS, 2006; USGS Ortho Image, 2002
Green River 3
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS
AUBURN SMP
AUBURN / KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L:
\
E
N
V
I
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
S
\
2
0
0
6
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
2
6
0
5
3
_
A
u
b
u
r
n
S
M
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
G
I
S
\
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
_
S
M
P
r
a
r
e
a
.
m
x
d
05001,000250
Feet
Legend
Streams and Rivers
Regulated Shorelines include
the Green and White Rivers
-
Urban Conservancy
City Boundary
Parks
City of Kent
City of Auburn
Green
River 1
Green
River 2
Green
River 3
Green
River 4
White
River 1
White
River 2
White
River 3White
River 4
White
River 5
City of Kent
City of
Pacific
A
S
T
S
E
S
T
A
T
E
H
W
Y
1
6
4
STATE
H
W
Y
18
124
TH
A
V
E
S
E
AU
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
N
13
2N
D
A
V
E S
E
R
S
T
S
E
STATE HWY 516
M
S
T
S
E
MAIN ST
SE 320TH ST
SE 312TH ST
C
S
T
S
W
SE LAKE HOLM RD
H
A
R
V
E
Y
R
D
O
R
A
V
E
T
Z
R
D
S
E
HI
L
L
R
D
#
###
#
###
Natural
Shoreline Residential
City of Auburn Parcels
City of Auburn Boundary
County Boundary
Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate.
They have not been formally delineated or surveyed and are intended
for planning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation may be
needed to confirm/verify information shown on this map.
k
Shoreline Environment Designations
From WAC 173-26-211
Auburn Shoreline Master Program Update
Shoreline Environment Designations
From:Karen Walter
To:Jeff Dixon
Cc:Kim Truong
Subject:RE: 30th St NE flood alleviation project Phase I - SEP13-0029
Date:Wednesday, November 13, 2013 10:26:20 AM
Jeff,
Thank you again for sending us the Floodplain Habitat Assessment for the 30th St NE flood alleviation
project. We have reviewed this information as well as the checklist, staff report, and DNS issued for this
project and offer the following comments:
1. What is the current status of stormwater quality treatment discharge from the Brannan Park pump
station? The Assessment report offered little information about the current conditions for water quality
treatment and how it will be determined that the new expanded pipeline and increased stormwater
discharges will not further degrade water quality.
2. The environmental checklist notes that 3 conifers will be removed as a result of this project. There is
no consideration of tree removal in the Floodplain Habitat Assessment and any associated impacts to
shading and water temperature conditions in the Green River. As noted in the Assessment, there is a
TMDL for the Green River currently under development by WDOE. Protection of water temperatures in
the Green River is a key issue for returning and holding adult salmon. Additional analysis is needed and
sufficient replacement tree planting proposed as mitigation.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Karen Walter
Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division
Habitat Program
39015 172nd Ave SE
Auburn, WA 98092
253-876-3116
________________________________
From: Jeff Dixon [jdixon@auburnwa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:34 AM
To: Karen Walter
Cc: Kim Truong
Subject: 30th St NE flood alleviation project Phase I - SEP13-0029
Karen,
Thanks for the phone call and your request for the Habitat Impact Assessment Report for the City’s 30th
Street Flood Alleviation Project Phase 1.
Attached is the Habitat Impact Assessment Report for your review. The project consists of:
Proposal: The project is site preparation and replacement of approximately 3,800 lineal feet of the
existing 30-inch gravity storm line that has limited capacity with a 42-inch line for the purpose of
alleviating flooding.
Location: The western 3/5th of the project site is within the right-of-way of 30th ST NE from
approximately 1,000 feet east of B St NE, east to the east side of I ST. The eastern 2/5th of the
project is from I ST to just west of the existing Brannan Park (stormwater) Pump Station; on the west
bank of the Green River (revised storm line alignment). The project is within the southern ½ of Section
6-21-05, W.M.
As I mentioned over the phone, the Report has recently been completed and will be used for submittal
of the floodplain permit application. Based on the current proposal, the project will also require a
shoreline substantial development permit application since the east end of the project involves
replacement of underground storm line that occurs within the developed portion of Brannan Park that is
less than 200 feet from the shoreline of the Green River leading up to the city’s existing stormwater
pump station.
I understand how it is helpful to have the Habitat Impact Assessment Report available for review and
commenting on the SEPA application.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Jeff Dixon, Principal Planner
City of Auburn Planning & Development Department
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Phone: 253.804.5033
Fax: 253.804.3114
E-mail: jdixon@auburnwa.gov<mailto:jdixon@auburnwa.gov>
Website: www.auburnwa.gov<http://www.auburnwa.gov >
The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it has been addressed.
If you read this communication and are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, other than delivery to the intended
recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately
notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you.
ei,ozn, B. , M(:'1y4'.')r
December 4.2013
Karen Walter, Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader
Fisheries Division Habitat Pn}gnann
Muck|eohoot Indian Tribe
39O15172 n' Ave SE
Auburn, \&Y\A8OQ2
Re: Comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe in Response to the Notice of Application
and Determination of Non-Significance, File No. SEP1 3-0029 — City of Auburn 301h ST
Flood Alleviation Project, Phase 1
Dear Ms. Walter:
Thank you for your comment letter received by e-mail in response to the Notice of Application
and Determination 0f Non-Significance for the above-referenced project, vvhichvv8SFeceivedOn
November 13.2O13 prior tO the close Of the public comment period. The City has carefully
8V8|U8ted your comments in relation to the identification Of new probable significant 8dVenSB
impacts that COU|d result from the proposed action. The Project Engineer, MS. Kim T[V0Og' and
the City Storm Drainage Engineer, Tim CGr|avv.were each given 8 copy of your letter because
your comments relate to the technical specifications of the stormwater discharge from the
project and t0the project-related vegetation nennOva|.
The City's capital project uoDeigtaoftheebBp[ep8[8t0D8OdFep|@uenoe[tOf8p iOl8te|y
3'8O0 lineal feet 0fthe existing 30-indl gravity storm line that has limited capacity with 842-iDCh
line for the purpose Of alleviating flooding. The project iStheFep|8CeDleni0f8DeXiSdOg|iOB
conveying flows from 8 large portion of the "| Basin" Of 8ppnJXi[D@te|y 240 8CFeS as identified in
the City's Comprehensive Drainage P|8D. easterly tOthe existing /GtOrOlvv@t8h pump SiGti0O.
Generally, the project vvou|dnsp|3oetheexiedng3O-iDch|iOevVith842-inCh|iDe;vvithiOthe
western 3/5 m of the project, construction is located within the 30th ST NE right-of-way from B St
NVVtO Auburn \8/Y N and the Fep|8CBnlent line f0UOvva the 8|igDDleDt of the original line. Within
the eastern 2/5 m of the project, the [ep|8C8DleDt will fO||0vv 8 different but generally p8r@||8|
alignment easterly within easements tothe pump station, T0 minimize C0DSt[UCtiOn innp@CtS' the
88St8[D portion of the pipe COU|d be located entirely within the City's Brannan Park, north of the
ball fields within easements DO private and public property. The purpose of the project iSt0
8||8vi8t8 flooding experienced in the north central portion of the City to protect |OC8| public and
private property.
The Muckleshoot Tribe's comments are based on your review of the Floodplain Habitat Impact
GSeSSDleOt F<8pOrt' the completed Environmental Checklist Application, City Staff Evaluation of
the Checklist and the DetHrOliD8dOO of Non-Significance (DNS) and provide cOOlDl8DtS in two
subject areas. Your comments are repeated below followed by a city response.
J] lA1\1Y0U1MAGlNFD
Ms. Karen Walter
December 4, 2013
Page 2
1. What is the current status of stormwater quality treatment discharge from the Brannan
Park pump station? The Assessment report offered little information about the current
conditions for water quality treatment and how it will be determined that the new
expanded pipeline and increased stormwater discharges will not further degrade water
quality.
The City and its consultants, Brown and Caldwell, have prepared the enclosed Technical
Memorandum describing the current operation of the 30t" St NE storm line leading to the City's
Brannan Park stormwater pump station and the nature of discharge from the pump station to the
Green River and the project's effect. The conclusion of the Technical Memorandum is that the
project construction will result in an increased peak flow to the Green River only during
infrequent larger storm events, but that peak flows will not exceed the flow rate that the pump
station was originally designed and constructed to convey. The provision of a new stormwater
quality swale, being constructed by others off -site to the north, ensures the same level of water
quality treatment as the original swale.
2. The environmental checklist notes that 3 conifers will be removed as a result of this
project. There is no consideration of tree removal in the Floodplain Habitat Assessment
and any associated impacts to shading and water temperature conditions in the Green
River. As noted in the Assessment, there is a TMDL for the Green River currently under
development by WDOE. Protection of water temperatures in the Green River is a key
issue for returning and holding adult salmon. Additional analysis is needed and
sufficient replacement tree planting proposed as mitigation.
The "preliminary" construction plans for the project show seven trees of various sizes located
north of the pump station's back -up generator building (between the back up generator building
and the pump station). The closest tree is approximately 170 feet west of the near shoreline of
the Green River. Four of these trees were already removed by Puget Sound Energy Inc. (PSE)
as part of their project to relocate their underground electrical line and remove it from the path of
the King County Reddington Levee Project. The trees required to be removed by PSE for King
County's Reddington Levee Project will be mitigated by the future replanting of trees on the
banks of the Green River as part of the overall King County Levee construction plans. The
three remaining smaller trees are located within the existing utility easement and proximate to
the existing storm line. The excavation to replace the underground storm line will require
removal of these remaining three trees in order to connect to the fixed location of the pump
station. These remaining three trees consist of a 6 -inch evergreen, a 2 -inch evergreen and a 4-
inch ornamental maple tree. While the City concurs with your general concern regarding
potential for reduction of shading and water temperature impacts in the Green River, the
location of the trees approximately 170 feet west of the Green River and current height
precludes the contribution to shading and water temperature and, in turn, habitat for returning
and sustaining adult salmon. Also, based on the tree locations and reasonably expected future
mature tree height in an urban setting, these trees are not likely in the future to contribute to
shading and water temperature impacts and, in turn, habitat for returning and sustaining adult
Ms. Karen Walter
December 4, 2013
Page 3
salmon. As a result, the City does not believe additional analysis or mitigation is warranted for
removal of these three trees.
Conclusion
The City appreciates your time and comments and has considered whether or not the
comments identify that the project will result in probable and significant adverse impacts that are
not already identified. Since the City believes that the comments do not reveal new probable
and significant adverse impacts, a Final Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) continues to
be appropriate for the project. The Final DNS is attached. With issuance of the Final DNS, the
City will observe a 14 -day appeal period. If you believe the project will result in probable
significant adverse environmental impacts not already addressed, you may file an appeal along
with the appropriate fee to the City Clerk's office. An appeal hearing will then be scheduled and
held before the City Hearing Examiner. The Examiner will hear testimony and render a decision
on the appeal.
If you have any questions about the decision or the appeal process please contact Jeff Dixon,
Principal Planner, at 253- 804 -5033.
Sincerely
pM«
P°"
fy
eff Tate
Interim Planning and Development Director
JT /jd /sys
CORR13 -0501
Enclosures: Technical Memorandum 30th Street NE Flood Alleviation Project, Phase I,
Brown & Caldwell, November 20, 2013.
Final Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) SEP13 -0029
cc: Jeff Dixon, COA Principal Planner
Kim Truong, COA Project Engineer
Tim Carlaw, COA Storm Drainage Engineer
Jamie Kelly, COA Environmental Planner