2-FINAL Preliminary Design Report - Ruby Creek Lift Station
The City of Port Orchard
Ruby Creek Lift Station
Preliminary Design Report
May 2024
PREPARED BY:
Consor
Point of Contact: Erika Schuyler, PE, PMP
600 University Street, Suite #300
Seattle, WA 98101
p: 206.462.7030
e: erika.schuyler@consoreng.com
PREPARED FOR:
Public Works Department
216 Prospect Street
Port Orchard, WA 98366
Ruby Creek Lift Station
Preliminary Design Report
The City of Port Orchard
May 2024
DRAFT
Consor
600 University Street
Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98101
May 20, 2024
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Table of Contents | Page i
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ......................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
Chapter 2 Existing Site Conditions ...................................... 2-1
2.1 Site Location and Topography ................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Critical Areas ............................................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.3 Cultural Resources Considerations .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 Geotechnical Considerations ................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.5 Required Infrastructure Improvements ................................................................................................... 2-2
Chapter 3 Design Criteria .................................................... 3-1
3.1 Standards and Preferences ...................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Lift Station Capacity ................................................................................................................................. 3-2
Chapter 4 Recommended Project ........................................ 4-1
4.1 Configuration ........................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 General Site ............................................................................................................................................. 4-2
4.2.1 Ingress, Egress, and Parking ............................................................................................................. 4-2
4.2.2 Clearing and Grading ........................................................................................................................ 4-2
4.2.3 Water Service ................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.4 Electrical Service ............................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.5 Lighting ............................................................................................................................................. 4-2
4.2.6 Fencing ............................................................................................................................................. 4-2
4.3 Wet Well .................................................................................................................................................. 4-2
4.3.1 Structure ........................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.3.2 Pumps ............................................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.3.3 Backup Diesel Pump ......................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.3.4 Instrumentation ................................................................................................................................ 4-4
4.3.5 Piping................................................................................................................................................ 4-5
4.4 Vaults ....................................................................................................................................................... 4-5
4.4.1 Structures ......................................................................................................................................... 4-5
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Table of Contents | Page ii
4.4.2 Valves ............................................................................................................................................... 4-5
4.4.3 Piping................................................................................................................................................ 4-5
4.4.4 Instrumentation ................................................................................................................................ 4-6
4.5 Force Main ............................................................................................................................................... 4-6
4.6 Backup Generator .................................................................................................................................... 4-6
4.7 Instrumentation and Control ................................................................................................................... 4-6
4.7.1 Control Building ................................................................................................................................ 4-6
4.7.2 Control System ................................................................................................................................. 4-6
Chapter 5 Planning and Cost Opinions ............................... 5-1
5.1 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Permitting ................................................................................................................................................ 5-2
5.3 Schedule .................................................................................................................................................. 5-2
Tables
Table 3-1 | City Standards and Preferences .................................................................................................. 3-1
Table 3-2 | Projected Flowrates .................................................................................................................... 3-2
Table 5-1 | AACE Class 3 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost.................................................................. 5-1
Figures
Figure 2-1 | Ruby Creek Lift Station Site Location ......................................................................................... 2-2
Figure 4-1 | Ruby Creek Lift Station Site Layout ............................................................................................ 4-1
Figure 4-2 | Preliminary Pump and System Curves ....................................................................................... 4-3
Figure 4-3 | Preliminary Backup Diesel Pump and System Curves ................................................................ 4-4
Appendix
Appendix A Plans
Appendix B Basin Map
Appendix C Site Survey
Appendix D Stream Assessment Report
Appendix E Cultural Resources Considerations
Appendix F Geotechnical Study
Appendix G Sidney Gravity Sewer Exhibit
Appendix H Pump Comparison Memo
Appendix I Specifications Table of Contents
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Introduction • 1-1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
The City of Port Orchard (City) has experienced rapid growth in the past decade, a sizable portion of which
has occurred near the SW Sedgewick Road interchange. Kitsap Transit intends to ease emerging congestion
and parking demands in downtown Port Orchard and Bremerton through the construction of a park-and-
ride facility at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgewick Road, just
west of State Route 16 (SR 16). The proposed facility includes 250 parking stalls, three bus bays, a restroom
building, bus shelters, a playground, and a public trail system east of the park-and-ride.
The Ruby Creek Lift Station (RCLS) is planned to be constructed just north of the park-and-ride facility to
service the parking area’s public restroom and future commercial development on the facility. In addition
to the Kitsap Transit project, surrounding area growth is a key driver for the lift station’s construction. The
RCLS is intended to serve all of Basin 7 and the portion of Basin 7a south of Ruby Creek at full buildout (see
Appendix B for a map of the area basins). This includes diverted flows currently serviced by the Albertsons
Lift Station south of SW Sedgewick Road, which is currently operating at capacity.
1.2 Purpose
Consor North America, Inc. (Consor) was contracted by the City to provide preliminary design services for
the RCLS. This report summarizes the progress complete to-date and documents preliminary design
information for the proposed lift station, including design criteria, configuration, and preliminary plans for
the recommended project. A 30% drawing set is included as Appendix A, and a specifications table of
contents is included as Appendix H.
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Introduction • 1-2
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Existing Site Conditions • 2-1
CHAPTER 2
Existing Site Conditions
2.1 Site Location and Topography
The RCLS site is located north of the planned Kitsap Transit park-and-ride facility along Sidney Road SW,
directly across the street from 5142 Sidney Road SW. The area is undeveloped and surrounded by wetlands,
with Ruby Creek located to the north and the east of the site location. Trees line the road directly west of
the site. The site is relatively flat with ground elevations ranging from 192 feet to 194 feet above sea level.
The parcel has a slight downward slope toward its northeastern corner. Figure 2-1 shows the site location
and immediate surrounding area. A topographic survey of the area was conducted for the Kitsap Transit
park-and-ride project and provided to Consor for use for the RCLS design. The topographic survey is
included as Appendix C.
2.2 Critical Areas
A wetland and stream assessment was conducted by Confluence Environmental Company in conjunction
with the Kitsap Transit park-and-ride project and provided to Consor for use for the RCLS design. Three
wetlands were identified, all located east of the proposed RCLS site. Blackjack Creek is located
approximately 900 feet east of the site, and its associated floodplain encompasses the three wetlands
identified in the wetlands and streams report. Ruby Creek is located directly north of the proposed site,
and its associated stream buffer serves as the northernmost and easternmost constraint on the site
location. Relevant portions of the wetland and stream assessment report are included as Appendix D.
2.3 Cultural Resources Considerations
A cultural resources investigation is intended to be carried out before construction of the Kitsap Transit
park-and-ride facility. A preliminary desktop review was conducted, and it returned no previously recorded
findings of historic-age resources in or within one mile of the potentially affected area. Kitsap Transit will
conduct a reconnaissance-level survey before construction activities to determine if any belowground
cultural resources are present within the area. An attachment detailing the cultural resources study
methodology is included as Appendix E.
2.4 Geotechnical Considerations
Aspect Consulting, LLC, conducted a geotechnical engineering study in support of the Kitsap Transit park-
and-ride project and found that the project was feasible from a geotechnical perspective. The findings from
this study are being used for the RCLS project, though it should be noted that none of the test pit locations
from the geotechnical survey are particularly close in proximity to the RCLS site, with the nearest test pit
location approximately 200 feet away. An additional test should be conducted at the RCLS site to confirm
soil conditions.
The geotechnical study found that the soil in the area is primarily comprised of moderately compressible
and impermeable silt and sand. Groundwater was found in the nearest test pit to the proposed Ruby Creek
Lift Station site at a depth of 9.5 feet. The soil is described as highly moisture-sensitive, and it was noted
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Existing Site Conditions • 2-2
that reuse of native material for structural fill will require dry season construction along with careful
moisture control. The geotechnical study is included as Appendix F.
2.5 Required Infrastructure Improvements
Infrastructure improvements outside of the Ruby Creek Lift Station project scope are required to achieve
lift station functionality.
Approximately 1,700 linear feet of 15-inch diameter gravity sewer must be constructed to intercept flows
and route them to the RCLS. 1,100 linear feet of this sewer piping is required to be completed by Kitsap
Transit as part of the required frontage improvements for the park-and-ride project. An exhibit of the
gravity sewer is included as Appendix G.
A new 10-inch diameter force main must also be constructed to convey discharge flows from the RCLS to
the gravity sewer system in Pottery Avenue. The City has two projects under design to construct 4,500
linear feet of this force main. The remaining force main segment will be constructed under the RCLS project
scope and will serve to transition from the lift station discharge to the City-designed sewer main in the
road.
Figure 2-1 | Ruby Creek Lift Station Site Location
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Design Criteria • 3-1
CHAPTER 3
Design Criteria
3.1 Standards and Preferences
City standards and preferences for lift station components are primarily contained within Chapter 9 of the
City’s Engineering Standards and Specifications. Standards and preferences for key equipment and
components are included in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 | City Standards and Preferences
Component Description
Pumps Flygt N-Series pumps, capable of handling maximum projected flow with full
redundancy, plus one spare pump.
Minimum Operating Volume Sufficient to allow for a maximum of six starts per hour under peak flow
conditions, and no less than one start per hour during minimum flow conditions.
Variable Frequency Drives Allen Bradley Powerflex 753 or 755 series, with analog card.
Control System Allen Bradley CompactLogix Series PLCs.
Programming and Integration The City’s sole source vendor, Technical Systems Incorporated, will be required
to perform all integration and SCADA programming.
Backup Power
In order of preference: Cummins Diesel, Kohler with John Deere Diesel engine, or
Cat Diesel. Generator configuration includes automatic transfer switch, manual
transfer switch, and quiet package enclosure.
Piping – buried, gravity
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe and fittings meeting the requirements of ASTM
Specification D3034 for 4”-15” SDR 35 and F679 for 18”-27”. The pipe shall be
colored green for in-ground identification as sewer pipe.
Piping – wet well, vaults Centrifugally cast ductile iron conforming to AWWA C151 with thickness class
greater than or equal to Class 52. Ceramic epoxy lining for corrosion resistance.
Piping – buried, pressure
Butt-fused high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe conforming to all requirements
of ASTM D 1248, Type III, Class C, Category 5, Grade P34, with PPI rating of PE
3408. Working pressure rating of 160 psi, SDR 11.
Wet Well, Valve Vaults Precast reinforced concrete covered with a coating resistant to damage from
sewer gases. Rectangular aluminum hatches, Bilco style or approved equal.
Isolation Valves
Eccentric plug resilient seat epoxy coated gate valves with full opening ports and
synthetic rubber coated valve plugs with stainless steel seats and drip-tight
shutoff with pressure in either direction.
Check Valves Iron body; brass trimmed; swing type; balanced; external spring loaded; with a
clear opening equal to or greater than the connecting pipe.
Water Service 2” non-freeze post hydrant with approved backflow prevention assembly. 2”
water service line and meter.
Site surfacing Hot mix asphalt.
Security Locks on all hatches and doors; 6-foot high black chain link fence with top and
bottom rails; 16-foot-wide lockable access gate; site lighting.
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Design Criteria • 3-2
3.2 Lift Station Capacity
With the intended flow diversions mentioned previously, the number of existing equivalent residential units
(ERUs) planned to be serviced by the RCLS is 1,386. The City has estimated that an additional 400 ERUs may
result from a potential expansion of the Urban Growth Area and the miscellaneous future developments
that would result. To account for this growth, it was decided that the RCLS would be built to accommodate
the flows from 1,900 ERUs.
Using the City's current planning values of 2.4 people per ERU and 70 gallons per capita per day of sewer
flow, the average daily flowrate was calculated. The resulting average and maximum flows are shown in
Table 3-2.
Table 3-2 | Projected Flowrates
Pumping Capacity Avg Day Flow Peak Hour Peaking Factor Peak Hour Flow
750 gpm 222 gpm 3.27 727 gpm
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Recommended Project • 4-1
CHAPTER 4
Recommended Project
4.1 Configuration
The proposed project will include the construction of a wet well, valve vault, meter vault, and control
building, along with the clearing, grading, and paving work necessary to construct the access road and site
surface. The wet well will be located in the southeast corner of the site, with the valve vault and meter
vault located north of the wet well. To the east of the wet well a skid-mounted backup diesel pump will be
fixed on a pad. A light pole will be located on the southeast side of the site near the wet-well to aid with
visibility during maintenance work, and a pump disconnect panel will be located along the eastern fence.
At the northern end of the site a generator with a sound attenuating enclosure will be skid-mounted and
affixed to a pad. The control building will be located in the northwest corner of the site. At the west end of
the site there will be a non-freeze hydrant with a hot box for freeze protection. The hotbox will have a
weatherproof ground fault interrupter (GFI) outlet and heat tracing to prevent pipes from freezing. The
hydrant and its associated backflow assembly will be connected to a 2-inch water meter and service line to
provide washdown water to the site.
The entire facility will be surrounded by a 6-foot fence that has a 16-foot-wide sliding gate, as well as a
swing gate in the southwest corner of the facility for personnel access. The proposed layout can be seen in
Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1 | Ruby Creek Lift Station Site Layout
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Recommended Project • 4-2
4.2 General Site
4.2.1 Ingress, Egress, and Parking
To accommodate fire access, the access road will be 18 feet wide. It will run from Sidney Road SW to the
southwest corner of the lift station site and will include a parking area for service vehicles, which will also
double as an area to perform a three-point turn to exit the facility.
4.2.2 Clearing and Grading
There are several trees along Sidney Road SW directly west of the site. An additional survey will need to be
conducted to determine whether trees will need to be removed to allow construction of the RCLS access
road. The construction areas will be cleared of vegetation and organic topsoil will be removed prior to
constructing paved services and foundations.
4.2.3 Water Service
Potable water will be provided to the facility through a 2-inch diameter service connection from the water
main in Sidney Road SW. A pressure reducing valve (PRV) and reduced pressure backflow assembly (RPBA)
will be included to reduce pressures and minimize the risk of cross contamination. This potable water line
is intended to be used for all process water needs on the site, which are expected to consist primarily of
washdown activities. A hotbox with a weatherproof GFI receptacle for heat trace cable will house the
assembly.
4.2.4 Electrical Service
Preliminary design for the Ruby Creek Lift Station intends for electrical service to be provided from a Puget
Sound Energy (PSE) pole-mounted transformer. Area has been reserved to the west of the parking area for
a pad-mounted PSE transformer if that option is deemed preferable in later design stages.
4.2.5 Lighting
The control building will have LED lighting in its interior. Additionally, a 12-foot light pole with a 120-volt
LED fixture head with photocell control will be installed near the wet well to allow maintenance in low
visibility conditions. A light switch will be mounted to the pole to turn the light off if necessary.
4.2.6 Fencing
A 6-foot-high chain link fence will surround the entire lift station facility. A locking 16-foot-wide slide gate
will be located at the entrance to the site in its southwest corner, along with a swing gate for personnel
access.
4.3 Wet Well
4.3.1 Structure
The wet well will be constructed from precast concrete covered with Raven 405 protective coating or an
approved equivalent. The wet well will be 10 feet in interior diameter and 25 feet in depth to accommodate
the influent flowrates discussed in Section 3.2 and the pump cycle conditions mentioned in Section 3.1.
Hatches will be Bilco or an approved equivalent, with aluminum construction and rated for H-20 loading.
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Recommended Project • 4-3
All metal parts within the wet well are to be 316 stainless steel. A vent with integral carbon filtration will
be incorporated for odor control.
4.3.2 Pumps
The City has previously used both Vaughan chopper pumps and Flygt N-Series impeller pumps. Both pump
types have capably handled solids and ragging, so to aid in making a selection the City requested that
Consor create a memorandum comparing the two options (included as Appendix H). The City selected the
Flygt N-Series pump style as the basis of design for the RCLS. Two of these pumps will be arranged in a fully
redundant duplex configuration, designed to operate at the lift station capacity of 750 gallons per minute
(gpm) at 112 feet of total dynamic head (TDH).
A preliminary selection of the Flygt NP 3202 HT pump has been made. Motors will be 45 horsepower (hp),
explosion proof, 480-volt, three phase motors, and will be non-overloading at all points of the pump curve.
Per City standards, they will use Allen Bradley 753 or 755 Powerflex VFDs. The system curve and preliminary
pump selection are shown in Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-2 | Preliminary Pump and System Curves
The pumps will have a non-sparking base, and guide rails which aid in removal and installation during
maintenance procedures. A davit crane will be used to hoist the pumps out of the wet well. Three total
pumps will be provided, with one serving as a spare.
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Recommended Project • 4-4
4.3.3 Backup Diesel Pump
A backup diesel pump has been incorporated into the site design to account for the scenario when the
site’s backup generator is not functional during a power outage. This unit will be equipped with a solar
panel to retain battery charge, and the pump will turn on once a high level setpoint is detected by a pressure
transmitter in the wet well. The backup diesel pump will be skid-mounted and anchored to a pad directly
east of the wet well.
A preliminary selection of the Godwin CD160M Dri-Prime pump has been made. This model is equipped
with a sound-attenuating enclosure due to proximity to the Kitsap Transit park-and-ride facility. The system
curve and preliminary backup diesel pump selection are shown in Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-3 | Preliminary Backup Diesel Pump and System Curves
4.3.4 Instrumentation
The wet well level will be controlled by a primary submersible pressure transmitter, with float switches
included as backup control devices. The instrumentation will control for the following conditions:
Low-level alarm (float switch)
Low-level alarm (level transmitter)
All pumps off (level transmitter)
Lead pump on (level transmitter)
Lag pump on (level transmitter)
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Recommended Project • 4-5
High-level alarm (level transmitter)
Both pumps on/high level alarm (float switch)
Both pumps will have hand, off, and automatic operation capability, both through manual adjustment on
site and through the City’s master supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) station.
4.3.5 Piping
All piping within the wet well will be ceramic epoxy coated ductile iron pipe. 6-inch diameter lines from
both submersible pumps will convey water through the valve and meter vaults to the discharge force main,
while a 6-inch diameter suction line to the diesel pump will be installed.
4.4 Vaults
4.4.1 Structures
As with the wet well, the valve and meter vaults will be constructed from precast concrete covered with
Raven 405 protective coating or an approved equivalent to prevent corrosion from sewage gases. The valve
vault will have 14 feet by 8 feet interior dimensions, while the meter vault will have 9 feet by 5 feet interior
dimensions. Both vaults will have an interior depth of 7 feet.
Hatches will be Bilco or an approved equivalent, with aluminum construction and rated for H-20 loading.
4.4.2 Pumps
To ensure adequate drainage from the vaults, the City requested that sump pumps be incorporated into
the vault design. A 1-foot square sump will be located at the northeast corner of both vaults, with a
common 2-inch diameter PVC discharge header routed back to the wet well.
4.4.3 Valves
Two check valves will be located in the valve vault, one for each pump discharge. Both check valves will be
iron bodied and brass trimmed swing check valves, with externally spring-loaded levers and extra heavy
duty stainless steel shafts and keys.
A total of four eccentric plug valves will be located in the valve and meter vaults. One will be placed
downstream of the check valve on each submersible pump discharge line to allow for check valve
maintenance during lift station operation. Additionally, a plug valve will be placed on the discharge line
from the backup diesel pump, and another plug valve will be placed downstream of the flow meter in the
meter vault to allow for isolation of the flow meter from the downstream force main.
All check and plug valves are to be 6 inches in diameter.
4.4.4 Piping
All piping through the valve vault and meter vault is to match the piping within the wet well with ceramic
epoxy lined ductile iron construction. Romac Alpha couplings are to connect pipe spools between the wet
well and valve vault, as well as between the valve vault and meter vault. This is to accommodate any
differential settlement between the three concrete structures.
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Recommended Project • 4-6
At the discharge of the meter vault the line size will expand from 6 inches to 10 inches in diameter, and an
adapter will transition the pipe material from ductile iron to HDPE for the duration of the force main.
4.4.5 Instrumentation
Pressure gauges and transmitters are to be located directly downstream of the two check valves in the
valve vault. The assembly will consist of an analog gauge, a 4-20 mA pressure transmitter, and a ball valve
saddle tapped to the ductile iron pipe. Another pressure gauge and transmitter assembly will be located
directly upstream of the flow meter in the meter vault in similar fashion.
A 6-inch diameter electromagnetic flow meter will be installed in the meter vault to measure discharge
flow. The display will show current flow rate as well as total gallons pumped in gpm. Flow rate and total
flow values will be transmitted to the City’s master SCADA station for display.
4.5 Force Main
The force main beginning at the discharge of the meter vault will be 10-inch diameter, SDR 11 HDPE pipe.
The portion of the force main in this project scope will travel approximately 150 feet west from the meter
vault where it will connect to the rest of the force main beginning in Sidney Road SW, which will be designed
and constructed in another project. The combined force main will be approximately 4,800 feet in length
and will convey lift station effluent north to eventually connect to the gravity sewer system in Pottery
Avenue.
4.6 Backup Generator
Standby power will be provided by a self-contained backup diesel generator on the north side of the lift
station site. The generator will be sized to operate both 45 hp pumps simultaneously and will have a
subbase fuel tank with 38 hours of fuel at full load. The generator will include an automatic transfer switch
and a sound-attenuating enclosure. Additionally, a manual transfer switch will be installed in the feed line
between the generator and the automatic transfer switch so that a portable generator can be connected
should the onsite generator fail.
4.7 Instrumentation and Control
4.7.1 Control Building
The control building will be located in the northwest corner of the RCLS site and will house the control
station cabinet and the main electrical equipment for the facility. The building has an approximate footprint
of 11 feet by 17 feet, with a continuous 18-inch-wide footing about its perimeter serving as its foundation.
The building will have a peaked roof and CMU walls, with a double door on its south side. The interior will
have LED lighting and at least one 120-volt, 20-amp GFI outlet.
4.7.2 Control System
The RCLS will be connected to the City’s sewer SCADA system, with one spare modem provided in addition
to the one installed. An alarm system will be provided, with alarms or signals for the following conditions:
High-level (float switch)
High-level (level transmitter)
Low-level (level transmitter)
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Recommended Project • 4-7
Low-level (float switch)
Utility power failure
Phase loss
Pump faults
Pump status (hand/off/automatic operation)
Pump amperage
VFD faults
Total and monthly pump hours
Total and monthly pump starts
Generator internal fuel tank leak
Generator low fuel
Generator running
Generator warning
Generator failure
ATS in utility, emergency
Loss of communication with master SCADA station
Control panel, wet well, valve vault, and meter vault intrusion
Flowrate
Flow total
All alarms will be displayed locally on the control panel and will be transmitted to the City’s master SCADA
station.
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Recommended Project • 4-8
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Planning and Cost Opinions • 5-1
CHAPTER 5
Planning and Cost Opinions
5.1 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
The opinion of probable construction cost (OPCC) was developed based on current market conditions and
quotes from equipment and material suppliers. The OPCC is based on similar work in the area and on a 30-
percent project maturity level, equating to a Class 3 cost opinion, as defined by the Association for the
Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International. This level of cost opinion is considered to fall within
an accuracy range of -20 percent to +30 percent of the actual construction cost. This OPCC is summarized
in Table 5-1.
The OPCC represents opinions of cost only, acknowledging that final costs will vary depending on actual
labor and market costs, site conditions, market conditions for construction, regulatory factors, final project
scope, project schedule, and other factors outside the project team control.
Table 5-1 | AACE Class 3 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Item Description Qty Unit Unit Cost Total
1 Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS $130,000 $130,000
2 Traffic Control 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
3 TESC 1 LS $13,000 $13,000
4 Dewatering 1 LS $63,000 $63,000
5 Sheeting, Shoring, and Bracing 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
6 Wet Well 1 EA $169,000 $169,000
7 Valve and Meter Vaults 1 LS $62,000 $62,000
8 Control Building 1 LS $78,000 $78,000
9 Equipment Slabs 1 LS $18,000 $18,000
10 Pumps 3 EA $58,000 $174,000
11 Backup Diesel Pump 1 EA $112,000 $112,000
12 Valves and Piping – Wet Well and Vaults 1 LS $70,000 $70,000
13 Yard Piping 1 LS $17,000 $17,000
14 Generator w/Sound Attenuating Enclosure 1 EA $65,000 $65,000
15 Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls 1 LS $380,000 $380,000
16 Fencing 225 LF $40 $9,000
17 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
18 Site Restoration 1 LS $22,000 $22,000
19 Force Main Sewer 150 LF $350 $52,500
Subtotal $1,479,500
Engineering, Construction Management, and
Administrative Costs 40% $591,800
Contingency 30% $443,850
Sales Tax 9.3% $137,594
Total Project Cost $2,653,000
AACE Class 5 OPCC Upper Limit +30% $3,449,000
AACE Class 5 OPCC Lower Limit -20% $2,122,000
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • May 2024 • Ruby Creek Lift Station • City of Port Orchard
Planning and Cost Opinions • 5-2
5.2 Permitting
A number of permits will need to be acquired prior to lift station construction:
SEPA Environmental Review – Per the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), this project will have
to undergo a review process to analyze potential environmental impacts.
Major Development Permit – The RCLS site will have over 5,000 square feet of impermeable
surfaces, which triggers this permit requirement.
Commercial Building Permits – The control building requires a building permit. Additionally, the
site fence will require a permit should its height be raised above the currently planned 6 feet.
Land Disturbing Activity Permit – There are several trees which may need to be removed in order
to construct the site’s access road. If these trees are 18 inches or great in diameter at breast height
this will require a permit.
Right-of-Way Permit – Required work within Sidney Road SW will require a right-of-way permit.
5.3 Schedule
A preliminary schedule for this project is outlined below:
February 2024 – Final design completion and advertisement for construction
April 2024 – Contractor Notice to Proceed
June 2025 – Major submittals complete
April 2026 – Long lead items received
April-May 2025 – Clearing and grading
June 2025 – Structures installed
June-July – Mechanical and electrical components installed
July 2025 – Lift station startup, testing, and commissioning
August 2025 – Construction complete
APPENDIX A
PLANS
W
FH
PP
PP
PP
N2°26'13"E 662.23'192
193
192
195
194
1
9
2 1901881861841
8
2
1
9
2
1
9
4
196SIDNEY ROAD SW12" CPE
IE=189.43'
12" CPE
IE=189.43'
12" CMP
IE=193.70'
12" CMP (BURRIED)
IE=193.08'WWWWWWWWWW
15"SS15"SS
15"SS15"SS15"SS15"SS10"HDPE
10"HDPE
30% SUBMITTAL PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Drawing Path and Name: H:\EVT_Projects\22\3450 - 2022 Wastewater On-Call\WO3 - Ruby Creek\12 CADD\12-5 Sheets\N223450WA_C-101.dwg, Plotted Date: May 1, 2024 7:48 AM By: Jared Cloud
1 2 3 4 5 6
A
B
C
D
7
Engineer's Seal:
This document, ideas, and designs incorporated herein, are an instrument
of professional service, and is not to be used, in whole or in part, for any
other project without the written authorization of CONSOR.
Consultant:Client / Owner:Project Title:
Drawing No.:
0 11/2 IF BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1"
DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE
Drawing Title:Designed By:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Approved By:
Consor Project No.:
Issued On:
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
RUBY CREEK LIFT STATION
CIVIL
SITE AND YARD PIPING
PLAN - 1
DSN
CAD
CHK
APP
C-101
FEBRUARY 2024
N223450WA
PLAN
SCALE: 1"=20'
APPROXIMATE 150'
STREAM BUFFER
APPROXIMATE 165'
STREAM BUFFER
PROPOSED
FORCE MAIN
APPROXIMATE
WATER LINE
LOCATION
FUTURE SANITARY
SEWER (BY OTHERS)
FUTURE KITSAP
TRANSIT
BUILDING PAD 2
RPBA
CONTROL
BUILDING
GENSET
LIGHT POLE
10' DIA WET WELL
DIESEL PUMP
VALVE VAULT
METER VAULT
2" WATER METER,
BACKFLOW
ASSEMBLY, NON
FREEZE
HYDRANT
16' WIDE
SLIDE GATE
ACCESS ROAD
AND PARKING
AREA
84'-3 14"18'20'35'
65'
55'50'PUMP DISCONNECT PANEL
A
D-301
14'-0"
11'-0"3'-0"2'-0"4'-6"1'-6"1'-0"5'-0"1'-0"8'-0"6"6'-0"2'-6"
9'-0"1'-6"3'-0"6"5'-0"4'-0"4'-0"
SUBMERSIBLE SOLIDS
HANDLING PUMP
10"-HDPE TO FORCE MAIN
DUCTILE IRON PIPE EXITING METER VAULT
TO TRANSITION TO HDPE FORCE MAIN.
MJxFLG COUPLER TO FLGxHDPE COUPLER18" MIN
6" FLOW METER
6" RFCA, TYP
6" ECCENTRIC
PLUG VALVE, TYP
6" ROMAC ALPHA
COUPLING, TYP
6"-DI
2"-PVC
6" SWING CHECK VALVE,
SPRING AND LEVER, TYP
DROP BOWL ASSEMBLY
15" INFLUENT
GRAVITY SEWER
4'x7' ACCESS HATCH
13'-0"6'-0"2'-0"5'-0"
6"-DI
6"-DI6"-DI4'-8"2'-9"DIESEL PUMP AND PUMP PAD
6"-DI
10"x6" RDCR
10"-DI
10' WET WELL
INTERIOR DIAMETER
6'x4'DOUBLE LEAF
ACCESS HATCH
10'x6' TRIPLE LEAF
ACCESS HATCH
1'-0", TYP
1'-0"6"VENT PIPE 2"-PVC
2"-PVC
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
RUBY CREEK LIFT STATION
PROCESS
LIFT STATION PLAN
DSN
JLC
CHK
APP
D-101
MAY 2024
N223450WA
30% SUBMITTAL PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Drawing Path and Name: H:\EVT_Projects\22\3450 - 2022 Wastewater On-Call\WO3 - Ruby Creek\12 CADD\12-5 Sheets\N223450WA_D-101.dwg, Plotted Date: May 16, 2024 10:50 AM By: Derek Cloud
1 2 3 4 5 6
A
B
C
D
7
Engineer's Seal:
This document, ideas, and designs incorporated herein, are an instrument
of professional service, and is not to be used, in whole or in part, for any
other project without the written authorization of CONSOR.
Consultant:Client / Owner:Project Title:
Drawing No.:
0 11/2 IF BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1"
DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE
Drawing Title:Designed By:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Approved By:
Consor Project No.:
Issued On:
PLAN
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
SUBMERSIBLE SOLIDS
HANDLING PUMP
10"-HDPE TO FORCE MAIN
EL = 188.20'
DUCTILE IRON PIPE EXITING METER VAULT
TO TRANSITION TO HDPE FORCE MAIN.
MJxFLG COUPLER TO FLGxHDPE COUPLER
6" FLOW METER
6" RFCA, TYP
6" ECCENTRIC
PLUG VALVE, TYP
SADDLE TAPPED PRESSURE
TRANSMITTER ASSEMBLY, TYP
6" ROMAC ALPHA
COUPLING, TYP
6"-DI
6" SWING CHECK VALVE,
SPRING AND LEVER
6"-DI4"x6" ECC RDCR
6"-DI
6"-DI FROM EMERGENCY
DIESEL PUMP
2"-PVC SUMP PUMP
DISCHARGE HEADER
WET WELL FLOOR EL = 167.7'
ALL PUMPS OFF EL = 171.7'
LEAD PUMP ON EL = 175.0'
LEVEL TRANSMITTER HIGH LEVEL ALARM, LAG PUMP ON EL = 176.1'
15" SS INLET INV EL = 176.6'
WET WELL RIM EL = 193.2'
BOT EL = 185.75'BOT EL = 185.75'
CL
10"x6" RDCR
10"-DI
2'-4"
LEVEL TRASNMITTER LOW LEVEL EL = 171.0'
FLOAT LOW LEVEL EL = 170.5'
FLOAT HIGH LEVEL ALARM EL = 176.4'
LAG PUMP ON EL = 176.0'
FIN GR EL = 192.7'
VENT PIPE W/
CARBON FILTER
2"-PVC SUMP PUMP
DISCHARGE HEADER
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
RUBY CREEK LIFT STATION
PROCESS
LIFT STATION SECTION
DSN
JLC
CHK
APP
D-301
MAY 2024
N223450WA
30% SUBMITTAL PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Drawing Path and Name: H:\EVT_Projects\22\3450 - 2022 Wastewater On-Call\WO3 - Ruby Creek\12 CADD\12-5 Sheets\N223450WA_D-301.dwg, Plotted Date: May 16, 2024 10:50 AM By: Derek Cloud
1 2 3 4 5 6
A
B
C
D
7
Engineer's Seal:
This document, ideas, and designs incorporated herein, are an instrument
of professional service, and is not to be used, in whole or in part, for any
other project without the written authorization of CONSOR.
Consultant:Client / Owner:Project Title:
Drawing No.:
0 11/2 IF BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1"
DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE
Drawing Title:Designed By:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Approved By:
Consor Project No.:
Issued On:
A
D-101
SECTION
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
NOTE: NOT ALL SYMBOLS OR ABBREVIATIONS USED.
1.ALL MATERIALS AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE NEW AND LISTED BY THE
UNDERWRITERS' LABORATORY INC. (UL). ALL ELECTRICAL WORK SHALL BE INSTALLED IN A SAFE AND FUNCTIONAL MANNER.
2.REFER TO THE ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT SCHEDULE FOR CIRCUIT IDENTIFICATIONS, ROUTING, CONDUCTOR SIZES, ETC.
3.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH OTHER DISCIPLINES AS REQUIRED TO MITIGATE INTERFERENCES.
4.CONDUIT MATERIAL SHOWN ON ELECTRICAL PLANS ARE SPECIFIC FOR THE LOCATION WHERE THE CONDUIT STARTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
TRANSITIONING TO APPROVED CONDUIT MATERIAL BASED ON LOCATION AND IN ACCORDANCE TO ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS.
GENERAL NOTES:
ABBREVIATIONS
a
A
AC
A/D
AF
AIC
ALT
A/M
ANN
AS
ASD
AT
ATS
AUTO
AWG
b
BCG
C
CAP
CB
CC
CHH
CL
CKT
CMH
CO
COMM
CON
COND
CONT
CPT
CP
CR
CS
CT
CWP
DC
DIAG
DISC
DISTR
DP
DPDT
DPST
EXST
EF
EHH
ELEM
EMERG
EFFL
EQ
EQUIP
ETM
FACP
FIN FL
FLEX
FLUOR
FO
FREQ
FU
FUT
FVNR
FVR
FWD
GA
GEN
GFI
GRS
H₂O₂
HMI
HOA
HOR
HORZ
HPS
HTR
HV
HZ
IND LT
INCAND
I/O
JB
KA
KCMIL
KV
KVA
KVAR
KVARH
KW
KWH
LCP
LP
LPS
LTG
LT(S)
(M)
Ma
MCC
MCP
MOV
MS
MTD
MTG
MTS
(N)
NEC
NEMA
NEUT
NO
NTS
OVHD
OL
OT
PB
PD
PE
PEC
PF
pH
PH
PLC
PM
PNL
PNLBD
PRI
PS
PSI
PWR
(RL)
(RLD)
RCPT
RCT
RPM
RT
SCR
SD
SDBC
SEC
SECT
SF
SHH
SIG
SN
SPEC
SPD
SPDT
SS
SW
SWBD
SWGR
SYNC
TB
TC
TEMP
TP
TSP
TVSS
UH
UV
V
VA
VFD
VAR
VERT
VH
VS
W
WHM
WHDM
WP
WTRT
WTP
CIRCUIT BREAKER AUX.
CONTACT, CLOSED WHEN
BREAKER IS CLOSED
AMMETER, AMPERES
ALTERNATING CURRENT
ANALOG TO DIGITAL
AMPERE FRAME
AMPERES INTERRUPTING
CAPACITY
ALTERNATOR
AUTO/MANUAL
CONTROLLER
ANNUNCIATOR
AMMETER SWITCH
ADJUSTABLE SPEED DRIVE
AMPERE TRIP
AUTOMATIC TRANSFER
SWITCH
AUTOMATIC
AMERICAN WIRE GAGE
CIRCUIT BREAKER AUX.
CONTACT, CLOSED WHEN
BREAKER IS OPEN
BARE COPPER GROUND
CONDUIT, CONTACTOR
CAPACITOR
CIRCUIT BREAKER
CONTROL CABLE, CLOSING
COIL
COMMUNICATION
HANDHOLE
CHLORINE
CIRCUIT
COMMUNICATION MANHOLE
CONDUIT ONLY
COMMUNICATION
CONTACTOR
CONDUCTOR
CONTINUED,
CONTINUATION
CONTROL POWER
TRANSFORMER
CONTROL PANEL
CONTROL RELAY
CONTROL SWITCH
CURRENT TRANSFORMER
COLD WATER PIPE
DIRECT CURRENT
DIAGRAM
DISCONNECT
DISTRIBUTION
DISTRIBUTION PANEL
DOUBLE POLE, DOUBLE
THROW
DOUBLE POLE, SINGLE
THROW
EXISTING
EXHAUST FAN
ELECTRICAL HANDHOLE
ELEMENTARY
EMERGENCY
EFFLUENT
EQUAL
EQUIPMENT
ELAPSED TIME METER
FIRE ALARM CONTROL
PANEL
FINISHED FLOOR
FLEXIBLE
FLUORESCENT
FIBER OPTIC
FREQUENCY
FUSE
FUTURE
FULL VOLTAGE, NON
REVERSING
FULL VOLTAGE, REVERSING
FORWARD
GAUGE
GENERATOR
GROUND FAULT
INTERRUPTER
GALVANIZED RIGID STEEL
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
HUMAN MACHINE
INTERFACE
HAND-OFF-AUTOMATIC
HAND-OFF-REMOTE
HORIZONTAL
HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM
HEATER
HIGH VOLTAGE
HERTZ (CYCLES PER
SECOND)
INDICATING LIGHT
INCANDESCENT
INPUT/OUTPUT
JUNCTION BOX
KILOAMPERES
THOUSANDS OF CIRCULAR
MILS
KILOVOLTS
KILOVOLT AMPERES
KILOVOLT AMPERES
REACTIVE
KILOVOLT AMPERES
REACTIVE HOURS
KILOWATTS
KILOWATT HOURS
LIGHTING CONTROL PANEL
LIGHTING PANEL
LOW PRESSURE SODIUM
LIGHTING
LIGHT(S)
MODIFIED
MILLIAMPERES
MOTOR CONTROL CENTER
MOTOR CIRCUIT
PROTECTOR
MOTOR OPERATED VALVE
MOTOR STARTER
MOUNTED
MOUNTING
MANUAL TRANSFER
SWITCH
NEW
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL
CODE
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL
MANUFACTURER'S ASSOC.
NEUTRAL
NORMALLY OPEN, NUMBER
NOT TO SCALE
OVERHEAD
THERMAL OVERLOAD
RELAY
OVER TEMPERATURE
PULLBOX, PUSHBUTTON
POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT
PHOTOELECTRIC
PHOTOELECTRIC CELL
POWER FACTOR
MEASURE OF ACIDITY OR
ALKALINITY
PHASE
PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC
CONTROLLER
POWER MONITOR
PANEL
PANELBOARD
PRIMARY
PRESSURE SWITCH
POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
POWER
RELOCATE
RELOCATED
RECEPTACLE
REPEAT CYCLE TIMER
REVOLUTIONS PER MINUTE
RESET TIMER
SILICON CONTROLLED
RECTIFIER
SMOKE DETECTOR
SOFT-DRAWN BARE
COPPER
SECONDS, SECONDARY
SECTION
SUPPLY FAN
SIGNAL HANDHOLE
SIGNAL
SOLID NEUTRAL
SPECIFICATIONS
SURGE PROTECTIVE
DEVICE
SINGLE POLE, DOUBLE
THROW
STAINLESS STEEL, SOLID
STATE SWITCH
SWITCHBOARD
SWITCHGEAR
SYNCHRONIZING TERMINAL
BOX, TERMINAL BOARD
TELEPHONE CABINET
TEMPERATURE
TWISTED PAIR UNSHIELDED
TWISTED SHIELDED PAIR
TRANSIENT VOLTAGE
SURGE SUPPRESSOR
UNIT HEATER
ULTRA VIOLET
VOLTS
VOLT-AMPERES
VARIABLE FREQUENCY
DRIVE
VOLT AMPERES REACTIVE
VERTICAL
VAR-HOUR
VOLTMETER SWITCH
WIRE, WATTS
WATTHOUR METER
WATTHOUR DEMAND
METER
WEATHERPROOF
WATERTIGHT
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ELECTRICAL PLAN SYMBOLS CONTROL DIAGRAM SYMBOLS
GENERAL SYMBOLS
GROUNDING PLAN SYMBOLS
LIGHTING PLAN SYMBOLS
PANEL WIRING
SHIELD WIRING
FIELD WIRING
TWISTED SHIELDED PAIR
TWISTED SHIELDED TRIAD
SHIELD WIRING
NON-CONNECTING LINES
CONNECTING LINES
THERMAL MAGNETIC CIRCUIT BREAKER
MAGNETIC ONLY CIRCUIT BREAKER (MOTOR
CIRCUITS ONLY) CONTINUOUS CURRENT RATING
AND TRIP SETTINGS SHOWN
FUSE, SIZE SHOWN
5A
30AC
150AT
CONTROL PANEL TERMINAL BLOCK
FUSED TERMINAL BLOCK
FUSE SIZE SHOWN
COMPONENT TERMINAL BLOCK
XXX
XXA
HORN
-+
RECEPTACLE
BATTERY
HEATER
IP CAMERA (PTZ OR OTHER)
120V CONTROL RELAY, DPDT MINIMUM
24VDC CONTROL RELAY, DPDT MINIMUM
RELAY CONTACT - NO, NC
PUSHBUTTON OR
SWITCH CONTACT BLOCK - NO, NC
PUSH-TO-TEST LED PILOT LIGHT
HAND
OFF
AUTO
THREE POSITION SELECTOR SWITCH
FLOAT SWITCH - NO, NC
TEMPERATURE SWITCH - NO, NC
LIMIT SWITCH - NO, NC
TIME DELAY CONTACTS,
NORMALLY OPEN TIMED CLOSED
NORMALLY CLOSED TIMED OPEN
PHASE MONITOR RELAY
ALTERNATOR RELAY
TIME DELAY RELAY TDR
1
PMR
ALT
CR5
CR5
FLOW SWITCH - NO, NC
PRESSURE SWITCH - NO, NC
INDICATOR LIGHT
W - WHITE A - AMBER
R - RED G - GREEN
TWO POSITION SELECTOR SWITCH
GROUND ROD
GROUND TEST WELL
GROUND CONNECTION TO EQUIPMENT
DETAIL CALLOUT SHOWN ON PLAN DWG.
BELOW GRADE #4/0 AWG BARE COPPER FOR
MAIN PLANT GROUND
ABOVE GRADE #2/0 AWG INSULATED
GROUND TAP
GROUND CONNECTION, DETAIL CALLOUT
SHOWN ON PLAN DWG.
BELOW GRADE #2/0 AWG INSULATED
COPPER FOR GROUND TAP.
GROUND CONNECTION TO REBAR, DETAIL
CALLOUT SHOWN ON PLAN DWG.
SURFACE MOUNTED LED LUMINAIRE *
RECESSED MOUNTED LED LUMINAIRE *
WALL MOUNTED LED LUMINAIRE
DUPLEX, QUADPLEX RECEPTACLE, W/DESIGNATOR
GFI = GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTING
WP = WEATHERPROOF
+48 = HEIGHT AFF.
3
WALL SWITCH STANDARD TOGGLE, DESIGNATOR
3 = 3-WAY
D = DIMMER
T = TIMER
GFI
KEY NOTES TO FOLLOW THIS FORMAT.
DOUBLE SPACE FOR SUBSEQUENT NOTES.
KEY NOTES:
1
2
METERBASE W/UTILITY METERM
DISCONNECT RECEPTACLE AND PLUG
MOTOR CONNECTION, HORSEPOWER
INDICATEDHP
DISCONNECT SWITCH, AMPERAGE
RATING SHOWN
J
30A
FUSED DISCONNECT SWITCH, SWITCH AND FUSE
RATING SHOWN
60/40 = 60A SWITCH WITH 40A FUSE
F
JUNCTION BOX
20A
60/40
WIFI ACCESS POINT
TRANSFORMERT
THERMOSTATT
VAULTV
SPD SURGE PROTECTIVE DEVICE
PMR PHASE MONITOR RELAY
SINGLE POINT GROUND
EOL - END OF LINE RESISTOR
POWER POLE
WITH GUY WIRE
CONDUIT SEAL
CONDUIT UP
CONDUIT DOWN
CONDUIT UP FROM UNDERGROUND
RACEWAY
FLEXIBLE CONDUIT OR MFR
CONDUIT
SURFACE RACEWAY
UNDERGROUND RACEWAY
CONDUIT STUB
XXX HOME RUN, ELECTRICAL PANEL
DESTINATION SHOWN
CURRENT TRANSFORMER
EXIT SIGN - WALL MOUNTED
EXIT SIGN - 2 SIDED CEILING MOUNTED
PHOTOCELLPC
MOTION SENSORM
BATTERY BACKED WALL MOUNTED LED LUMINAIRE
LINE OR LOAD REACTOR, IMPEDENCE SHOWN
FLOOD LIGHT
LINE OR LOAD REACTOR, IMPEDENCE SHOWN
CURRENT TRANSFORMER
MOTOR STARTER, SIZE SHOWN
GROUND CONNECTION PER NEC ARTICLE 250
2
AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH
GROUND ROD
GROUND ROD TEST WELL
ETM ELAPSED TIME METER
CNT COUNTER
SPD SURGE PROTECTIVE DEVICE
DOUBLE THROW SWITCH
VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE
MULTIPLE ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS, SEPARATE
CONDUITS
MULTIPLE ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS, COMMON
CONDUIT (SIZE SHOWN)
1"C
CIRCUIT IDENTIFIERS:
BILL OF MATERIAL ITEM NUMBER1
SPECIAL EQUIPMENT CONNECTION AS
SHOWN
30% SUBMITTAL PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Drawing Path and Name: P:\Projects\23.48.01_Consor_Port_Orchard_Ruby_Creek_LS\DWG\N223450WA_E-1.dwg, Plotted Date: May 8, 2024 8:30 AM By: Avetis A. Berberyan
1 2 3 4 5 6
A
B
C
D
7
Engineer's Seal:
This document, ideas, and designs incorporated herein, are an instrument
of professional service, and is not to be used, in whole or in part, for any
other project without the written authorization of CONSOR.
Consultant:Client / Owner:Project Title:
Drawing No.:
0 11/2 IF BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1"
DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE
Drawing Title:Designed By:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Approved By:
Consor Project No.:
Issued On:
OR CCB #196597 WA #INDUSSI880K9
Industrial
Systems INC
(360) 952-8958
Vancouver, Washington 98682
Fax:
Phone:
12119 NE 99th Street
e-mail: is@industrialsystems-inc.com
Suite #2090
(360) 718-7267
AK #1018436
PROJECT#:23.48.01
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
RUBY CREEK LIFT STATION
ELECTRICAL
LEGEND, SYMBOLS AND
ABBREVIATIONS
MEW
AAB
TBC
MEW
E-1
MAY 2024
N223450WA
30% SUBMITTAL PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Drawing Path and Name: P:\Projects\23.48.01_Consor_Port_Orchard_Ruby_Creek_LS\DWG\N223450WA_E-2.dwg, Plotted Date: May 8, 2024 8:30 AM By: Avetis A. Berberyan
1 2 3 4 5 6
A
B
C
D
7
Engineer's Seal:
This document, ideas, and designs incorporated herein, are an instrument
of professional service, and is not to be used, in whole or in part, for any
other project without the written authorization of CONSOR.
Consultant:Client / Owner:Project Title:
Drawing No.:
0 11/2 IF BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1"
DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE
Drawing Title:Designed By:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Approved By:
Consor Project No.:
Issued On:
OR CCB #196597 WA #INDUSSI880K9
Industrial
Systems INC
(360) 952-8958
Vancouver, Washington 98682
Fax:
Phone:
12119 NE 99th Street
e-mail: is@industrialsystems-inc.com
Suite #2090
(360) 718-7267
AK #1018436
PROJECT#:23.48.01
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
RUBY CREEK LIFT STATION
ELECTRICAL
ONE-LINE DIAGRAM
MEW
AAB
TBC
MEW
E-2
MAY 2024
N223450WA
KEY NOTES
PROVIDE WARNING SIGN READING "UTILITY SERVICE
DISCONNECT DOES NOT DISCONNECT GENERATOR".
REMOVE NEUTRAL/ GROUND BOND FORM GENSET. SYSTEM IS
SOLIDLY GROUNDED THROUGH ATS AND IS NOT A
SEPARATELY DERIVED SYSTEM.
SPD TO BE PROVIDED AS PART OF PANELBOARD. CIRCUIT
BREAKER TO BE SIZED BY MFR.
SIZE CIRCUIT BREAKER AND FAST ACTING FUSES PER MFR.
RECOMMENDATIONS.
VFD'S SHALL BE IGBT BASED ACTIVE FRONT END FOR IEEE 519
COMPLIANCE.
MTS SHALL BE HEAVY DUTY DOUBLE THROW SAFETY SWITCH.
*LABEL MTS UP POSITION AS "ONSITE GENERATOR",
*MIDDLE POSITION AS "OFF",
*DOWN POSITION AS "PORTABLE GENERATOR".
MTS DOCKING STATION SHALL INCLUDE 400 AMP SERIES E
CAM-LOK CONNECTORS FOR PORTABLE GENERATOR
CONNECTION.
1METER
BASE
UTILITY XFMR
480Y/277V
3 ɸ , 4W,
Z% = XXX
AVAILABLE FAULT CURRENT = XXXX
480VAC PANELBOARD
C.T.
ENCLOSURE
NEMA-3R, 480Y/277V, 225A, 3 ɸ , 4W, 42KAIC
15KVA, 1 ɸ
240-480V/
120-240V
XFMR
SPD
M
PUD PRIMARY
ATS
225A
3-POLE
125KW DIESEL GENSET
AWG #2/0 BARE
COPPER
400AF
225AT
NE
L
GROUND RODS
10'-0" MIN.
SPACING
3/4"x10'
GROUND
RODS
NG
WATER PIPE REBAR
40A
2P
100A
3P
PUMP DISCONNECT
PANEL
60
PUMP
No.1
PUMP PLUG & RECEPTACLES
MFR.
PUMP
CABLES
100A
3P
60
PUMP
No.2
G
MAIN
BREAKER
MTS
2
6
S/N
3
PORTABLE DOCKING STATION
LIGHTING
PANEL
240/120
4
5
ASD
AFE
4
5
ASD
AFE
2
3
4
5
6
7
GENERAL NOTES
1.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE NEW SERVICE
REQUIREMENTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH PUGET SOUND
ENERGY (PSE).
1
7
1 ONE-LINE DIAGRAM
SCALE: NONE
2 LOAD SUMMARY
SCALE: NONE
FH
PP
WWW
W
15"SS
15"SS
10"HDPE
10"HDPE
30% SUBMITTAL PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Drawing Path and Name: P:\Projects\23.48.01_Consor_Port_Orchard_Ruby_Creek_LS\DWG\N223450WA_E-3.dwg, Plotted Date: May 8, 2024 8:30 AM By: Avetis A. Berberyan
1 2 3 4 5 6
A
B
C
D
7
Engineer's Seal:
This document, ideas, and designs incorporated herein, are an instrument
of professional service, and is not to be used, in whole or in part, for any
other project without the written authorization of CONSOR.
Consultant:Client / Owner:Project Title:
Drawing No.:
0 11/2 IF BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1"
DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE
Drawing Title:Designed By:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Approved By:
Consor Project No.:
Issued On:
OR CCB #196597 WA #INDUSSI880K9
Industrial
Systems INC
(360) 952-8958
Vancouver, Washington 98682
Fax:
Phone:
12119 NE 99th Street
e-mail: is@industrialsystems-inc.com
Suite #2090
(360) 718-7267
AK #1018436
PROJECT#:23.48.01
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
RUBY CREEK LIFT STATION
ELECTRICAL
SITE PLAN
MEW
AAB
TBC
MEW
E-3
MAY 2024
N223450WA
CONTROL PANEL
ELECTRICAL BUILDING
(SEE DETAIL 2)
DIESEL
GENERATOR
VALVE VAULT
METER VAULT
PUMP DISCONNECT PANEL
2 ELECTRICAL BUILDING
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
WET WELL
DIESEL PUMP
1 ELECTRICAL PLAN
SCALE: 1"=10'
2
E-3
POWER POLE
(EXISTING)
ATS
VFD 2
ENCLOSURE
CT & METERBASEMTS
1.CLASS 1 DIV. 1 GROUP D SPACE INSIDE OF WET WELL.
2.CLASS 1 DIV. 2 GROUP D SPACE IN AN ENVELOPE 18" ABOVE
GRADE 3' LATERALLY FROM WET WELL HATCH AND TRENCH
OPENINGS.
3.CLASS 1 DIV. 2 GROUP D SPACE INSIDE OF VALVE VAULT AND
METER VAULT.
HAZARDOUS AREA NOTES
THIS PRELIMINARY DESIGN IS BASED ON NEW POLE
MOUNTED 3-PHASE TRANSFORMERS. THIS IS PENDING
PUGET SOUND ENERGY (PSE) DESIGN AND MAY NEED TO
CHANGE TO A PAD MOUNTED TRANSFORMER.
ALTERNATE TRANSFORMER (PAD MOUNTED) LOCATION IF
POLE-MOUNTED TRANSFORMER OPTION IS NOT
ACCEPTABLE BY PUGET SOUND ENERGY (PSE). THIS IS
PENDING DESIGN BY PSE.
KEY NOTES
1
1
2
2
MAIN CIRCUIT BREAKER
480VAC
PANELBOARD
LIGHTING PANEL AND
15 KVA TRANSFORMER
MTS DOCKING
STATION
VFD 1
ENCLOSURE
APPENDIX B
BASIN MAP
N223464WA.00• August 2023 • City of Port Orchard
McCormick Woods East Sewer Analysis • 3
H:\EVT_Projects\22\3464 - Port Orchard WW Concurrency On-Call\McCormick Woods East\McCormick Woods East Memorandum - 8-24-2023.docx
APPENDIX C
SITE SURVEY
www.LDCcorp.com20210142ndAvenueNEWoodinville,WA98072F425.482.2893T425.806.1869SurveyingEngineeringPlanningWoodinvilleKentOlympiaPROJECT
www.LDCcorp.com20210142ndAvenueNEWoodinville,WA98072F425.482.2893T425.806.1869SurveyingEngineeringPlanningWoodinvilleKentOlympia
APPENDIX D
STREAM ASSESSMENT REPORT
146 N Canal Street, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride
WETLAND AND STREAM REPORT
Prepared for:
Kitsap Transit
January 2023
146 N Canal Street, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride WETLAND AND STREAM REPORT
Prepared for:
Kitsap Transit
60 Washington Ave, Suite 200
Bremerton, WA 98337
Attn: Jeff Davidson
Prepared by:
Confluence Environmental Company
Chris Berger, PWS
Calvin Douglas
Suzanne Vieira, WPIT
Natalie Dietsch, WPIT
Audrey Michniak
January 2023
This report should be cited as:
Confluence (Confluence Environmental Company). 2023. Kitsap Transit State Route 16 park and ride wetland and stream report.
Prepared for Kitsap Transit, Bremerton, Washington, by Confluence, Seattle, Washington.
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 3
2.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Desktop Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Site Investigation ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas ..................................................................... 7
2.2.3 Streams and Shorelines ...................................................................................................... 8
3.0 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 General Site Description .................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Desktop Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 10
3.3 Wetlands ......................................................................................................................................... 11
3.3.1 Off-Site Wetland ................................................................................................................ 15
3.4 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas ................................................................................. 16
4.0 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................................................... 18
4.1 Wetlands ......................................................................................................................................... 18
4.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas ................................................................................. 19
4.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 19
5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 21
TABLES
Table 1. Wetland overview ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 2. Wetland A information summary .................................................................................................................... 13
Table 3. Wetland B information summary .................................................................................................................... 14
Table 4. Wetland C information summary .................................................................................................................... 15
Table 5. Blackjack Creek information summary ........................................................................................................... 17
Table 6. Ruby Creek information summary .................................................................................................................. 18
FIGURES
Figure 1. Study area ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Locations of test plots, soil probes, and delineated wetlands ....................................................................... 12
Figure 3. Wetlands, streams, and their standard buffers ............................................................................................. 20
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A—Study Area Location Information
Appendix B—GIS Database Search Results
Appendix C—Wetland Delineation Methods
Appendix D—Wetland Delineation Data Forms
Appendix E—Wetland Rating Forms
Appendix F—Site Photographs
Appendix G—Draft Mitigaiton Plan
Appendix H—Resumes
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Kitsap Transit proposes to construct a 250-stall park and ride facility at 5183 Sidney Road SW,
Port Orchard, WA. The State Route (SR) 16 park and ride facility will serve the City of Port
Orchard (the City) and the greater unincorporated Kitsap County. This proposed SR 16 Park
and Ride Project (the project) is located immediately off of SR 16 at the northeastern corner of
the intersection of Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgewick Road. It is located within section 11,
township 23, and range 1E. The increasing populations within Kitsap County and the City near
the SW Sedgwick Road and Tremont Street W interchanges have led to more traffic congestion
and parking demand in downtown Port Orchard and Bremerton. Kitsap Transit plans to
improve options for residents to access transit service via expanded park and ride capacity by
developing this park and ride facility. In addition to the 250-parking stalls, the project will
include 3 bus bays, a restroom building, bus shelters, a lift station, a playground, and a public
trail system located east of the proposed park and ride.
To assist with permitting the project, Confluence Environmental Company (Confluence)
conducted a wetland and stream assessment on tax parcels 112301-2-052-2008, 112301-2-011-
2008, 112301-2-012-2007, 112301-2-046-2007, and 112301-2-013-2006 (Figure 1). These parcels
constitute the study area. The addresses and legal descriptions for these parcels can be found in
Appendix A. Although parcels 112301-2-011-2008 and 112301-2-013-2006 are shown on the
current Kitsap County parcel layer (as seen in Figure 1) as being subdivided, both subdivisions
are still listed as having a single parcel number. Tax parcel 112301-2-046-2007 is not a part of the
project site as no development is proposed on this parcel, but this parcel was included in the
wetland and stream assessment conducted for this project. This parcel is also shown as
subdivided with a single parcel number by Kitsap County, per Figure 1.
On May 18, 19, and 25, 2022, Confluence conducted a site investigation to determine the
presence and extent of wetlands, streams, and other Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas (FWHCAs) on and adjacent to the project site. This study was conducted to
simultaneously support federal, state, and local permitting under sections 404 and 401 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C §1251 et seq.), the Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW),
and Port Orchard Municipal Code Chapter 20.162 (Critical Areas). Other critical areas regulated
by the City such as erosion hazard areas, steep slopes, and landslide hazard areas were not
evaluated in this study. This report presents the findings of the study and the resulting wetland
and ordinary high water mark (OHWM) delineations.
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 4
Figure 1. Study area
- Study Area
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 5
2.0 METHODS
Confluence conducted a desktop analysis and site investigation that included wetland
delineation and stream OHWM delineation within the study area. This section describes the
methods used to identify the presence or absence of wetlands, identify a defined stream channel
or other FWHCAs, and delineate their boundaries.
2.1 Desktop Analysis
To develop a strategy for the site investigation, Confluence reviewed relevant regulations and
GIS databases.
Confluence reviewed Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) 20.162.052 to determine the
standard buffer requirements for critical areas (wetlands and streams) in the project vicinity.
Confluence reviewed the GIS databases listed below for the documented presence of wetlands,
streams, lakes, or species listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered
on or within 300 feet of the study area. It was necessary to search within 300 feet for potential
off-site critical areas with buffers that encroach onto the study area; 300 feet is the widest buffer
identified in POMC.
Kitsap County GIS (Kitsap County 2022)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (USFWS
2022)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey (NRCS 2022a)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) SalmonScape (WDFW 2022a)
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) (WDFW 2022b),
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Water Type GIS (WDNR 2022a)
WDNR wetlands of high conservation value mapper (WDNR 2022b)
Results of the GIS database searches are in Appendix B.
2.2 Site Investigation
On May 18, 19, and 25, 2022, Confluence conducted a site investigation to determine the
presence or absence of wetlands, streams, and FWHCAs on or near the study area.
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 6
2.2.1 Wetlands
Wetland Identification and Delineation
Confluence identified wetlands and delineated their boundaries using the methods described
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual (Corps 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps 2010). The Corps
typically requires that the following 3 characteristics be present for an area to be identified as a
wetland: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soil, and (3) wetland hydrology. For each
criterion, there are several possible indicators that can be used to determine whether the
criterion has been met. The indicators were established so that if a wetland were present on-site,
sufficient indicators would be observed at any time of the year, including the driest months, to
identify the wetland. Since “normal circumstances,” as defined by the Corps (1987), exist within
the study area, all 3 criteria must be present for an area to be determined a wetland. A more
detailed description of delineation methodology is provided in Appendix C. Wetland
delineation data forms completed during the site investigation are provided in Appendix D.
To confirm the presence or absence of a wetland, data were collected from representative test
plots within and outside of potential wetlands. The locations of the test plots were based on the
presence of visual wetland indicators (e.g., wetland vegetation, evidence of water or soil
saturation) or were chosen to represent vegetative, topographic, or hydrologic features in the
vicinity. Within these test plots, vegetation, soils, and hydrology were examined to determine
whether wetland characteristics were present (see Appendix C for details). Plots that met all 3
wetland criteria were determined to be wetland plots; plots that did not meet all 3 wetland
criteria were determined to be upland plots.
Once the presence of a wetland was confirmed, visual wetland indicators, such as topographic
and vegetative shifts, were used to delineate the remainder of the wetland boundary. In areas
with a lack of visual wetland indicators (i.e., areas with monoculture vegetation and no clear
topographic break), Confluence used soil probes to determine the wetland boundary between
test plots. Confluence evaluated the presence or absence of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
indicators at soil probe locations to determine whether the area represented by the soil probe
was wetland or upland. Soil probe locations and presence or absence of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology indicators were recorded using GPS.
Confluence used the PLANTS Database (NRCS 2022b) to provide consistency in scientific
naming and the 2020 National Wetland Plant List (Corps 2020) to determine the wetland
indicator status of plants.
The wetland boundary and test plot locations were flagged using orange and pink ribbon
flagging. The flags were mapped by Confluence using a Trimble mapping grade GPS receiver
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 7
capable of sub-meter accuracy after post-processing. Soil probe locations were mapped using
the GPS receiver but not flagged. After the initial delineation, a licensed survey team located the
flags left on site and recorded the coordinates of each point. These flag location coordinates
were then added to the site plans based on the property boundary and surrounding control
points.
Off-Site Wetland Identification
To assess whether there are possible wetlands with buffers encroaching from adjacent
properties, Confluence modified the methods described by the Corps (Corps 1987, 2010). The
modified method identified the presence or absence of visual wetland indicators. If hydrophytic
vegetation was dominant and visual indicators of wetland hydrology were observed, then
hydric soils were assumed to be present.
Wetland Rating
Confluence determined wetland ratings using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for
Western Washington (Hruby 2014) to assess the resource value of any wetland identified within
the study area. This rating system is based on the wetland functions and values, sensitivity to
disturbance, rarity, and irreplaceability, and is adopted by the POMC in Section 20.162.052.
Wetland rating forms are in Appendix E.
2.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
The POMC defines FWHCAs broadly as habitats that are important for the conservation of
sensitive plant and wildlife species or those species and habitats that are of local importance.
The types of habitats protected as FWHCAs are defined in POMC 20.162.070; these include all
streams (except for Type S streams), lakes less than 20 acres in surface area, and wildlife
conservation areas. Confluence reviewed the definitions of FWCHA in the POMC and available
online data and evaluated whether any of the observed habitats on-site met the criteria of
FWHCAs defined in POMC 20.162.070. The detailed stream and shoreline delineation methods
are included in Section 2.2.3.
Per POMC 20.162.070, wildlife conservation areas (WCAs) are broken into 2 types: Class I and
Class II. Class I WCAs include habitats recognized by federal or state agencies for federal
and/or state listed endangered, threatened, and sensitive species; areas targeted for preservation
by the federal, state, and/or local government which provide fish and wildlife habitat benefits;
and areas that contain habitats and species of local importance. Class II WCAs include habitats
for state listed candidate and monitored species and habitats which include attributes such as
comparatively high wildlife density; high wildlife species richness; significant wildlife breeding
habitat, seasonal ranges, or movement corridors of limited availability and/or high
vulnerability. These habitats may include caves, cliffs, islands, meadows, old-growth/mature
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 8
forest, snag-rich areas, talus slopes, and urban natural open space. Confluence reviewed the
regulated FWHCAs, in addition to the available online data, and evaluated whether any of the
observed habitats on-site met the criteria of FWHCAs defined in POMC 20.162.070.
2.2.3 Streams and Shorelines
The Revised Code of Washington defines the OHWM as follows: “On all lakes, streams, and
tidal water [the OHWM] is that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and
ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long
continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the
abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may
naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by
a local government or the department” (RCW 90.58.030).
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has published a guide (Anderson et al.
2016) to interpret the code and provide guidance for field OHWM determinations. Confluence
used this guidance to determine the OHWM of Ruby Creek and Blackjack Creek in the vicinity
of the study area.
Confluence identified discrete locations on the banks of the streams to delineate the OHWM.
Paired OHWM locations on both the right and left banks of Ruby Creek were used for
delineation. Due to the size and location of Blackjack Creek, as well as the lack of access across
this feature, only the left bank of this stream was flagged with OHWM points. Additionally, the
wetted width was flagged as a surrogate for the OHWM along a portion of the left bank of
Blackjack Creek where OHWM characteristics were obscured due to inundation in dense reed
canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Locations were chosen based on presence of field indicators
of OHWM identified in Anderson et al. (2016) and shape of the channel. The locations of the
OHWMs were marked with ribbon flagging within the study area, and all OHWM locations
within the study area were recorded using a differential GPS with sub-meter accuracy.
3.0 RESULTS
This section describes the results of the desktop analysis and the site investigations conducted
on May 18, 19, and 25, 2022.
3.1 General Site Description
The study area consists of 5 parcels, totaling approximately 35 acres. All parcels are located
entirely within the incorporated City in the Ruby Creek Overlay District. The study area is on
the edge of the incorporated City; however, some of the parcels to the west of Sidney Road SW
are under the jurisdiction of unincorporated Kitsap County. The parcels within the study area
have several different zoning types, including Downtown Mixed Use (DMU), Commercial
Mixed Use (CMU), Commercial Corridor (CC), and Greenbelt (GB) (City of Port Orchard 2021).
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 9
The surrounding land uses include all of these zoning types plus Commercial Heavy (CH)
zoning (City of Port Orchard 2021). The adjacent unincorporated parcels are zoned by Kitsap
County as Rural Protection (RP, 1 dwelling unit/10 acres) (Kitsap County 2022).
The study area is mostly undeveloped, with a single-family residence and appurtenant
outbuildings on the western portion of parcel 112301-2-046-2007, a single-family residence on
parcel 112301-2-012-2007, and a mobile home on the western portion of parcel 112301-2-011-
2008. Parcel 112301-2-013-2006 and the eastern portions of parcels 112301-2-046-2007 and
112301-2-011-2008 are undeveloped. Parcel 112301-2-052-2008 is currently not developed,
although this parcel was a historical homestead that was developed with a single-family
residence and appurtenant farming outbuildings in the western portion as recently as 2019
(Netronline 2022). All buildings on this parcel were removed, and it is now undeveloped.
The remaining undeveloped portions of the study area are made up of either mowed
agricultural pasture or stands of predominantly native shrubs and trees. The open grass fields
are dominated by orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), tall buttercup (Ranunculus acris), red fescue
(Festuca rubra), and soft rush (Juncus effusus). Along the eastern and northern boundary are
forested areas dominated by Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis),
Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus).
The study area generally slopes down from the western boundary to the eastern boundary, with
slopes ranging from 1 to 5%.
The study area is surrounded by a variety of land uses, including the following:
To the north, undeveloped open space and a multi-family residential development.
To the east, SR 16 and SW Sedgewick Road, as well as some undeveloped highway gores
and a commercial development.
To the south, SW Sedgewick Road, undeveloped open space, and commercial
developments (including a gas station immediately adjacent to the study area).
To the west, Sidney Road SW, single-family residences, commercial businesses, and
undeveloped open space.
Climatic data for the 3-month period preceding the site visit analyzed via the WETS table
method show that precipitation during this period was normal (NRCS 2022c). The WETS table
analysis is included in Appendix D.
Photographs of the study area and project site are provided in Appendix F.
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 10
3.2 Desktop Analysis
Available GIS databases were searched for the potential presence of wetlands, hydric soils, streams,
lakes, or species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened or endangered (“listed
species”). Results and maps from the GIS database searches are provided in Appendix B.
USFWS’s NWI shows a total of 4 wetlands within the study area. They include a 2.78-acre
freshwater emergent wetland on the southwest portion of the study area; a 3.54-acre freshwater
forested/shrub wetland on the southeast portion of the study area, which is shown as
continuing off-site to the south; an adjacent 4.02-acre freshwater emergent wetland along the
eastern boundary of the study area; and a 2.94-acre freshwater forested shrub emergent wetland
in the northeast corner. Additionally, a 0.62-acre riverine habitat and 0.46-acre riverine habitat
are located within the study area along the eastern and northern boundaries, respectively
(USFWS 2022). Kitsap County’s critical area map, provided on their Parcel Search GIS database,
shows 2 wetlands within the study area; one is in the southwest corner of the study area, and
the second extends along the eastern boundary of the study area (Kitsap County 2022). Both
wetlands are classified as palustrine emergent and seasonally flooded.
NWI identifies a 3.22-acre freshwater forested/shrub wetland just off-site in the northeastern
portion of the adjacent parcel and 2 riverine habitats south of the southern boundary of the
study area on the other side of SW Sedgwick Road (USFWS 2022).
No wetlands of high conservation value have been identified within the vicinity of the study
area (WDNR 2022b).
Several sources identify 2 streams on the study area, Ruby Creek and Blackjack Creek (WDNR
2022b, WDFW 2022a, WDFW 2022b, Kitsap County 2022, USFWS 2022). Both are identified as
Type F (fish-bearing) streams. Blackjack Creek is shown entering the study area from the
southern boundary. The stream flows north through the study area and continues off-site to the
northeast, where it is designated as a Type S (shoreline of the state) stream. The second Type F
stream, Ruby Creek, is shown entering the northwest corner of the study area. Ruby Creek joins
Blackjack Creek near the northeast corner of the study area (WDNR 2022b, Kitsap County 2022,
WDFW 2022a,b).
The soil survey indicates the study area and surrounding areas include Bellingham silty clay
loam (0-3% slopes), Kitsap silt loam (2-8% slopes), Kapowsin gravelly ashy loam (0-6% slopes),
and Norma fine sandy loam (0-3% slopes) (NRCS 2022a). Of the 4 soil types on and in the
vicinity of the study area, Kapowsin gravelly ashy loam is the only soil type not considered
hydric (NRCS 2022a).
WDFW’s SalmonScape indicates the documented presence of cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarkii) and documented spawning of chum salmon (O. keta), coho salmon (O. kisutch), and
steelhead trout (O. mykiss) in the reach of Blackjack Creek within the study area (WDFW 2022a).
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 11
WDFW identifies the documented presence of chum salmon, presumed presence of cutthroat
trout, and rearing of coho salmon in the reach of Ruby Creek within the study area (WDFW
2022a).
WDFW’s PHS system identifies the reach of Blackjack Creek within the study area as a breeding
area for steelhead trout, chum salmon, and coho salmon. Occurrence/migration of cutthroat
trout is also shown (WDFW 2022b). WDFW identifies the reach of Ruby Creek within the study
area as a breeding area for coho. Occurrence/migration of cutthroat trout and chum salmon is
also shown (WDFW 2022b). Of these species, the Puget Sound distinct population segment
(DPS) of steelhead trout is the only one with status under the ESA as a threatened species.
3.3 Wetlands
Three wetlands (Wetlands A, B, and C) were identified and delineated within the study area,
and 1 additional off-site wetland was identified during the desktop analysis and field
investigation (Table 1). Figure 2 shows the delineated wetlands as well as the test plot and soil
probe locations. The wetland delineation data forms are provided in Appendix D, and the
rating forms are provided in Appendix E. Information about Wetlands A, B, and C is
summarized in more detail in Tables 2 through 4.
Table 1. Wetland overview
Wetland Name Cowardin Classification1 Size
Wetland Rating
Water Quality Hydrology Habitat Total Category
Wetland A PFO/PSS/PEM 12.91 acres1 8 7 7 22 II
Wetland B PFO/PEM 0.63 acre1 7 7 7 21 II
Wetland C PEM 0.10 acre 6 7 5 18 III
Off-Site
Wetland
PFO/PSS 2.50 acre2 NR NR NR NR II3
NR – not rated; PFO – palustrine forested; PSS – palustrine scrub-shrub; PEM – palustrine emergent
1 Approximate size onsite. Not all boundaries were delineated and wetlands assumed to extend offsite.
2 The size of the off-site wetland is approximate based on NWI data.
3 Assumed rating.
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 12
Figure 2. Locations of test plots, soil probes, and delineated wetlands
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 13
Table 2. Wetland A information summary
Wetland A
Local Jurisdiction Port Orchard Waters of the U.S. Yes
Function Scores (Hruby
2014)
WQ-8, HYD-7, HAB-7
Ecology Rating (Hruby
2014)
II
Port Orchard Standard
Buffer Width
220 feet
Wetland Size 12.91 acres
Cowardin Classification
(FGDC 2013)
PFO/PSS/PEM
Hydrogeomorphic
Classification
Depressional1
Wetland Data Sheet(s) TP-2, TP-3, TP-6, TP-11
Upland Data Sheet(s) TP-1, TP-4, TP-5, TP-12
Dominant Vegetation Trees: Willow (Salix spp.), red alder (Alnus rubra), bird cherry (Prunus padus)
Shrubs: Himalayan blackberry
Herbaceous: soft rush, tall buttercup, birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), field horsetail (Equisetum arvense), velvet
grass (Holcus lanatus), curly dock (Rumex crispus), orchard grass, red fescue, vetch (Vicia americana), reed
canarygrass
Soils Variable mix of silt loam, sandy silt loam, loam, and sandy loam with gravel. Redoximorphic features consisted of
concentrations and depletions in the pore linings and matrix. Hydric soil indicators observed were Depleted Below Dark
Surface (A11), Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2), Depleted Matrix (F3), Depleted Dark Surface (F7).
Hydrology Groundwater and precipitation inputs as well as seasonal inundation from Blackjack Creek during overbank flooding
events. Hydrologic indicators observed were Surface Water (A1), High Water Table (A2), and Saturation (A3).
Rationale for Delineation Depressional wetland with hydric soils, supports hydrophytic vegetation, and has soil saturation present. Hydric soils
helped to determine the wetland boundary. Wetland soils had matrices of chroma 2, and upland areas directly adjacent
had soil matrices of chroma 3.
Functions Due to Wetland A’s size, position on the landscape, and hydrologic connection to Blackjack Creek [303(d) listed
waterbody], it has relatively high water quality and hydrologic functions. It provides relatively high habitat functions as a
result of multiple plant structures and water regimes, as well as some special habitat features and moderate intensity
surrounding land use. Wetland A has a high landscape potential and value for improving water quality based on the
presence of pollution sources to the wetland and adjacent polluted water bodies, but it holds a moderate site potential for
improving water quality. Wetland A has a high hydrologic landscape potential and value from the nearby creeks to help
reduce flooding and erosion but holds a low function for site potential because the wetland is small in relation to the area
of its basin. Habitat value is rated high for Wetland A because it has at least 3 priority habitats within 100 m. Habitat site
potential is rated medium due to the total of 4 special habitat features. The habitat landscape potential is rated medium
due to the high percentage of undisturbed habitat and low percentage of accessible habitat within the 1-kilometer
polygon.
Buffer Condition The on-site buffer of Wetland A consists of agricultural pasture in the southern and western portions, with a residential
development in the southwestern portion of the on-site buffer. Dominant vegetation includes reed canarygrass, field
horsetail, Himalayan blackberry, red elderberry (Sambucus racemose), willows, and ornamental apple trees. The off-site
portion of the buffer consists of a mix of forested habitat, commercial development, and road prisms associated with SW
Sedgwick Road and SR 16. The forested buffer provides screening and habitat functions, while the developed areas,
road prisms, and pasture provide limited buffer functions.
1 Wetland A has 3 distinct hydrogeomorphic classes with over 10% cover in the wetland—depressional, slope, and riverine. Based on the
guidance provided in the Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, wetlands with more than two hydrogeomorphic classes shall be
classified as depressional for rating purposes (Hruby 2014). As such, Wetland A has been rated as a depressional wetland.
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 14
Table 3. Wetland B information summary
Wetland B
Local Jurisdiction Port Orchard
Waters of the U.S. Yes
Function Scores (Hruby
2014)
WQ-7, HYD-7, HAB-7
Ecology Rating (Hruby
2014)
II
Port Orchard Standard
Buffer Width
220 feet
Wetland Size 0.63 acre
Cowardin Classification
(FGDC 2013)
PFO/PEM
Hydrogeomorphic
Classification
Depressional
Wetland Data Sheet(s) TP-7, TP-14, TP-15
Upland Data Sheet(s) TP-8, TP-13, TP-16
Dominant Vegetation Trees: Willow, red alder
Shrubs: Himalayan blackberry, salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii)
Herbaceous: soft rush, birdsfoot trefoil, velvet grass, orchard grass, field horsetail, red fescue, reed canarygrass, white
clover (Trifolium repens), meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens)
Soils Soil texture consisted of silt loam. Redoximorphic features consisted of concentrations in the pore linings and matrix.
Hydric soil indicators observed were Depleted Matrix (F3) and Redox Dark Surface (F6).
Hydrology Wetland B is hydrologically connected to Ruby Creek, which provides some hydrologic inputs during heavy precipitation
events. The wetland also receives inputs from groundwater. Hydrologic indicators observed included High Water Table
(A2), Saturation (A3), Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3), and Water-Stained Leaves (B9).
Rationale for Delineation Depressional wetland with hydric soils, supports hydrophytic vegetation, and has soil saturation present. Hydric soils
helped to determine the wetland boundary. Wetland soils had matrices of chroma 2, and upland areas directly adjacent
had soil matrices of chroma 3.
Functions Due to Wetland B’s position on the landscape and hydrologic connection to Ruby Creek (a tributary to Blackjack Creek),
it has relatively high water quality and hydrologic functions. The wetland provides relatively high habitat functions as a
result of limited plant structures and habitat features, 3 priority habitats within 100 meters, multiple water regimes, and
moderate intensity surrounding land use.
Wetland B has a high value for improving water quality based on adjacent polluted water bodies, but it holds a moderate
site and landscape potential due to a lack of direct pollution sources to the wetland. Wetland B has a high hydrologic
value from the nearby creeks to help reduce flooding and erosion but holds a low function for site and landscape
potential because the wetland does not significantly pond water, nor is it surrounded by uses that generate runoff.
Habitat value is rated high for Wetland B because it has at least 3 priority habitats within 100 m. Habitat site potential is
rated medium due to the low structural diversity. The habitat landscape potential is rated medium due to the high
percentage of undisturbed habitat and low percentage of accessible habitat within the 1-kilometer polygon.
Buffer Condition The buffer of Wetland B consists of a mix of forested habitat and agricultural pasture. The forested buffer provides
screening and habitat functions, while the pasture provides limited buffer function. Dominant vegetation consists of reed
canarygrass, field horsetail, Himalayan blackberry, red elderberry, meadow foxtail, willow, and Douglas-fir.
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 15
Table 4. Wetland C information summary
Wetland C
Local Jurisdiction Port Orchard
Waters of the U.S. Yes
Function Scores (Hruby
2014)
WQ-6, HYD-7, HAB-5
Ecology Rating (Hruby
2014)
III
Port Orchard Standard
Buffer Width
140 feet
Wetland Size 0.10 acre
Cowardin Classification
(FGDC 2013)
Depressional
Hydrogeomorphic
Classification
PEM
Wetland Data Sheet(s) TP-10
Upland Data Sheet(s) TP-9
Dominant Vegetation Trees – bird cherry
Shrubs – Himalayan blackberry
Herbaceous – soft rush, birdsfoot trefoil, curly dock, red fescue, creeping buttercup
Soils Soil texture consisted of silt loam with sand, silt loam, sandy loam. Hydric soil indicators observed were Depleted Below
Dark Surface (A11) and Depleted Matrix (F3).
Hydrology Wetland C receives inputs primarily from groundwater and precipitation. Hydrologic indicators observed consisted of
High Water Table (A2) and Saturation (A3).
Rationale for Delineation Depressional wetland with hydric soils, supports hydrophytic vegetation, and has soil saturation present. Hydric soils
helped to determine the wetland boundary. Wetland soils had matrices of chroma 2, and upland areas directly adjacent
had soil matrices of chroma 3.
Functions Given Wetland C’s isolated position on the landscape and limited plant structure, the wetland provides limited water
quality and habitat function. The wetland provides high hydrologic function.
Wetland C has a high value for improving water quality based on adjacent polluted water bodies but holds a moderate
landscape potential due to limited opportunities for runoff in the surrounding area. The site potential for improving water
quality is low due to low seasonal ponding in the wetland. Wetland C has a high hydrologic value due to flooding
immediately downgradient, but it is rated medium function for site and landscape potential because the wetland does
not significantly pool water. Habitat value and landscape potential are rated medium for Wetland C because it has at
least 1 priority habitat within 100 m and a high percentage of undisturbed habitat within the 1-kilometer polygon. Habitat
site potential is rated low due to poor habitat structure and plant diversity.
Buffer Condition The buffer of Wetland C is mostly agriculture pasture with some thickets of invasive Himalayan blackberry and a
residence (mobile home on parcel 112301-2-011-2008). The buffer provides little function. Dominant vegetation includes
red fescue, reed canarygrass, soft rush, and Himalayan blackberry.
3.3.1 Off-Site Wetland
One wetland was located off-site within 300 feet of the study area. No test plots were evaluated
in the off-site wetland because Confluence did not have access to the properties on which this
wetland is located. This off-site wetland was located immediately north of the study area and is
mapped approximately 75 feet from the study area boundary at its closest point (USFWS 2022).
It is probable that the wetland is contiguous with both Wetland A and Wetland B, which appear
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 16
to extend off-site to the north, forming a singular wetland complex; however, this could not be
confirmed. The off-site wetland is approximately 2.52 acres based on NWI, site observations,
aerial imagery, and a review of LiDAR/contour data (Kitsap County 2022). According to the
Cowardin classification system (FGDC 2013), this wetland is a freshwater forested and scrub-
shrub wetland. Based on site observations from the property line, it appears to be dominated by
red alder, willows, salmonberry, lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina), spirea, and Himalayan
blackberry.
3.4 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
FWHCAs include non-Type S streams, lakes under 20 acres, and WCAs. The OHWMs of 2
streams (Blackjack Creek and Ruby Creek) were identified and delineated within the study
area, and the off-site portions of these streams were identified and estimated during the desktop
analysis and field investigation. Figure 3 shows the delineated streams. Information about
Blackjack Creek and Ruby Creek is summarized in more detail in Tables 5 and 6.
No lakes were identified within the study area or within 300 feet of the study area.
WCAs can generally be defined as habitats with recognized use by and benefit to ESA-listed,
priority, and locally important wildlife species. The study area includes Blackjack Creek, Ruby
Creek, and 3 wetlands that provide habitat to local species. Blackjack Creek and Ruby Creek
specifically are Type F (fish-bearing) streams that have been identified by WDFW as containing
multiple species of salmonids (WDFW 2022a, b). Of the salmonid species identified in these
creeks, only steelhead trout is an ESA-listed threatened species. Per the POMC, Blackjack Creek
and Ruby Creek would qualify as Class I WCAs under section 20.162.070(3)(a)(i) if the alteration
of these creeks may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the
long term. The project specifically does not propose an alteration of either creek below the
OHWM nor any action within its regulatory buffer, except for the planting of native vegetation
as proposed compensatory mitigation. For this reason, it is determined that there are no WCAs
present within the study area that are not otherwise defined and regulated as streams (Blackjack
Creek and Ruby Creek) and wetlands (Wetlands A, B, and C).
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 17
Table 5. Blackjack Creek information summary
Blackjack Creek
WRIA Name Kitsap watershed - Water
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA)
15
Local Jurisdiction Port Orchard
DNR Water Type Type F
Buffer Width 150 feet
Documented Fish Use
(WDFW 2022a; WDFW 2022b)
Coho salmon, summer/fall chum,
cutthroat trout, and winter
steelhead trout
Location of Stream Relative to Study Area Flows along eastern boundary of
study area.
Connectivity Blackjack Creek continues to flow northeast off-site; Ruby Creek is a tributary stream to Blackjack Creek.
WDNR designates the reach of Blackjack Creek located off-site to the northeast as a Type S waterbody
(shoreline of the state, 90.58.030 RCW). Blackjack Creek eventually discharges into Puget Sound.
Fish Habitat All documented fish utilize Blackjack Creek for spawning and/or migration (discussed in more detail in
Section 3.2).
Riparian/Buffer Condition The riparian environment contains some areas with overhanging native vegetation, dominated by
salmonberry, Indian plum, and red alder. The riparian environment along a substantial portion of the on-
site reach is dominated by reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. A portion of the buffer consists
of agricultural pasture, which provides little screening or habitat function. Overall, the buffer provides
moderate function.
OHWM Indicators Top of bank, exposed roots/root scour, shift to non-hydrophytic vegetation (e.g., Indian plum,
salmonberry).
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 18
Table 6. Ruby Creek information summary
Ruby Creek
WRIA Name Kitsap watershed - Water
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA)
15
Local Jurisdiction Port Orchard
DNR Water Type Type F
Buffer Width 150 feet
Documented Fish Use (WDFW 2022a; WDFW 2022c)
Coho salmon, cutthroat trout, and
summer/fall chum
Location of Stream
Relative to Study Area
Flows along northern boundary of
study area.
Connectivity Ruby Creek is a Type F stream and tributary to Blackjack Creek. The headwaters of Ruby Creek are
Square Lake, located approximately 1.80 miles to the southwest. Ruby Creek eventually flows into
Blackjack Creek near the northeast corner of the study area, and Blackjack Creek eventually discharges
into Puget Sound.
Fish Habitat Documented fish uses includes migration, breeding, and/or rearing (discussed in more detail in Section
3.2).
Riparian/Buffer Condition The riparian environment is relatively healthy and contains significant overhanging vegetation. The buffer
provides relatively high function. Vegetation is dominated by salmonberry, Indian plum, lady fern, and red
alder.
OHWM Indicators Top of bank, exposed roots/root scour, shift to non-hydrophytic vegetation (e.g., Indian plum,
salmonberry, sword fern [Polystichum munitum]).
4.0 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS
This section discusses the regulatory implications associated with the wetlands and streams on
site, including the standard buffer requirements and mitigation requirements. Wetlands and
streams in the project vicinity are Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) protected at the federal level by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which regulates discharges of fill in WOTUS. The
Corps is the responsible agency for implementing permits under Section 404 of the CWA.
Activities that affect wetlands and streams may also require a water quality certification (CWA
Section 401) from Ecology. Ecology also regulates wetlands through the Water Pollution
Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW). POMC Chapter 20.162 also regulates development standards
and mitigation requirements in wetlands, aquatic habitats, and their buffers. On-site wetlands
and streams fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps (WOTUS), Ecology, and the City.
4.1 Wetlands
According to POMC 20.162.052, the following wetland standard buffers apply:
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 19
Wetland A is a Category II wetland with a habitat score of 7; thus, the standard buffer is
220 feet.
Wetland B is a Category II wetland with a habitat score of 7; thus, the standard buffer is
220 feet.
Wetland C is a Category III wetland with a habitat score of 5; thus, the standard buffer is
140 feet.
The off-site wetland, to be conservative, is assumed to be contiguous with Wetland A, a
Category II wetland. While the buffer of the off-site wetland would extend into the
study area, it is encompassed by the buffers of Wetland A, Wetland B, and Ruby Creek.
4.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
POMC 20.162.072 details the regulatory buffers for designated FWHCAs. The only FWHCAs
identified within and adjacent to the study area are streams. According to this section of code,
the following stream standard buffers apply:
Blackjack Creek, a Type F stream, has a standard buffer of 150 feet. The minimum
building setback of 15 feet beyond buffer would apply for a total buffer and setback
distance of 165 feet.
Ruby Creek, a Type F stream, has a standard buffer of 150 feet. The minimum building
setback of 15 feet beyond buffer would apply for a total buffer and setback distance of
165 feet.
Figure 3 shows the wetlands and streams and their standard buffers. Development within these
buffers or within the wetlands and streams themselves requires compliance with POMC
20.162.052 and 20.162.072 development standards.
4.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation
The proposed project will result in unavoidable impacts to Wetland C and regulated buffers.
Because a wetland and wetland buffers will be impacted, a Draft Mitigation Plan has been
prepared for this project and is included in Appendix G. All project impacts and proposed
mitigation strategies are described in this Draft Mitigation Plan, which proposes to
simultaneously satisfy all the applicable authorities on compensatory mitigation.
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 20
Figure 3. Wetlands, streams, and their standard buffers
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 21
5.0 REFERENCES
Anderson, P.S., S. Meyer, P. Olson, and E. Stockdale. 2016. Determining the ordinary high water
mark for Shoreline Management Act compliance in Washington State. October 2016 final
review. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance
Program, Lacey, Washington. Ecology Publication No. 16-06-029.
City of Port Orchard. 2021. City of Port Orchard zoning map. Available at:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/portorchardwa/uploads/2021/09/2022-Zoning-
Map-20220321.pdf
Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
Corps Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Technical Report Y-87-1.
Corps. 2010. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual:
western mountains, valleys, and coast region. U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. ERDC/EL TR-08-13.
Corps. 2020. National wetland plant list, version 3.5 [online document]. Corps Engineer
Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,
Hanover, New Hampshire. Available at: https://wetland-plants.sec.usace.army.mil/
nwpl_static/v34/home/home.html (accessed on June 29, 2022).
FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee). 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United States. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Data
Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Publication FGDC-STD-004-2013,
Washington, D.C.
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington, 2014 update.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia. Publication # 14-06-029.
Kitsap County. 2022. Kitsap County Parcel Search. Kitsap County Land Records, Kitsap County,
Washington. Available at: https://psearch.kitsapgov.com/psearch/ (accessed on May 10,
2022).
Netronline. 2022. Historic aerials [online database]. Nationwide Environmental Title Research,
LLC (NETR), Tempe, Arizona. Available at: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer/95373
(accessed November 29, 2022).
Kitsap Transit State Route 16 Park and Ride Wetland and Stream Report
January 2023 Page 22
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2022a. Web soil survey [online database]. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, NRCS, Soil Science Division, Washington D.C. Available at:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm (accessed on May 10, 2022).
NRCS. 2022b. The PLANTS database [online database]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS,
National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, North Carolina. Available at:
https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/java/ (accessed on June 29, 2022).
NRCS (National Resources Conservation Service). 2022c. AgACIS climate Data [online
database]. NRCS, USDA, Washington D.C. Available at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/wcc/home/climateSupport/agAcisClimateData/
(accessed July 6, 2022).
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022. National wetlands inventory wetlands mapper
[online database]. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html (accessed on May 10,
2022).
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2022a. SalmonScape interactive
mapping [online database]. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,
Washington. Available at: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html (accessed on
May 10, 2022).
WDFW. 2022b. PHS on the web interactive mapping [online database]. Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program, Olympia, Washington. Available at:
https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/phs/ (accessed on May 10, 2022).
WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2022a. Forest practices application
mapping tool. Olympia, Washington. Available at: https://fpamt.dnr.wa.gov/default.aspx#
(accessed on May 10, 2022).
WDNR. 2022b. Wetlands of high conservation value map viewer. Olympia, Washington.
Available at: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPwetlandviewer (accessed on June 27,2022).
APPENDIX E
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CONSIDERATIONS
Attachment 2
Kitsap SR 16 Park & Ride Project
Cultural Resources Study Methodology
January 2023
Cultural resources inventory and investigations will be used to inform National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) eligibility and effects determinations for the Kitsap SR 16 Park & Ride Project (Project).
A cultural resources technical report will be prepared to support these determinations for the Project.
Archaeological Resources Investigations
A desktop review will be conducted for the Area of Potential Effects (APE) with particular focus on areas
of ground disturbing activities that includes review of the Washing State Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation Predictive WISAARD Model for environmental factors with archaeological
resources to assess potential for buried precontact archaeological resources; review of historic maps to
assess potential for buried historic archaeological resources within the APE; and a review of available
geotechnical information to evaluate subsurface conditions, including predisturbed locations.
Cultural Resources Survey and NRHP Eligibility Evaluation
Preliminary review of the proposed APE indicates that there are no previously recorded precontact or
historic-age resources in the APE or within one mile of the APE. Five cultural resource surveys have been
conducted within one mile of the APE, one of which was along the eastern edge of the APE. This survey
did not encounter any cultural materials.
Soils in the APE are mapped as Bellingham silty clay loam and Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
(NRCS 2022). These soils are Holocene soils formed in Pleistocene wetland deposits, alluvium, and
loess. Due to the APE’s previous use as a rural homestead and for agriculture a moderate to high level of
previous disturbance is expected. The DAHP predictive model for archaeological resources classifies the
APE as Moderate to High Probability: Survey Advised.
A reconnaissance-level survey will be conducted to determine if any belowground cultural resources are
present within the APE prior to Project activities. Cultural resources staff will carry out a subsurface
cultural resources survey using shovel probes in areas planned for impact by Project activities. Up to 75
shovel probes will be excavated, with up to 10 probes augered using a hand auger to observe deeper
sediments up to 200 cmbs. Shovel probes that are not augered will be excavated to a depth of 100 cm
unless an impasse is encountered. Spoils will be screened through ¼” mesh. Any artifacts will be
documented in the field and reburied in the probe of origin.
APPENDIX F
GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING REPORT
Kitsap Transit SR16 Park & Ride
Prepared for: Land Development Consultants, Inc.
Project No. 220118 March 2, 2023 DRAFT e a r t h w a t e r+ppeecc tt
C O N S U L T I N G
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING REPORT
Kitsap Transit SR16 Park & Ride
Prepared for: Land Development Consultants, Inc.
Project No. 220118 March 2, 2023 DRAFT
Aspect Consulting, LLC
Erik O. Andersen, PE
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
eandersen@aspectconsulting.com
Jane R. Gregg, PE
Project Geotechnical Engineer
jgregg@aspectconsulting.com
V:\220118 Kitsap Transit SR 16 Park & Ride Design\Deliverables\Geotech Report\KT SR16 Park &Ride GER_DRAFT.docx
PRELIMINARY
earth +water Aspect Consulting, LLC 350 Madison Avenue N. Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 206.780.9370 www.aspectconsulting.com
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023 DRAFT i
Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................... ES-1
1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Description ....................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of Services ........................................................................................ 1
2 Site Conditions ............................................................................................ 3
2.1 Surface Conditions and Topography ........................................................... 3
2.2 Critical Areas ................................................................................................ 4
2.3 Geologic Setting ........................................................................................... 4
2.4 Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................. 4
2.4.1 Subsurface Field Investigation ............................................................... 5
2.4.2 Stratigraphy ............................................................................................ 5
2.4.3 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 7
3 Seismic Design Considerations ................................................................. 8
3.1 Earthquake Engineering ............................................................................... 8
3.2 Ground Response ........................................................................................ 8
3.3 Surficial Ground Rupture .............................................................................. 9
3.4 Liquefaction .................................................................................................. 9
4 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Conclusions and
Recommendations .................................................................................... 10
4.1 Shallow Foundation Design and Recommendations ................................. 10
4.1.1 Minimum Footing Size and Embedment .............................................. 10
4.1.2 Estimated Settlement ........................................................................... 10
4.1.3 Lateral Resistance ............................................................................... 10
4.2 Concrete Slab-On-Grade ........................................................................... 11
4.3 Stormwater Vault Recommendations ........................................................ 11
4.3.1 Design Bearing Pressure ..................................................................... 11
4.3.2 Permanent Earth Pressures ................................................................. 12
4.3.3 Buoyancy and Uplift ............................................................................. 12
4.4 Fill Retaining Walls ..................................................................................... 12
4.5 Illumination, Signals, and Sign Foundations .............................................. 13
4.6 Pavement Section Recommendations ....................................................... 13
4.7 Stormwater Infiltration ................................................................................ 14
5 Construction Recommendations ............................................................. 15
5.1 General Earthwork Considerations ............................................................ 15
5.1.1 Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control ........................................ 15
ASPECT CONSULTING
ii DRAFT PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023
5.1.2 Temporary Slopes ................................................................................ 15
5.1.3 Permanent Slopes ............................................................................... 16
5.1.4 Wet Weather Construction ................................................................... 16
5.1.5 Construction Dewatering ...................................................................... 17
5.2 Subgrade Preparation ................................................................................ 17
5.2.1 General ................................................................................................ 17
5.2.2 Shallow Foundations, Slab on Grade, Vaults, Manholes ..................... 17
5.2.3 Pavements ........................................................................................... 18
5.2.4 Buried Piping ........................................................................................ 18
5.3 Structural Fill .............................................................................................. 18
5.3.1 Reuse of Site Soils as Structural Fill .................................................... 18
5.3.2 Imported Structural Fill ......................................................................... 19
5.3.3 Compaction Requirements .................................................................. 19
5.3.4 Compaction Procedures ...................................................................... 19
5.3.5 Pipe Bedding ........................................................................................ 20
5.4 Drainage Considerations ........................................................................... 20
6 Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services ................................. 21
6.1 Additional Design and Consultation Services ............................................ 21
6.2 Additional Construction Services ............................................................... 21
7 References ................................................................................................. 22
8 Limitations .................................................................................................. 24
List of Tables
1 Seismic Design Parameters ....................................................................... 8
2 Temporary Excavation Cut Slope Recommendations .............................. 15
List of Figures
1 Site Location Map
2 Site and Exploration Plan
3 Expanded Foundation Base Uplift Resistance
Photographs
1 View of vacant Parcel 112301-2-052-2008 facing east .............................. 3
2 Test pit number ATP-05 ............................................................................. 6
List of Appendices
A Exploration Logs
B Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023 DRAFT ES-1
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering study performed by Aspect
Consulting, LLC (Aspect) in support of Kitsap Transit’s new Park & Ride facility design
(Project), west of State Route (SR) 16 near the intersection of Sidney Road SW and SW
Sedgwick Road in Port Orchard, Washington (Site).
Based on our geotechnical evaluation of the Site that included data review, a Site
reconnaissance, on-site test pits, and preliminary geotechnical engineering analyses, the
Project is feasible from a geotechnical perspective—provided the recommendations
contained herein are properly incorporated into the Project planning, concept
development, design, and construction. Our key findings and conclusions include:
• The Site is underlain by moderately compressible and impermeable fine grained
materials, including silt with sand and sandy silt with few roots and trace woody
debris. Perched groundwater was encountered in some of the test pits.
• Stormwater infiltration is infeasible at this Site. Stormwater management using
traditional collection, detention, water quality treatment, and conveyance to an
appropriate conveyance system of discharge will be necessary.
• Small and lightweight buildings, shelters, and vaults planned with this Project may
be grade-supported on spread and strip footings or slabs on grade but with low
allowable bearing capacities to limit settlement.
• The native soil underlying the Site is highly moisture-sensitive. Reuse of native
material as structural fill will require dry season construction along with careful
moisture control and conditioning. If strict material handling is undesirable and/or
wet season construction could occur, structural sand and gravel should be imported.
If used, we recommend that reused fine-grained native soil is placed in the lower
reaches of fill areas, then subsequently covered with imported structural fill.
• The Project will include construction of flexible hot mix asphalt and rigid concrete
pavements. We have provided preliminary pavement sections in this report for
planning purposes; however, necessary inputs for pavement design have not yet
been provided to Aspect. Once a paving plan is developed, we can provide final
pavement design recommendations.
• Open trench excavations are feasible to support the installation of buried utilities.
Trench box support may be required where trench excavations exceed 4 feet. We
recommend all buried utility trenches be backfilled with imported sand and gravel.
• The Project includes installation of two large buried stormwater detention vaults.
Imported structural backfill for these vaults will consist of permeable sand and
gravel. Over time, a perched groundwater condition may develop where infiltrated
stormwater collects within the pervious structural backfill. The vault design should
consider a buoyancy/uplift condition where groundwater has perched around the
vault, and the water level inside the vault has been lowered for maintenance.
ASPECT CONSULTING
ES-2 DRAFT PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023
• Proposed luminaires, traffic lights, and traffic signs may be supported on
conventional foundations assuming use of the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Plans (WSDOT, 2022a).
This Executive Summary should only be used in the context of the full report.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023 DRAFT 1
1 Introduction
This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering study performed by Aspect
Consulting, LLC (Aspect) in support of Kitsap Transit’s new Park & Ride facility design
(Project). The Project is west of State Route (SR) 16 near the intersection of Sidney Road
SW and SW Sedgwick Road in Port Orchard, Washington (Site; Figure 1). The data and
recommendations in this report support the design of Park & Ride facilities at the Site.
We performed our services in support of engineering studies and construction plans by
Land Development Consultants, Inc. (LDC) on behalf of Kitsap Transit in accordance
with our subconsultant agreement signed May 12, 2022.
1.1 Project Description
Kitsap Transit will construct a new Park & Ride facility near SR16 and SW Sedgwick
Road to alleviate traffic congestion and parking demands in downtown Port Orchard and
Bremerton. The proposed Park & Ride will include:
• A hot mix asphalt (HMA) paved parking lot with at least 250 stalls
• Portland cement concrete pavement access drives and bus lanes
• Three bus bays and three standard shelters
• Luminaire and signal pole foundations
• Buried stormwater management facilities, including utilities and vaults
• Widening of the east side of Sidney Road SW
The parking lot will provide up to four connections to future City of Port Orchard (City)
walking trails and one maintenance vehicle access drive (in the northern portion of the
parking lot) for a future City park. The wetland walking trails and public park
development are assumed to be the City’s responsibility and part of a separate project.
The City plans to install public restrooms at the park; therefore, the proposed Park &
Ride improvements will not include public restrooms.
The eastern portion of the Site currently slopes down to the east towards an existing
wetland area, with an elevation drop of approximately 10 vertical feet. Current 60 percent
plans by LDC (LDC, 2022) were updated from the conceptual design to fill this area and
make the proposed parking lot relatively flat. Retaining walls up to 10 feet high will be
required along the eastern side of the parking lot to avoid encroachment into adjacent
wetlands. The 60 percent plans show fill walls along the eastern Site boundary and in the
northeast Site corner which are roughly 740 feet long and 320 feet long, respectively.
1.2 Scope of Services
Aspect’s scope of work included a subsurface exploration program consisting of eight
test pits excavated to roughly 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) to characterize the
ASPECT CONSULTING
2 DRAFT PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023
subsurface soil and groundwater conditions across the Site. This report provides the
baseline data for geotechnical recommendations for the Project and includes:
• Project and Site description
• Description of the field work completed and results of the investigation
• Distribution and characteristics of subsurface soils
• Recommendations for the following foundations assuming Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Plans (WSDOT, 2022a):
Luminaire foundations using Standard Plan J-28.30-03
Traffic signal foundations using Standard Plan J-26.10-03
Sign embedment assuming use of Standard Plan G-22.10-04 for timber posts
and G-25.10-05 for steel sign foundations
• Rigid (concrete) and flexible (asphalt) pavement design recommendations
• Shallow footing foundation recommendations
• Subgrade parameters for concrete slab-on-grade
• Buried utility and vault recommendations
• Lateral earth pressures for retaining wall design
• Earthwork and grading, cut, and fill recommendations
An eastern fill area and over 1,000 lineal feet of fill retaining walls were incorporated
into the Park & Ride design after Aspect’s original scope of work was developed. A
supplemental subsurface investigation will be necessary to support the fill retaining wall
design and settlement analysis within fill areas.
Aspect’s original test pit locations were selected based on the conceptual Park & Ride
footprint. The Site boundary now extends roughly 150 feet further east (LDC, 2022) and
is 10 vertical feet lower. Geotechnical conditions at the new eastern Site boundary may
vary from our observations further west and affect our design recommendations for
retaining walls and Site grading.
Our subsurface investigation locations are shown on Figure 2, and boring logs are
attached as Appendix A.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023 DRAFT 3
2 Site Conditions
Aspect assessed the surface and subsurface conditions of the Site through field
observations, a literature review, and a test pit program performed on May 31, 2022. Our
observes are described below. Refer to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Report (Aspect, 2022) for additional information on the Site setting, historical use
information, critical areas, and the recognized environmental conditions.
2.1 Surface Conditions and Topography
The Site is northeast of the intersection of Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road. It is
comprised of six existing lots (Kitsap County [County] parcel numbers 112301-2-052-
2008; -031-2004; -012-2007; -001-2008; -013-2006; and -046-2007) totaling
approximately 34 acres, as indicated in tax assessor records (County, 2023). At the time
of this report, the Site parcels were undeveloped or unoccupied, except for parcel
112301-2-046-2007, which is owned and occupied by Ronald Rice, who resides at 369
SW Sedgwick Road and operates the commercial business at 375 SW Sedgwick Road.
The Site is generally grassed, with occasional groups of mature deciduous trees and
shrubs (Photograph 1). Site topography is gently sloped from west to east from Elevation
190 to 170 feet NAVD88 1 (LDC, 2022) towards an existing wetland area.
Photograph 1. View of vacant Parcel 112301-2-052-2008, facing east.
1 All elevations reference North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).
ASPECT CONSULTING
4 DRAFT PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023
2.2 Critical Areas
An existing wetland is within the center and eastern portions of the Site (LDC, 2022;
County, 2017). Kitsap County maps the area coinciding with the wetland as hydric soils
(County, 2017), which are described as perennially wet soils. The proposed work is
outside of these areas, as well as outside the reduced, 90-foot-wide wetland buffer. There
are no landslide, erosion, flood, or seismic hazard areas mapped at the Site (County,
2017).
Refer to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (Aspect, 2022) for
information regarding recognized environmental conditions.
2.3 Geologic Setting
The Site is located within the Puget Lowland, a broad area of tectonic subsidence flanked
by two mountain ranges: the Cascades to the east and the Olympics to the west. The
sediments within the Puget Lowland are the result of repeated cycles of glacial and
nonglacial deposition and erosion. The most recent cycle, the Vashon Stade of the Fraser
Glaciation (about 13,000 to 16,000 years ago), is responsible for most of the present day
geologic and topographic conditions. During the Vashon Stade, the 3,000-foot-thick
Cordilleran Glacier advanced into the Puget Lowland.
As the Cordilleran Glacier advanced southward, lacustrine and fluvial sediments were
deposited in front of the glacier. Preglacial and proglacial sediments were overridden and
consolidated by the advancing glacier, creating dense and hard soil deposits. At the
interface between the advanced soils and the glacial ice, the Cordilleran Glacier sculpted
and smoothed the surface, and then deposited a consolidated basal till. As the Cordilleran
Glacier retreated northward from the Puget Lowland to British Columbia, it left an
unconsolidated sediment veneer of recessional outwash over glacially consolidated
deposits. Since the retreat, more recent deposits include fill, wetland deposits, beach
deposits, alluvium, lacustrine deposits, colluvium, and recent landslide deposits.
The Site is mapped as Vashon recessional outwash fines (outwash) described as mostly
silt, commonly ranging from fine sand to clay; gray to brown; angular to subangular,
well-sorted and loose; laminated to structureless (Polenz et al., 2009). The soil may be
locally stiff, but not usually compact. This map unit was deposed in ice-dammed lakes at
the end of the Fraser Glaciation.
The eastern Site boundary and the wetland area are mapped as alluvium of the Holocene
age, described as loose, well-rounded, well-sorted silt, sand, and gravel (Polenz et al.,
2009). The sediment source for alluvium is commonly naturally reworked recessional
outwash, till, advance outwash, or glaciolacustrine deposits.
2.4 Subsurface Conditions
Our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the Site was developed based on our
explorations, previous geotechnical analyses completed by others, our understanding of
the geologic setting, and our experience with other projects in the City with similar
settings.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023 DRAFT 5
2.4.1 Subsurface Field Investigation
On May 31, 2022, Aspect observed eight test pit excavations designated ATP-01 through
ATP-08. An Aspect representative was present throughout the field exploration program
to observe the explorations, assist in sampling, and prepare descriptive logs of each
exploration. Samples were obtained from select soil units to aid in the determination of
engineering properties of the subsurface materials. The locations of the explorations are
shown on Figure 1 and were collected in the field using a hand-portable global
positioning system.
The test pits were excavated to roughly 10 feet bgs by High Meadows Excavating, LLC
using a 35D Deere Mini Tracked Excavator. Relative density was tested using a ½-inch
steel T-probe in all test pits at 2 and 4 feet bgs. The test pits were backfilled with the
excavated soil in 1-foot lifts and compacted with the excavator bucket.
2.4.2 Stratigraphy
The results of our subsurface investigation indicate that the Site is generally covered by a
thin layer of topsoil underlain by native material that we interpreted as older alluvium,
which is in relative agreement with the geologic map. Fill was encountered at ATP-02
under the topsoil, overlying alluvium.
Our exploration logs are presented in Appendix A. Below, the soil conditions we
observed in the subsurface explorations are described in stratigraphic order from top to
bottom.
Topsoil
Topsoil refers to a unit that contains a high percentage of organics. Up to 0.75 feet of
topsoil was encountered at the ground surface in all eight explorations. The topsoil
consisted of loose 2, moist, dark brown, silt with sand (ML)3 with abundant organics.
Fill
In ATP-02, we observed fill material from 0.5 to 2 feet bgs. This material is described as
loose, moist, brown silty sand with gravel (SM) and 3- to 8-inch subrounded cobbles.
Alluvium
Native material that we interpreted as alluvium was observed in all test pits between the
topsoil or fill layer and the base of the explorations. The alluvium had an upper loose to
medium dense layer that generally extended to 4 feet bgs. Below the upper layer, dense
alluvium extended to the bottom of the test pits (Photograph 2).
2 Relative density was assessed with a 1/2-inch-diameter, pointed steel T-probe at various depth
intervals. Based on this, a relative density was assigned to the unit.
3 Soils were classified per the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with
ASTM International (ASTM) D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils
(ASTM, 2023).
ASPECT CONSULTING
6 DRAFT PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023
Photograph 2. Test pit number ATP-05
The upper alluvium consisted of medium dense (occasionally loose), moist, brown silt
with sand (ML) or silty sand (SM) with abundant small roots and woody debris and
mottled red-brown iron-oxide staining. T-probe penetration within this unit ranged from 3
to 7 inches, except in test pit ATP-05 where the T-probe extended up to 13 inches. The
upper alluvium is anticipated to exhibit low to moderate compressibility, moderate shear
strength, low permeability, and moderate to high moisture sensitivity due to its high
percentage of fines.
The lower dense alluvium consisted of medium dense to very dense, moist, gray silt (ML)
or sandy silt (ML), trace woody debris, and mottled red-brown iron-oxide staining. T-
probe penetration within this unit ranged from 2 to 5 inches. The dense alluvium is
anticipated to exhibit low compressibility, moderate to high shear strength, very low
permeability, and moderate to high moisture sensitivity.
10 feet
Contact between upper
medium-dense alluvium
and lower dense alluvium
(3 feet bgs in ATP-05)
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023 DRAFT 7
2.4.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was observed in test pit ATP-03 at 9.5 feet bgs and in test pit ATP-06 at 6
feet bgs, where sidewall caving occurred due to water infiltrating the exploration.
Groundwater was not encountered in other test pits.
Based on surface topography and proximity to surface water bodies, regional
groundwater is anticipated to flow toward the north-northeast via Blackjack Creek,
located on the eastern portion of the Site, toward Sinclair Inlet.. Groundwater levels and
stormwater discharge will fluctuate seasonally with precipitation, as well as with changes
in Site and near-Site usage.
ASPECT CONSULTING
8 DRAFT PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023
3 Seismic Design Considerations
In this section, we describe the relevant geologic hazards to the Site and the Project. This
section provides context for the City’s requirements related to the redevelopment of the
Site given typical earthquake engineering considerations at the Site.
3.1 Earthquake Engineering
The Site is located within the Puget Lowland physiographic province, an area of active
seismicity that is subject to earthquakes on shallow crustal faults and deeper subduction
zone earthquakes. The Site area lies about 4 miles south of the Seattle Fault Zone and 8
miles north of the Tacoma Fault Zone. The recurrence interval of earthquakes on these
fault zones are believed to be on the order of 1,000 years or more. The most recent large
earthquake on the Seattle Fault occurred about 1,100 years ago (Pratt et al., 2015). There
are also several other shallow crustal faults in the region capable of producing
earthquakes and strong ground shaking.
The Site area also lies within the zone of strong ground shaking from earthquakes
associated with the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). Subduction zone earthquakes
occur due to rupture between the subducting oceanic plate and the overlying continental
plate. The CSZ can produce earthquakes up to magnitude 9.3 and the recurrence interval
is thought to be on the order of about 500 years. A recent study estimates the most recent
subduction zone earthquake occurred around 1700 (Atwater et al., 2015).
Deep intraslab earthquakes, which occur from tensional rupture of the sinking oceanic
plate, are also associated with the CSZ. An example of this type of seismicity is the 2001
Nisqually earthquake. Deep intraslab earthquakes typically are magnitude 7.5 or less and
occur approximately every 10 to 30 years.
3.2 Ground Response
The International Building Code (IBC) seismic design is based on the “Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE)” with a 2 percent probability of exceedance (PE) in
50 years (2,475-year return period; ICC, 2018). Seismic design for the Project should be
completed with the specific ground motion parameters listed in Table 1 below and
assuming that the proposed structures are Risk Category II.
Table 1. Seismic Design Parameters
Design Parameter Recommended Value
Site Class D
Site Adjusted Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAm) 0.697g(1)(2)
Site Adjusted Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) 0.766g(3)
Short Period Spectral Acceleration (Ss) 1.637g
1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration (S1) 0.566g
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023 DRAFT 9
Design Parameter Recommended Value
Site Coefficient (Fa) 1.000
Site Coefficient (Fv) 1.734
Design Short Period Spectral Acceleration (SDS) 1.092g
Design 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration (SD1) 0.654g
Notes:
1. g = gravitational force
2. PGA as determined by methods presented in Chapter 11 of ASCE 7-16
3. Based on the latitude and longitude of the Site: 47.499238°N, -122.652045°W World Geodetic
System 1984 (WGS84)
4. Based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) hazard tool (ASCE, 2021)
3.3 Surficial Ground Rupture
The nearest known active fault trace is located approximately 4 miles north of the Site
(Gower et al., 1985). Due to the suspected long recurrence interval and the proximity of
the Site to the mapped fault trace, the potential for surficial ground rupture at the Site is
considered low during the expected life of the Project.
3.4 Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated, and relatively cohesionless soil deposits
temporarily lose strength from seismic shaking. The primary factors controlling the onset
of liquefaction include intensity and duration of strong ground motion, characteristics of
subsurface soil, in situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater.
The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) maps the Site as having very
low liquefaction susceptibility (DNR, 2004). Given the relative density, grain-size
distribution, and geologic origin of the soils at the Site, we do not consider liquefaction to
be a significant hazard for the Project.
ASPECT CONSULTING
10 DRAFT PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023
4 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering
Conclusions and Recommendations
Our preliminary design recommendations for foundations, slabs-on-grade, pavements,
retaining walls, and detention vaults are presented in the following sections. Additional
engineering analyses and evaluations may be required to support the final Project design.
4.1 Shallow Foundation Design and Recommendations
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the Site, buildings supported using
conventional spread or continuous (strip) footing foundations should be founded on
properly prepared and compacted structural fill or alluvium overlain by an 8-inch-thick
structural fill leveling pad.
4.1.1 Minimum Footing Size and Embedment
We recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for
structural fill or alluvium overlain by an 8-inch structural fill leveling pad. This allowable
bearing pressure includes a factor of safety of 3 for design purposes. The allowable soil
bearing pressures may be increased by up to one-third for temporary loading conditions
such as wind or seismic loading.
Generally, continuous strip footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches and
individual spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. Exterior footings
should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Any
interior footings may be embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the top of the slab.
4.1.2 Estimated Settlement
For spread footing foundations, and assuming the subgrade conditions described in the
introduction to this section and prepared as described in Section 5.2 we estimate the
applied loads discussed in Section 4.1.1 will result in maximum total settlement of about
1 inch and ½ inch of differential settlement over a 50-foot length. Foundation settlement
is expected to occur as the loads are applied.
4.1.3 Lateral Resistance
Wind, earthquakes, and unbalanced earth loads will subject the proposed structure to
lateral forces. Lateral forces on a structure will be resisted by a combination of sliding
resistance of its base or footing on the underlying soil and passive earth pressure against
the buried portions of the structure. For use in design, an ultimate coefficient of friction
of 0.6 may be assumed along the interface between the base of the footing and subgrade
soils.
An ultimate passive earth pressure of 450 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) may be assumed
for compact structural fill or undisturbed native soils adjacent to below-grade elements.
The upper 1 foot of passive resistance should be neglected in design, unless the adjacent
ground is protected/surfaced by slabs or pavement. The recommended coefficient of
friction and passive pressure value assume unsaturated conditions and level ground and
are ultimate values that do not include a safety factor. We recommend applying a factor
of safety of 1.5 in design to determine allowable values for coefficient of friction and
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023 DRAFT 11
passive pressure (e.g., the allowable friction factor is 0.4 and the allowable passive earth
pressure is 300 pcf).
4.2 Concrete Slab-On-Grade
Slab-on-grade subgrade preparation should be completed in the same manner as shallow
foundations described in Sections 4.1 and 5.2.
Slabs should be underlain by a 6-inch-thick capillary break material to provide uniform
support and moisture control. The capillary break material should consist of free-
draining, clean, fine gravel and coarse sand with a maximum particle size of 1 inch and
less than 3 percent material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve by weight (fines). A crushed
material is preferred to provide a subgrade surface that is not easily disturbed by workers
laying steel rebar and concrete formwork. The capillary break material should be
compacted to relatively firm and unyielding condition and evaluated by Aspect prior to
placement of steel rebar and formwork.
For slabs-on-grade designed as a beam on elastic foundations, we recommend using a
vertical modulus (Kv1) of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) if bearing on the sequence of
subgrade materials described above. Note that Kv1 is appropriate for a 1-foot by 1-foot
surface and the initial subgrade modulus used for design (Ks) will need to be adjusted
based on the width of the slab considered using the following equation:
Ks = Kv1(B+1)2/(4B2),
where B = slab width (in feet).
4.3 Stormwater Vault Recommendations
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the Site, stormwater vaults may be
founded on properly prepared and compacted structural fill or alluvium overlain by a 12-
inch-thick structural fill leveling pad.
4.3.1 Design Bearing Pressure
The weight of the water-filled concrete detention vaults will be less than the weight of
soil that is excavated; therefore, bearing capacity is not a design limitation. For the
purposes of evaluation and design, an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf may be
utilized.
Assuming the foundation subgrade is properly prepared and accomplished as
recommended herein, we estimate total settlement of less than about 1 inch and
differential settlement between two adjacent load-bearing components supported on
competent soil of less than about 0.5 inches. We anticipate that the majority of the
estimated settlement will occur during construction as the loads are applied. The vault
structures may also exhibit some of the anticipated settlement after construction as the
structure is initially loaded with water and drained. This cyclic loading may result in
minor structure rebound and resettlement.
ASPECT CONSULTING
12 DRAFT PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023
4.3.2 Permanent Earth Pressures
Permanent lateral earth pressure against the stormwater detention vault walls will depend
upon the degree of wall restraint and magnitude and location of any surcharge loads. For
the vault, we assume that the walls will be fixed, or restrained against lateral rotation,
resulting in the at-rest earth pressure condition. We recommend the vault walls also be
designed for an equivalent fluid weight of 55 pcf. Due to the low permeability of the
alluvium and potential for perched groundwater conditions, drainage around the vault
walls should be provided or the vault walls should be designed for hydrostatic pressure.
To account for general traffic surcharge pressures, we also recommend including a
uniform lateral pressure equal to 75 psf applied to the upper 15 feet of the structure,
where applicable. Other specific surcharge loads should be accounted for in the design as
needed.
4.3.3 Buoyancy and Uplift
The buried stormwater vaults will be backfilled with pervious structural fill. Over time,
there is a potential that infiltrated stormwater will accumulate within the pervious backfill
and perch over the underlying relatively impervious fine-grained alluvium. This
condition is generally not a concern when vaults are at least partially full of water;
however, there may be occasions when the stormwater vaults are pumped out for
cleaning and maintenance. In this condition, the vaults could be susceptible to critical
buoyant uplift. To avoid the potential for a buoyancy failure, the vaults should be
designed for a long-term high groundwater level on the vault exterior combined with no
water on the vault interior. We recommend assuming groundwater elevations of 187.5
and 186 feet NAVD88 (roughly 1 foot bgs) for the western and eastern vaults,
respectively, for design purposes. Buoyancy design calculations are provided on Figure 3.
We recommend the vaults be designed with a factor of safety of at least 1.3 against
buoyancy failure using the parameters provided on Figure 3. It may be necessary to
design the vaults with expanded bases.
4.4 Fill Retaining Walls
We understand that approximately 1,000 lineal feet of fill retaining walls, with exposed
heights averaging 10 feet, will be needed along the east and northeast areas of the new
Park & Ride facility. In our opinion, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) fill walls will
be appropriate. The fill walls can be constructed as the site fills are placed, utilizing
structural fill for MSE wall construction.
A variety of wall fascia can be considered ranging from small pre-cast concrete blocks,
such as Keystone, to large modular pre-cast blocks such as Ultrablock. Other proprietary
modular pre-cast concrete wall fascia such as by Lock+Load, could also be used. For a
more natural look, the MSE walls could be constructed using a rockery fascia in front of
a “wrapped face MSE wall.” Aspect is available to review and discuss wall types and
designs with LDC and Kitsap Transit as a supplemental service.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023 DRAFT 13
4.5 Illumination, Signals, and Sign Foundations
Illumination, signal, and sign foundations should be constructed in accordance with
WSDOT Standard Plans (WSDOT, 2022a), as follows:
• Luminaires: foundations should be constructed in accordance with WSDOT
Standard Plan J-28.30-03.
• Traffic signals: foundations should be constructed in accordance with WSDOT
Standard Plan J-26.10-03. Foundations that are not within the parameters of the
WSDOT Standard Plan require a special design, which we are able to assist with
under a separate scope.
• Traffic signs: embedment should be in accordance with WSDOT Standard Plan G-
22.10-04 for timber sign support or G-25.10-05 for steel sign foundations. Sign
embedment will vary based on foundation type and post size, as depicted in the
Standard Plans.
Based on correlations with soil consistency in the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual
(WSDOT, 2022b), it is our opinion that the existing native materials have allowable
lateral bearing pressures of 2,500 psf or more. Similarly, properly compacted structural
fill will have an allowable lateral bearing pressure of 2,500 psf or more. If loose soils are
encountered at the ground surface, the loose soils should be removed and properly
compacted.
On level ground or slopes not exceeding 4H:1V (horizontal to vertical), we recommend
construction of luminaires using Standard Foundation Type A, embedded at least 4.5 feet.
On slopes steeper than 4H:1V but less than 2H:1V, we recommend using foundation
Type B, with minimum embedment depths of 8 feet.
Based on our understanding of Site subsurface conditions, existing soil can remain
standing without shoring casing, and concrete can be gravity-placed. It is our opinion that
luminaire foundations can be installed using Method 1 per WSDOT Standard Plan J-
28.30-03 (WSDOT, 2022a), No Subsurface Form, if groundwater is not encountered. If
foundations are installed during the wet season, perched groundwater may cause soil
sloughing and caving. If this is the case, foundations should be installed using Method B,
Metal, Subsurface Form Required (WSDOT, 2022a).
4.6 Pavement Section Recommendations
We understand the new facility will be paved with flexible hot mix asphalt in passenger
vehicle drive and parking areas, and with rigid Portland cement concrete pavement in
heavy bus driveway and passenger load/unloading areas. Aspect is available to perform
Project-specific pavement section designs per current American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 1993) and WSDOT flexible pavement
design methodology (WSDOT, 2018) upon request. Necessary inputs to pavement design
include current traffic counts and percentage of heavy (truck and bus) traffic, estimated
growth over a 20-year design life, and desired roadway serviceability at the end of the 20-
year design life. In lieu of quantitative pavement designs, these areas can be designed
using standard pavement sections that have been successfully used elsewhere and which
ASPECT CONSULTING
14 DRAFT PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023
meet City of Port Orchard requirements. In this light, we preliminarily recommend the
following.
Passenger vehicle parking and drive areas may be paved using this minimum section.
• 3 inches hot mix asphalt (HMA) over 6 inches crushed surfacing
Hot mix asphalt areas that will receive more frequent traffic, such as primary driveway
lanes, Sidney Road SW, or that will support bus traffic, should have a more robust
flexible pavement section consisting of:
• 6 inches HMA over 12 inches of crushed surfacing
In main bus driveway and passenger pickup/drop-off areas, we recommend rigid Portland
cement concrete pavement be used to provide greater resistance to rutting over time and
improved reliability and serviceability. We recommend the rigid pavement section with
the following minimum requirements from top to bottom:
• 8 inches of concrete over 8 inches of crushed surfacing
The concrete should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per
square inch (psi). Crushed surfacing shall meet the requirements of Section 9-03.9(3) of
the WSDOT Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2023). The upper 2 to 3 inches of a
surfacing layer should be crushed surfacing top course (CSTC) and the lower portion
should be crushed surfacing base course (CSBC).
Before crushed surfacing is placed, pavement subgrade should be proof rolled using a
fully loaded dump truck. Any yielding areas should be overexcavated and replaced with
suitable structural fill, or additional CSBC. A competent geo-inspector should observe
and evaluate the proof rolling process and determine extents and depths of over-
excavation and replacement (please refer to Section 5.2.3 for additional discussion).
4.7 Stormwater Infiltration
The Site is underlain by relatively impermeable fine-grained alluvium. Stormwater
infiltration is infeasible. We recommend stormwater management be accomplished using
conventional catch basins and storm drainpipes, and detention facilities that allow a
controlled discharge into an appropriate system.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023 DRAFT 15
5 Construction Recommendations
Detailed design and construction recommendations for building foundations and slabs-
on-grade, luminaire and traffic signal foundations, traffic sign embedment, pavements,
drainage, retaining walls, buried utilities and vaults, and key earthwork activities
anticipated for the Project are presented in the following sections. Material specifications
reference the current WSDOT Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2023) unless otherwise
noted.
5.1 General Earthwork Considerations
Based on the explorations performed across the Site and our understanding of the Project,
it is our opinion that the Contractor can complete earthwork and excavations with
standard construction equipment. The soils encountered at the Site contain a significant
percentage of fines (particles passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve), making them
moisture sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. We recommend planning the
earthwork portions of the Project to occur during the drier summer months.
5.1.1 Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control
To prevent Site erosion during construction, appropriate temporary erosion and
sedimentation control (TESC) measures should be used in accordance with the
recommendations above and the local best management practices (BMPs). Specific
TESC measures may include appropriately placed silt fencing, straw wattles, rock check
dams, and plastic covering of exposed slope cuts and soil stockpiles. Outside of the
proposed construction areas, the existing vegetation should be retained.
Permanent erosion control within the areas of construction should be achieved through
pavement surfacing or the re-establishment of vegetation. In our experience, successful
erosion-related vegetation management strategies aim to maximize the root
reinforcement, evapotranspiration/rain interception, and buttressing properties of low-
lying vegetation and shrubs while minimizing surcharge loads, root wedging, and
windthrowing typically associated with larger tree species.
5.1.2 Temporary Slopes
Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the
responsibility of the Contractor. All temporary cuts in excess of 4 feet in height that are
not protected by trench boxes or otherwise shored should be sloped in accordance with
Part N of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155 (WSL, 2022) as shown
in the table below.
Table 2. Temporary Excavation Cut Slope Recommendations
Soil Unit OSHA Soil
Classification
Maximum
Temporary Slope
Maximum
Height (ft)
Existing fill, structural fill, and
upper medium-dense alluvium C 1.5H:1V 20
Lower dense alluvium B 1H:1V 20
Notes: OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health Administration; H:V = Horizontal : Vertical
ASPECT CONSULTING
16 DRAFT PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023
The estimated maximum cut slope inclinations are provided for planning purposes only
and are applicable to excavations without groundwater seepage or runoff and assume dry
to moist conditions. Flatter slopes will likely be necessary in areas where groundwater
seepage exists, or where construction equipment surcharges are placed in close proximity
with the crest of the excavation.
With time and the presence of seepage and/or precipitation, the stability of temporary
unsupported cut slopes can be significantly reduced. Therefore, all temporary slopes
should be protected from erosion by installing a surface water diversion ditch or berm at
the top of the slope. In addition, the Contractor should monitor the stability of the
temporary cut slopes and adjust the construction schedule and slope inclination
accordingly. Vibrations created by traffic and construction equipment may cause caving
and raveling of the temporary slopes. In such an event, lateral support for the temporary
slopes should be provided by the Contractor to prevent loss of ground support.
5.1.3 Permanent Slopes
In our opinion, permanent structural fill slopes up to 2H:1V are possible provided best
management practices are followed. We recommend that cut and fill slopes be
permanently seeded or otherwise landscaped to provide for long-term erosion prevention.
Permanent seeding may include native plants and grasses (applied by hydroseed with
tackifier) with a temporary biodegradable erosion control blanket to cover the hydroseed
and provide temporary protection until the grasses grow through the blanket. Where
possible, the native topsoil should be retained and incorporated into the slopes prior to
seeding. The Washington State Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) recommends permanent seeding and
erosion control blankets be designed and installed in accordance with its Best
Management Practices C120 and C122, respectively (Ecology, 2019).
5.1.4 Wet Weather Construction
The soils encountered across the Site are moisture sensitive and may be difficult to
handle, prepare, or compact with construction equipment during periods of wet weather.
Earthwork is typically most economical when performed under dry weather conditions. If
earthwork is to be performed or fill is to be placed in wet weather or under wet
conditions, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the contract
specifications:
• Earthwork should be performed in small areas to minimize exposure to wet weather.
Excavation or removal of unsuitable soils should be followed promptly by the
placement and compaction of clean structural fill. The size and type of construction
equipment used may need to be limited to prevent soil disturbance.
• Materials used as structural fill should consist of clean, granular soil containing less
than 7 percent fines, such as Gravel Borrow, as specified in Section 9-03.14(1) of
the Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2023). The fines should be nonplastic.
• The ground surface within the construction area should be sealed by a smooth drum
vibratory roller (or equivalent) and under no circumstances should be left
uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Soils that become too wet for compaction
should be removed and replaced with clean granular materials.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023 DRAFT 17
• Excavation and placement of structural fill should be observed by Aspect to verify
that all unsuitable materials are removed, and suitable compaction is achieved.
• Local BMPs for erosion protection should be strictly followed.
5.1.5 Construction Dewatering
Minor groundwater seepage and surficial runoff may be encountered at shallow depths.
We anticipate that strategically placed sumps and pumps will sufficiently control water
inflow. Sumps are often constructed by placing a short section of perforated corrugated
steel pipe (or surplus 8- to 12-inch well screen) in a small hole excavated below the
subgrade elevation/excavation. The annular space around the pipe is backfilled with drain
rock, with several inches placed inside the casing to help control the pumping of fines.
Submersible pumps (trash pumps) are then placed inside the casing and connected to a
central discharge pipe.
The Contractor should be responsible for design, implementation, and any necessary
permits associated with any construction dewatering system used for the Project.
5.2 Subgrade Preparation
5.2.1 General
Subgrade preparation for structures including, but not limited to pavements, luminaire
foundations, manholes, vaults, pavements, piping, retaining walls, and areas that will
receive structural fill should include removal of all topsoil, debris, loose fill soils, roots,
and any other deleterious materials. All bearing surfaces should be trimmed neat and
carefully prepared.
The on-Site soils contain variable amounts of fine-grained particles, which makes them
moisture sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The Contractor must use care
during Site preparation and excavation operations so that any bearing surfaces are not
disturbed. If this occurs, the disturbed material should be removed to expose undisturbed
material.
We recommend that all bearing surfaces be observed by Aspect to verify that the
recommendations of this report have been followed.
5.2.2 Shallow Foundations, Slab on Grade, Vaults, Manholes
The base of shallow foundations, slabs on grade, vaults, and manholes should be founded
on properly prepared and compacted structural fill or alluvium overlain by a leveling pad
consisting of structural fill or controlled density fill. Structural fill leveling pads should
consist of Class A Gravel Backfill for Foundations per Section 9-03.12(1)A of the
WSDOT Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2023) with the following thicknesses:
• 8-inch leveling pad below shallow foundations and slabs on grade
• 12-inch leveling pad below vaults
• 6-inch leveling pad below manholes
Leveling pads should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor
maximum dry density (MDD) per test method ASTM D1557 (ASTM, 2023). A
ASPECT CONSULTING
18 DRAFT PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023
geotextile fabric should be placed at the interface between the subgrade soil and the
leveling pad. The geotextile should be a woven product meeting the requirements for Soil
Stabilization as described in Section 9-33.2 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications.
5.2.3 Pavements
The alluvium or imported select fill will provide suitable subgrade support for new
pavement sections. Pavement subgrades should be proof rolled with a fully loaded 10-
cubic-yard dump truck or equivalent. An Aspect geotechnical engineer or geologist
should observe and evaluate the proof rolling operation. Any soft areas detected by the
proof-rolling or other methods should be compacted in place or overexcavated to firm
ground and backfilled with compacted structural fill to the design subgrade elevation. To
provide for quality construction practices and materials, we recommend all pavement
work and mix-design considerations conform to WSDOT Pavement Policy and the
Standard Specifications. (WSDOT 2018; WSDOT 2023).
Drainage is an essential aspect of pavement performance. We recommend providing all
paved areas with positive drainage to remove surface water and water within the base
course. This will be particularly important in cut sections or at low points within the
paved areas, such as at catch basins. Pavement sections shall not be placed on frozen
subgrades.
5.2.4 Buried Piping
In areas where the trench bottom encounters very soft or organic-rich subgrade soils,
unsuitable material should be overexcavated and backfilled with pipe bedding material.
The depth of overexcavation shall generally be limited to 2 feet and should be confirmed
by the geotechnical engineer. A soil separation-grade geotextile may be used to limit
overexcavation requirements as determined by the geotechnical engineer’s representative.
5.3 Structural Fill
For purposes of this report, material placed under structures, pavement, sidewalks, as
wall backfill, or as utility trench backfill, should be considered structural fill. The current
60 percent plans by LDC show the Site will require a significant volume of fill to raise
grades along the eastern portion of the Park & Ride facility.
5.3.1 Reuse of Site Soils as Structural Fill
From a geotechnical standpoint, the existing fill and alluvium would be suitable for reuse
as structural fill for Site grading, if earthwork is completed during the dry season, all
excavated materials are screened from organics and other deleterious debris, and the
material is strictly moisture-conditioned to meet compaction requirements. The moisture
content during compaction is critical as structural fill derived from the native material
cannot be compacted unless it is within +/- 2 percent of the optimum moisture content for
compaction.
Excavated material should be visually inspected by Aspect to determine its potential use
as structural fill. Excavated material that is unsuitable as structural fill may be suitable as
backfill for unimproved areas (i.e., landscaped areas) that are not sensitive to differential
settlement over time.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023 DRAFT 19
We recommend fine-grained native soil that gets reused as structural fill should be placed
in the lower reaches of the fill prism, and then subsequently covered with imported
structural fill.
5.3.2 Imported Structural Fill
Imported structural fill should be relatively clean, free draining, nonplastic, uniformly
graded, and free from organic matter or other deleterious materials and be used in
accordance with the following recommendations:
• General Site Grading Fill: Imported general site grading structural fill should
consist of Gravel Borrow, as specified in Section 9-03.14(1) of the WSDOT
Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2023). This material should also be used as
backfill around buried stormwater vaults.
• Foundation leveling pads: Class A gravel backfill for foundations, as specified in
Section 9-03.12(1)A of the Standard Specifications, is appropriate. Alternatively,
crushed surfacing as specified in Section 9-03.9(3) of the Standard Specifications,
may be used.
• Beneath pavements: CSBC and CSTC as specified in Section 9-03.9(3) of the
Standard Specifications, should be used.
• Vault walls, beside manholes, and behind retaining walls: Gravel Borrow, or
Gravel Backfill for Walls as specified in Section 9-03.912(2) of the Standard
Specifications, may be used.
• Pipe bedding: Gravel backfill for pipe zone bedding as specified in Section 9-
03.12(3) of the Standard Specifications is acceptable.
• Reinforcement zone of MSE walls: Gravel borrow for structural earth walls as
specified in Section 9-03.14(4) of the Standard Specifications is appropriate.
5.3.3 Compaction Requirements
In general, all structural fill should be at or near optimum moisture content at the time of
placement and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD as determined by
ASTM D1557 (ASTM, 2023). In some circumstances, the compaction requirement can
be reduced to 90 percent of the MDD, when it is considered that overcompaction may
lead to damage (i.e., in close proximity to a vault or manhole).
5.3.4 Compaction Procedures
The procedure to achieve the specified minimum relative compaction depends on the size
and type of compacting equipment, the number of passes, thickness of the layer being
compacted, and certain soil properties. When the size of the excavation restricts the use
of heavy equipment, smaller equipment can be used, but the soil must be placed in thin
enough lifts to achieve the required compaction. A sufficient number of in-place density
tests should be performed as the fill is placed to verify the required relative compaction is
being achieved. The frequency of the in-place density testing can be determined at the
time of final design, when more details of the Project grading and backfilling plans are
available.
ASPECT CONSULTING
20 DRAFT PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023
Generally, loosely compacted soils are a result of poor construction technique or
improper moisture content. Soils with a high percentage of silt or clay are particularly
susceptible to becoming too wet, and coarse-grained materials easily become too dry, for
proper compaction. Silty or clayey soils with a moisture content too high for adequate
compaction should be dried as necessary, or moisture-conditioned by mixing with drier
materials, or other methods.
When the first fill is placed in a given area, and/or any time the fill material changes, the
area should be considered a test section. The test section should be used to establish fill
placement and compaction procedures required to achieve proper compaction. Aspect or
qualified materials inspection personnel should observe placement and compaction of the
test section to assist in establishing an appropriate compaction procedure. Once a
placement and compaction procedure is established, the Contractor’s operations should
be monitored, and periodic density tests performed to verify that proper compaction is
being achieved.
5.3.5 Pipe Bedding
Pipe bedding for stormwater piping material, placement, compaction, and shaping shall
be in accordance with the Project specifications and the pipe manufacturer’s
recommendations. We recommend a minimum of 4 inches of bedding material be placed
beneath the pipe. The pipe bedding should extend at least 6 inches above the pipe crown
or such greater thickness as may be required by the pipe manufacturer. Pipe bedding shall
provide a firm, uniform cradle for the pipe. Material and/or backfill around the pipe shall
be placed in layers and tamped to obtain complete contact with the pipe.
5.4 Drainage Considerations
The outside edge of all perimeter footings and embedded walls should be provided with a
drainage system consisting of a 4-inch-diameter (minimum), perforated, rigid pipe
embedded in free-draining gravel meeting the requirements of Section 9-03.12(4) of the
WSDOT Standard Specifications, Gravel Backfill for Drains (WSDOT, 2023). The
footing and wall drains should be a minimum of 1 foot thick, and a layer of low
permeability soils should be used over the upper foot of the drain section to reduce the
potential for surface water to enter the drain curtain. Prefabricated drain mats combined
with relatively free-draining backfill may be used as an alternative to washed-rock
footings and wall drains. The footing drainage systems and roof downspout systems (if
applicable) shall be separate pipe systems up to the on-site collection system.
Site grades should be sloped to discharge surface water away from slope faces and fill
areas to suitable collection and disposal areas.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023 DRAFT 21
6 Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services
At the time of this report, Site grading, utilities, civil plans, and construction methods
have not been finalized, and the recommendations presented herein are based on 60
percent Project design information. If Project developments result in changes to the
assumptions made herein, we should be contacted to determine if our recommendations
should be revised.
Throughout this report, we have provided recommendations where we consider it would
be appropriate for Aspect to provide additional geotechnical input to the design and
construction process. Additional recommendations are summarized in this section.
6.1 Additional Design and Consultation Services
Before construction begins, we recommend that Aspect:
• Continue to meet with the design team as needed to address geotechnical questions
that may arise throughout the remainder of the design process.
• Conduct additional geotechnical engineering investigations and analyses as needed
to support the Project elements and final design, including MSE wall designs and
settlement calculations below fill areas.
• Review the geotechnical elements of the Project plans to see that the geotechnical
engineering recommendations are properly interpreted.
6.2 Additional Construction Services
We are available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during
construction. The integrity of the geotechnical elements depends on proper Site
preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to
be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become
apparent.
During the construction phase of the Project, we recommend that Aspect be retained to
perform the following tasks:
• Review applicable submittals
• Observe and evaluate subgrade and structural fill placement for all footings, slabs-
on-grade, retaining walls, and structural fill pads
• Attend meetings, as needed
• Address other geotechnical engineering considerations that may arise during
construction
The purpose of our observations is to verify compliance with design concepts and
recommendations and to allow design changes or evaluation of appropriate construction
methods in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the
start of construction.
ASPECT CONSULTING
22 DRAFT PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023
7 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1993,
AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, Washington, D.C.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2021, ASCE 7 Hazard Tool,
https://asce7hazardtool.online/, accessed February 23, 2023.
Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect), 2022, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
SR 16 Properties, Project No. 220118, August 10, 2022.
ASTM International (ASTM), 2023, 2023 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
Atwater, B.F., S. Musumi-Rokkaku, D. Satake, Y. Tsuji, K. Ueda, and D.K. Yamaguci
(Atwater et al.), 2015, The orphan tsunami of 1700—Japanese clues to a parent
earthquake in North America, U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1707.
Gower H.D., J.C. Yount, and R.S. Crosson (Gower et al.), 1985, Seismotectonic map of
the Puget Sound region, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous
Investigations Series Map I-1613, p. 15, plate 1, scale 1:250,000.
International Code Council (ICC), 2018, International Building Code (IBC), Prepared by
International Code Council, First Printing August 2017.
Kitsap County (County), 2017, Critical Areas Kitsap County Washington Map, April 27,
2017.
Kitsap County (County), 2023, Kitsap County Parcel Search Application,
https://psearch.kitsapgov.com/psearch/, accessed on February 23, 2023.
Land Development Consultants, Inc. (LDC), 2022, SR16 Park and Ride Design 60%
Construction Plans, Drawings, December 20, 2022.
Polenz, M., Alldritt, K., Heheman, N. J., and Logan, R. L., 2009, Geologic map of the
Burley 7.5-minute quadrangle, Kitsap and Pierce Counties, Washington,
Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Map Scale: 1:24,000, July
2009.
Pratt, T.L., K.G. Troost, J.K. Odum, and W.J. Stephenson (Pratt et al.), 2015, Kinematics
of shallow backthrusts in the Seattle fault zone, Washington State, Geosphere, v.
11, no. 6, p. 1–27, doi:10.1130/GES01179.1.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2019, Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington, Publication Number 19-10-021, July 2019.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), 2004, Liquefaction
Susceptibility and Site Class Maps of Washington State, By County, Washington
Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report 2004-20, by Palmer,
S.P., S.L. Magsino, E.L. Bilderback, J.L. Poelstra, D.S. Folger, and R.A.
Niggemann, 2004, September 2004.
ASPECT CONSULTING
PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023 DRAFT 23
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2018, Pavement Policy.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2022a, Standard Plans, M21-
01, September 2022.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2022b, Geotechnical Design
Manual M 46-03.16, February 10, 2022.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2023, Standard
Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, M 41-10, 2023.
Washington State Legislature (WSL), 2022, Washington Administrative Code, Chapter
296-155 WAC: Safety Standards for Construction Work, July 19, 2022.
ASPECT CONSULTING
24 DRAFT PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023
8 Limitations
Work for this project was performed for Land Development Consultants, Inc. (Client),
and this report was prepared consistent with recognized standards of professionals in the
same locality and involving similar conditions, at the time the work was performed. No
other warranty, expressed or implied, is made by Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect).
Recommendations presented herein are based on our interpretation of site conditions,
geotechnical engineering calculations, and judgment in accordance with our mutually
agreed-upon scope of work. Our recommendations are unique and specific to the project,
site, and Client. Application of this report for any purpose other than the project should
be done only after consultation with Aspect.
Variations may exist between the soil and groundwater conditions reported and those
actually underlying the site. The nature and extent of such soil variations may change
over time and may not be evident before construction begins. If any soil conditions are
encountered at the site that are different from those described in this report, Aspect
should be notified immediately to review the applicability of our recommendations.
Risks are inherent with any site involving slopes and no recommendations, geologic
analysis, or engineering design can assure slope stability. Our observations, findings, and
opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the Client.
It is the Client's responsibility to see that all parties to this project, including the designer,
contractor, subcontractors, and agents, are made aware of this report in its entirety. At the
time of this report, design plans and construction methods have not been finalized, and
the recommendations presented herein are based on 60 percent project information. If
project developments result in changes from the preliminary project information, Aspect
should be contacted to determine if our recommendations contained in this report should
be revised and/or expanded upon.
The scope of work does not include services related to construction safety precautions.
Site safety is typically the responsibility of the contractor, and our recommendations are
not intended to direct the contractor’s site safety methods, techniques, sequences, or
procedures. The scope of our work also does not include the assessment of environmental
characteristics, particularly those involving potentially hazardous substances in soil or
groundwater.
All reports prepared by Aspect for the Client apply only to the services described in the
Agreement(s) with the Client. Any use or reuse by any party other than the Client is at the
sole risk of that party, and without liability to Aspect. Aspect’s original files/reports shall
govern in the event of any dispute regarding the content of electronic documents
furnished to others.
Please refer to Appendix B titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for
additional information governing the use of this report.
We appreciate the opportunity to perform these services. If you have any questions please
call Erik Andersen, Principle Geotechnical Engineer, at 360.746.8964.
FIGURES
^GIS Path: Q:\_GeoTech\220118 Kitsap Transit\2022-11 SR16 Park and Ride\GIS\01 Site Location Map.mxd || Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 11/21/2022 || User: scudd || Print Date: 11/21/2022Site Location Map
Geotechnical Engineering ReportKitsap Transit SR16 Park and Ride
Port Orchard, Washington
FIGURE NO.1NOV-2022
PROJECT NO.220118
BY:CB / SCC
REVISED BY:- - -
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
W A S H I N G T O N
!(
Bellingham
Olympia
Port Angeles
Seattle Spokane
Tacoma Wenatchee
Yakima
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!(
UV16Belfair
Bremerton
Port Orchard
Purdy
Seabeck Silverdale
SouthworthSunnyslope
Vashon
Basemap Layer Credits || Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user communitySources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community
SITE LOCATION
SITE LOCATION
SITELOCATION
Δ
ATP-06
ATP-04
ATP-03
ATP-02
ATP-08 ATP-07
ATP-05ATP-01
CAD Path: Q:\_GeoTech\220118 Kitsap Transit\2022-11 SR16 Park and Ride\220118-02.dwg 02 Site and Exploration Plan || Date Saved: Mar 01, 2023 10:18am || User: jgreggGeotechnical Engineering Report
Kitsap Transit SR16 Park and Ride
Port Orchard, Washington
2
BY:
CB/SCC
Site and Exploration Plan
Mar-2023
REVISED BY:
-
PROJECT NO.
220118
FIGURE NO.
Feet
0 150 300
Test Pit Location
Property Boundary
Source: Base CAD files from LDC Surveying, Engineering, Planning.
Legend
PROPOSED
STRUCTURE
DWB
BW
FB
SYMBOL ASSUMPTIONS
FACTOR OF SAFETY
AGAINST UPLIFT =W + WB + FFL
FB
B = WIDTH OF EXTENDED BASE IN FEET
(IF REQUIRED)
W = STRUCTURAL WEIGHT IN POUNDS
WB = SOIL WEIGHT ABOVE EXTENDED
BASE IN POUNDS
= VOLUME OF SOIL ABOVE EXTENDED
BASE X SOIL UNIT WEIGHT
FB = BUOYANT FORCE IN POUNDS
= UNIT WEIGHT OF WATER X VOLUME
OF STRUCTURE BELOW DESIGN
GROUNDWATER LEVEL
WATER UNIT WEIGHT = 63 PCF
SOIL UNIT WEIGHT = 125 PCF ABOVE DESIGN
HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL
DESIGN HIGH
GROUNDWATER LEVEL
FINISH GRADE
B
62 PCF BELOW DESIGN
HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL
FF = SOIL FRICTION IN POUNDS PER FOOT
= 9.5H + 19H H + 4.8H 2
1 1 2 2
FF
L = PERIMETER AROUND BASE IN FEET CAD Path: Q:\_GeoTech\220118 Kitsap Transit\2022-11 SR16 Park and Ride\220118-03.dwg Figure 3 (8.5 x 11) || Date Saved: Mar 01, 2023 10:17am || User: jgreggGeotechnical Engineering Report
Kitsap Transit SR16 Park and Ride
Port Orchard, Washington
3
BY:
JRG
Expanded Foundation Base Uplift Resistance
Mar-2023
REVISED BY:
-
PROJECT NO.
220118
FIGURE NO.
APPENDIX A
Exploration Logs
PROJECT NO. 220118 MARCH 2, 2023 DRAFT A-1
A. Subsurface Explorations Methodology
A field exploration program was performed on May 31, 2022, to determine the
geotechnical properties of materials at the Site. High Meadows Excavating LLC, under
subcontract to Aspect, completed eight test pits (designated ATP-01 to ATP-08).
Excavation was conducted using a 35D Deere Mini Tracked Excavator to depths ranging
between 9.5 and 10 feet bgs. The test pits were backfilled with excavated soils that was
tamped into place using the excavator bucket.
An Aspect representative was present throughout the program to observe the excavation
procedures, assist in sampling, and prepare descriptive logs of the exploration. Soils were
classified in general accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) D2488, Standard
Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure) (ASTM,
2023). The relative density/consistency of the soils was evaluated qualitatively with a
0.5-inch-diameter steel T probe and observation of digging difficulty.
The exploration logs are provided within this appendix and exploration locations are
shown on Figure 2. The summary exploration logs represent our interpretation of the
contents of the field logs. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual summary
logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be
more gradual. The subsurface conditions depicted are only for the specific date and
locations reported and are not necessarily representative of other locations and times.
AI Path: Q:\_ACAD Standards\FIELD REFERENCE\MASTERS\Exploration Log Key-2018.ai // user: jinman // last saved: 12/31/2018“WITH SILT” or “WITH CLAY” means 5 to 15% silt and clay, denoted by a “-“ in the group
name; e.g., SP-SM ● “SILTY” or “CLAYEY” means >15% silt and clay ● “WITH SAND” or “WITH
GRAVEL” means 15 to 30% sand and gravel. ● “SANDY” or “GRAVELLY” means >30% sand and
gravel. ● “Well-graded” means approximately equal amounts of fine to coarse grain sizes ● “Poorly
graded” means unequal amounts of grain sizes ● Group names separated by “/” means soil
contains layers of the two soil types; e.g., SM/ML.
Soils were described and identified in the field in general accordance with the methods described in
ASTM D2488. Where indicated in the log, soils were classified using ASTM D2487 or other
laboratory tests as appropriate. Refer to the report accompanying these exploration logs for details.
% by Weight
Density³SPT² Blows/Foot
HighlyOrganicSoilsFine-Grained Soils - 50%1 or More Passes No. 200 SieveCoarse-Grained Soils - More than 50%1 Retained on No. 200 SieveGravels - More than 50%1 of Coarse FractionRetained on No. 4 Sieve15% Fines5% FinesSands - 50%1 or More of Coarse FractionPasses No. 4 SieveSilts and ClaysLiquid Limit Less than 50%Silts and ClaysLiquid Limit 50% or More15% Fines5% FinesWell-graded GRAVEL
Well-graded GRAVEL WITH SAND
Poorly-graded GRAVEL
Poorly-graded GRAVEL WITH SAND
SILTY GRAVEL
SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND
CLAYEY GRAVEL
CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND
Well-graded SAND
Well-graded SAND WITH GRAVEL
Poorly-graded SAND
Poorly-graded SAND WITH GRAVEL
SILTY SAND
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL
CLAYEY SAND
CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL
SILT
SANDY or GRAVELLY SILT
SILT WITH SAND
SILT WITH GRAVEL
LEAN CLAY
SANDY or GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL
ORGANIC SILT
SANDY or GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILT
ORGANIC SILT WITH SAND
ORGANIC SILT WITH GRAVEL
ELASTIC SILT
SANDY or GRAVELLY ELASTIC SILT
ELASTIC SILT WITH SAND
ELASTIC SILT WITH GRAVEL
FAT CLAY
SANDY or GRAVELLY FAT CLAY
FAT CLAY WITH SAND
FAT CLAY WITH GRAVEL
ORGANIC CLAY
SANDY or GRAVELLY ORGANIC CLAY
ORGANIC CLAY WITH SAND
ORGANIC CLAY WITH GRAVEL
PEAT and other
mostly organic soils
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
Modifier
Organic Chemicals
BTEX =Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes
TPH-Dx =Diesel and Oil-Range Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH-G =Gasoline-Range Petroleum Hydrocarbons
VOCs =Volatile Organic Compounds
SVOCs =Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
PAHs =Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Compounds
PCBs =Polychlorinated Biphenyls
GEOTECHNICAL LAB TESTSMC=Natural Moisture Content
PS =Particle Size Distribution
FC =Fines Content (% < 0.075 mm)GH =Hydrometer TestAL=Atterberg Limits
C =Consolidation Test
Str =Strength Test
OC =Organic Content (% Loss by Ignition)
Comp =Proctor Test
K =Hydraulic Conductivity Test
SG =Specific Gravity Test
RCRA8 =As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se, Ag, (d = dissolved, t = total)
MTCA5 =As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb (d = dissolved, t = total)
PP-13 =Ag, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Tl, Zn (d=dissolved, t=total)
CHEMICAL LAB TESTS
PID =Photoionization Detector
Sheen =Oil Sheen Test
SPT 2 =Standard Penetration Test
NSPT =Non-Standard Penetration Test
DCPT =Dynamic Cone Penetration Test
<1 =Subtrace
1 to <5 =Trace
5 to 10 =Few
Dry =Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
Slightly Moist =Perceptible moisture
Moist =Damp but no visible water
Very Moist =Water visible but not free draining
Wet = Visible free water, usually from below water table
COMPONENT
DEFINITIONSDescriptive Term Size Range and Sieve Number
Boulders = Larger than 12 inches
Cobbles =3 inches to 12 inches
Coarse Gravel =3 inches to 3/4 inches
Fine Gravel =3/4 inches to No. 4 (4.75 mm)
Coarse Sand =No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 10 (2.00 mm)
Medium Sand =No. 10 (2.00 mm) to No. 40 (0.425 mm)
Fine Sand =No. 40 (0.425 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm)
Silt and Clay =Smaller than No. 200 (0.075 mm)
Metals
ESTIMATED1
PERCENTAGE
MOISTURE
CONTENT
RELATIVE DENSITY
CONSISTENCY
GEOLOGIC CONTACTS
Very Loose =0 to 4 ≥2'
Loose =5 to 10 1' to 2'
Medium Dense =11 to 30 3" to 1'
Dense =31 to 50 1" to 3"
Very Dense => 50 < 1"
Consistency³
Very Soft =0 to 1 Penetrated >1" easily by thumb. Extrudes between thumb & fingers.
Soft =2 to 4 Penetrated 1/4" to 1" easily by thumb. Easily molded.
Medium Stiff =5 to 8 Penetrated >1/4" with effort by thumb. Molded with strong pressure.
Stiff =9 to 15 Indented ~1/4" with effort by thumb.
Very Stiff =16 to 30 Indented easily by thumbnail.
Hard => 30 Indented with difficulty by thumbnail.
Non-Cohesive or Coarse-Grained Soils
SPT² Blows/Foot
Observed and Distinct Observed and Gradual Inferred
1.Estimated or measured percentage by dry weight
2.(SPT) Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586)
3.Determined by SPT, DCPT (ASTM STP399) or other field methods. See report text for details.
% by Weight Modifier
15 to 25 =Little
30 to 45 =Some
>50 =Mostly
Penetration with 1/2" Diameter Rod
Manual Test
FIELD TESTS
Cohesive or Fine-Grained Soils
Exploration Log Key
Backfilled with
excavated material
and tamped down with
excavator bucket in
one foot lifts.S1S2S3S4S5TOPSOIL
SILT (ML); loose, moist, dark brown; abundant 1-to-2-inch
roots.
ALLUVIUM
SILT WITH SAND (ML); medium dense, moist, brown;
fine sand
SILT (ML); dense, moist, gray; low plasticity; mottled
red-brown oxidation; trace 0.25-to-1-inch woody debris.
Becomes with 0.25-0.5-inch fine sand lamina.
Becomes very moist.
Bottom of exploration at 10 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving occured.
T-probe =6"
T-probe =5"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/foot
Water Content (%)
ATP-01Equipment
Legend
Contractor
186
185
184
183
182
181
180
179
178
177
176
ATP-01
Tests
35D Deere Mini TrackedExcavator
Trackhoe
High Meadows
Excavating, LLC
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanation
of symbols
Sample
Type/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
SR16 Sedgwick Park and Ride - 220118
Depth
(feet)
Material
Type
Andrew Mansaas
SampleTypeElev.
(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sidney Rd SW, Port Orchard, WA, NE portion of site, ~40' from E accessroad
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
WaterLevelSheet 1 of 1
Depth
(ft)
Sampling Method
NEW STANDARD EXPLORATION LOG TEMPLATE \\BISERVER1.ASPECT.LOCAL\PROJECTS\GINTW\PROJECTS\220118 SR16 SEDGWICK PARK AND RIDE.GPJ March 1, 2023Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
5/31/2022
Project Address & Site Specific Location
187' (est)
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
47.5002, -122.6521 (est)
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes and
Completion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CB
Approved by: MvA 8/15/2022
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled with
excavated material
and tamped down with
excavator bucket in
one foot lifts.S1S2S3S4S5TOPSOIL
SILT WITH SAND (ML); loose, moist, dark brown; fine
sand; abundant 1-to-2-inch roots.
FILL
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND COBBLES (SM);
loose, moist, brown; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse
gravel; 3-to-8-inch subrounded cobbles.
ALLUVIUM
SILT WITH SAND (ML); loose, moist, dark brown; fine
sand; some small roots.
Becomes medium dense, gray with mottled red-brown
oxidation.
SILT (ML); very dense, moist, gray; low plasticity;
0.25-to-0.5-inch fine sand lamina; trace fine subangular to
subrounded gravel; few 0.5-to-1-inch woody debris;
mottled red-brown oxidation.
Becomes very moist.
Bottom of exploration at 10 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving occured.
T-probe =7"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/foot
Water Content (%)
ATP-02Equipment
Legend
Contractor
186
185
184
183
182
181
180
179
178
177
176
ATP-02
Tests
35D Deere Mini TrackedExcavator
Trackhoe
High Meadows
Excavating, LLC
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanation
of symbols
Sample
Type/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
SR16 Sedgwick Park and Ride - 220118
Depth
(feet)
Material
Type
Andrew Mansaas
SampleTypeElev.
(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sidney Rd SW, Port Orchard, WA, W of site, ~20' NE of Sidney Ave SW
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
WaterLevelSheet 1 of 1
Depth
(ft)
Sampling Method
NEW STANDARD EXPLORATION LOG TEMPLATE \\BISERVER1.ASPECT.LOCAL\PROJECTS\GINTW\PROJECTS\220118 SR16 SEDGWICK PARK AND RIDE.GPJ March 1, 2023Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
5/31/2022
Project Address & Site Specific Location
187' (est)
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
47.4997, -122.6527 (est)
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes and
Completion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CB
Approved by: MvA 8/15/2022
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled with
excavated material
and tamped down with
excavator bucket in
one foot lifts.
5/31/2022 S1S2S3S4S5TOPSOIL
SILT (ML); loose, moist, dark brown; abundant 1-to-2-inch
roots.
ALLUVIUM
SILT WITH SAND (ML); medium dense, moist, brown;
fine sand.
Becomes medium dense and gray with red-brown
oxidation.
SILT (ML); dense, moist, gray; low plasticity;
0.25-0.5-inch fine sand lamina; trace 0.25-to-1-inch woody
debris; mottled red-brown oxidation.
Becomes wet.
Bottom of exploration at 10 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving occured.
T-probe =6"
T-probe =2"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/foot
Water Content (%)
ATP-03Equipment
Legend
Contractor
186
185
184
183
182
181
180
179
178
177
176
ATP-03
Tests
35D Deere Mini TrackedExcavator
Trackhoe
High Meadows
Excavating, LLC
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanation
of symbols
Sample
Type/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
SR16 Sedgwick Park and Ride - 220118
Depth
(feet)
Material
Type
Andrew Mansaas
SampleTypeElev.
(feet)
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
Water Level ATD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sidney Rd SW, Port Orchard, WA, Central portion of site, refer to Figure 2for specific location
ExplorationLog
9.5' (ATD)
Exploration Number
WaterLevelSheet 1 of 1
Depth
(ft)
Sampling Method
NEW STANDARD EXPLORATION LOG TEMPLATE \\BISERVER1.ASPECT.LOCAL\PROJECTS\GINTW\PROJECTS\220118 SR16 SEDGWICK PARK AND RIDE.GPJ March 1, 2023Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
5/31/2022
Project Address & Site Specific Location
187' (est)
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
47.4997, -122.6522 (est)
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes and
Completion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CB
Approved by: MvA 8/15/2022
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled with
excavated material
and tamped down with
excavator bucket in
one foot lifts.S1S2S3S4S5TOPSOIL
SILT (ML); loose, moist, dark brown; abundant 1-to-2-inch
roots.
ALLUVIUM
SILT WITH SAND (ML); medium dense, moist,
gray-brown; fine sand.
SILT (ML); dense, moist, gray; low plasticity;
0.25-0.5-inch fine sand lamina; trace 0.5-to-1-inch woody
debris; mottled red-brown oxidation.
Becomes very moist.
Bottom of exploration at 10 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving occured.
T-probe =3"
T-probe =4"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/foot
Water Content (%)
ATP-04Equipment
Legend
Contractor
186
185
184
183
182
181
180
179
178
177
176
ATP-04
Tests
35D Deere Mini TrackedExcavator
Trackhoe
High Meadows
Excavating, LLC
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanation
of symbols
Sample
Type/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
SR16 Sedgwick Park and Ride - 220118
Depth
(feet)
Material
Type
Andrew Mansaas
SampleTypeElev.
(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sidney Rd SW, Port Orchard, WA, Refer to Figure 2 for specific location
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
WaterLevelSheet 1 of 1
Depth
(ft)
Sampling Method
NEW STANDARD EXPLORATION LOG TEMPLATE \\BISERVER1.ASPECT.LOCAL\PROJECTS\GINTW\PROJECTS\220118 SR16 SEDGWICK PARK AND RIDE.GPJ March 1, 2023Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
5/31/2022
Project Address & Site Specific Location
187' (est)
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
47.5001, -122.6514 (est)
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes and
Completion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CB
Approved by: MvA 8/15/2022
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled with
excavated material
and tamped down with
excavator bucket in
one foot lifts.S1S2S3S4S5TOPSOIL
SILT (ML); loose, moist, dark brown; abundant 1-to-2-inch
roots.
ALLUVIUM
SILTY SAND (SM); loose, moist, brown; fine sand
SANDY SILT (ML); dense, moist, grey-brown; low
plasticity; 0.25-0.5-inch fine sand lamina; few small woody
debris; mottled red-brown oxidation.
Becomes very moist.
Bottom of exploration at 10 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving occured.
T-probe =13"
T-probe =2"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/foot
Water Content (%)
ATP-05Equipment
Legend
Contractor
186
185
184
183
182
181
180
179
178
177
176
ATP-05
Tests
35D Deere Mini TrackedExcavator
Trackhoe
High Meadows
Excavating, LLC
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanation
of symbols
Sample
Type/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
SR16 Sedgwick Park and Ride - 220118
Depth
(feet)
Material
Type
Andrew Mansaas
SampleTypeElev.
(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sidney Rd SW, Port Orchard, WA, SE corner of site, refer to Figure 2 forspecific location
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
WaterLevelSheet 1 of 1
Depth
(ft)
Sampling Method
NEW STANDARD EXPLORATION LOG TEMPLATE \\BISERVER1.ASPECT.LOCAL\PROJECTS\GINTW\PROJECTS\220118 SR16 SEDGWICK PARK AND RIDE.GPJ March 1, 2023Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
5/31/2022
Project Address & Site Specific Location
187' (est)
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
47.4992, -122.6517 (est)
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes and
Completion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CB
Approved by: MvA 8/15/2022
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled with
excavated material
and tamped down with
excavator bucket in
one foot lifts.
5/31/2022 S1S2S3S4S5TOPSOIL
SILT WITH SAND (ML); loose, moist, dark brown; fine
sand; abundant 1-to-2-inch roots.
ALLUVIUM
SILT WITH SAND (ML); medium dense, moist,
gray-brown; fine sand; few 1-to-2-inch diameter roots.
Becomes wet. With 0.25-to-0.75-inch medium sand
lamina and mottled red-brown oxidation.
SILTY SAND (SM); dense, wet, gray-brown; fine to
medium sand with 0.25-to-0.5-inch silt lamina.
Bottom of exploration at 10 ft. bgs.
Note: Sidewall caving occurred due to groundwater
seepage.
T-probe =4"
T-probe =2"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/foot
Water Content (%)
ATP-06Equipment
Legend
Contractor
189
188
187
186
185
184
183
182
181
180
179
ATP-06
Tests
35D Deere Mini TrackedExcavator
Trackhoe
High Meadows
Excavating, LLC
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanation
of symbols
Sample
Type/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
SR16 Sedgwick Park and Ride - 220118
Depth
(feet)
Material
Type
Andrew Mansaas
SampleTypeElev.
(feet)
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
Water Level ATD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sidney Rd SW, Port Orchard, WA, Refer to Figure 2 for specific location
ExplorationLog
6' (ATD)
Exploration Number
WaterLevelSheet 1 of 1
Depth
(ft)
Sampling Method
NEW STANDARD EXPLORATION LOG TEMPLATE \\BISERVER1.ASPECT.LOCAL\PROJECTS\GINTW\PROJECTS\220118 SR16 SEDGWICK PARK AND RIDE.GPJ March 1, 2023Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
5/31/2022
Project Address & Site Specific Location
190' (est)
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
47.4992, -122.6517 (est)
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes and
Completion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CB
Approved by: MvA 8/15/2022
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled with
excavated material
and tamped down with
excavator bucket in
one foot lifts.S1S2S3S4S5TOPSOIL
SANDY SILT (ML); loose, moist, dark brown; fine sand;
abundant 1-to-2-inch roots.
ALLUVIUM
SANDY SILT (ML); medium dense, moist, red-brown; fine
sand; few 0.5-to-1-inch roots and 0.5-to-1-inch woody
debris.
SILTY SAND (SM); dense, moist, gray-brown; fine to
medium sand.
SILT (ML); dense, moist, gray; low plasticity;
0.25-to-0.5-inch fine sand lamina; mottled red-brown
oxidation; some 0.5-to-1-inch woody debris.
Bottom of exploration at 9.5 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving occured.
T-probe =5"
T-probe =2"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/foot
Water Content (%)
ATP-07Equipment
Legend
Contractor
189
188
187
186
185
184
183
182
181
180
179
ATP-07
Tests
35D Deere Mini TrackedExcavator
Trackhoe
High Meadows
Excavating, LLC
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanation
of symbols
Sample
Type/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
SR16 Sedgwick Park and Ride - 220118
Depth
(feet)
Material
Type
Andrew Mansaas
SampleTypeElev.
(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sidney Rd SW, Port Orchard, WA, Refer to Figure 2 for specific location
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
WaterLevelSheet 1 of 1
Depth
(ft)
Sampling Method
NEW STANDARD EXPLORATION LOG TEMPLATE \\BISERVER1.ASPECT.LOCAL\PROJECTS\GINTW\PROJECTS\220118 SR16 SEDGWICK PARK AND RIDE.GPJ March 1, 2023Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
5/31/2022
Project Address & Site Specific Location
190' (est)
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
47.4991, -122.6524 (est)
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes and
Completion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CB
Approved by: MvA 8/15/2022
10 20 30 400 50
Backfilled with
excavated material
and tamped down with
excavator bucket in
one foot lifts.S1S2S3S4S5TOPSOIL
SANDY SILT (ML); loose, moist, dark brown; fine sand;
abundant small roots.
ALLUVIUM
SANDY SILT (ML); medium dense, moist, red-brown; fine
sand.
SILT (ML); dense, moist, gray; low plasticity;
0.25-to-0.5-inch fine sand lamina; mottled red-brown
oxidation; trace 0.5-to-1-inch woody debris.
Becomes very moist.
Bottom of exploration at 10 ft. bgs.
Note: No sidewall caving occured.
T-probe =3"
T-probe =2"
Operator Work Start/Completion Dates
Blows/foot
Water Content (%)
ATP-08Equipment
Legend
Contractor
189
188
187
186
185
184
183
182
181
180
179
ATP-08
Tests
35D Deere Mini TrackedExcavator
Trackhoe
High Meadows
Excavating, LLC
Exploration Method(s)
See Exploration Log Key for explanation
of symbols
Sample
Type/ID
Depth to Water (Below GS)
Description
SR16 Sedgwick Park and Ride - 220118
Depth
(feet)
Material
Type
Andrew Mansaas
SampleTypeElev.
(feet)
No Water Encountered
Liquid Limit
Geotechnical Exploration Log
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sidney Rd SW, Port Orchard, WA, ~20' NE of Sidney RD SW
ExplorationLog
Exploration Number
WaterLevelSheet 1 of 1
Depth
(ft)
Sampling Method
NEW STANDARD EXPLORATION LOG TEMPLATE \\BISERVER1.ASPECT.LOCAL\PROJECTS\GINTW\PROJECTS\220118 SR16 SEDGWICK PARK AND RIDE.GPJ March 1, 2023Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88)
Blows/6"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
5/31/2022
Project Address & Site Specific Location
190' (est)
Plastic Limit
NA
Grab sample
No Water Encountered
47.4991, -122.6529 (est)
Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88)
Exploration Notes and
Completion Details
Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84)
Grab
Logged by: CB
Approved by: MvA 8/15/2022
10 20 30 400 50
APPENDIX B
Report Limitations and Guidelines
for Use
ASPECT CONSULTING
REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR
USE
Geoscience is Not Exact
The geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology, and environmental science)
are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. It is important to
recognize this limitation in evaluating the content of the report. If you are unclear how
these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or property, you
should contact Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect).
This Report and Project-Specific Factors
Aspect’s services are designed to meet the specific needs of our clients. Aspect has
performed the services in general accordance with our agreement (the Agreement) with
the Client (defined under the Limitations section of this project’s work product). This
report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client. This report should not be
applied for any purpose or project except the purpose described in the Agreement.
Aspect considered many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the Scope of
Work for this project and report. You should not rely on this report if it was:
• Not prepared for you;
• Not prepared for the specific purpose identified in the Agreement;
• Not prepared for the specific subject property assessed; or
• Completed before important changes occurred concerning the subject property,
project, or governmental regulatory actions.
If changes are made to the project or subject property after the date of this report, Aspect
should be retained to assess the impact of the changes with respect to the conclusions
contained in the report.
Reliance Conditions for Third Parties
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the 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 liability claims by third parties
with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limitations. Within the limitations of
scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our
Agreement with the Client and recognized geoscience practices in the same locality and
involving similar conditions at the time this report was prepared
Property Conditions Change Over Time
This 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 events
such as a change in property use or occupancy, or by natural events, such as floods,
ASPECT CONSULTING
earthquakes, slope instability, or groundwater fluctuations. If any of the described events
may have occurred following the issuance of the report, you should contact Aspect so
that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the continued reliability or
applicability of our conclusions and recommendations.
Geotechnical, Geologic, and Environmental Reports Are
Not Interchangeable
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geotechnical or geologic
study differ significantly from those used to perform an environmental study and vice
versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually
address 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 the subject property.
We appreciate the opportunity to perform these services. If you have any questions please
contact the Aspect Project Manager for this project.
APPENDIX G
SIDNEY GRAVITY SEWER EXHIBIT
Est. 1890CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN AND PROFILESOUTH SIDNEY SEWER LIFT STATION CONCEPTUAL EXHIBITDrawn By:Date:Scale:Christian Williams, PE09/21/20221"=10'SIDNEY ROAD SW15" GRAVITY SEWER MAIN295 LF AT 0.15%SIDNEY ROAD SW15" GRAVITY SEWER MAIN396 LF AT 0.15%15" GRAVITY SEWER MAIN38 LF AT 0.15%15" GRAVITY SEWER MAIN396 LF AT 0.15%15" GRAVITY SEWER MAIN396 LF AT 0.15%15" GRAVITY SEWER MAIN371 LF AT 0.15%NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS PRELIMINARY INNATURE AND IS NOT INTENDED FORCONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.EXHIBIT ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Est. 1890CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN AND PROFILESOUTH SIDNEY SEWER LIFT STATION CONCEPTUAL EXHIBITDrawn By:Date:Scale:Christian Williams, PE09/21/20221"=10'SIDNEY ROAD SW15" GRAVITY SEWER MAIN371 LF AT 0.15%15" GRAVITY SEWER MAIN142 LF AT 0.15%15" GRAVITY SEWER MAIN5 LF AT 0.15%TRIPLEX WET WELLVALVE VAULTFLOW METER VAULTSEWER FORCE MAINDISCONNECT PANEL AND CABLETRAYSDIESEL ENGINE PUMPPREFABRICATED SHELTER WITHLIGHT TO HOUSE CONTROLS AND ATSPAD MOUNT TRANSFORMERDIESEL GENERATORWITH FUEL TANK165' STREAMBUFFERNOTE: THIS DRAWING IS PRELIMINARY INNATURE AND IS NOT INTENDED FORCONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.EXHIBIT ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
S Sidney Gravity Sewer MainEst. 1890CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN AND PROFILESOUTH SIDNEY SEWER LIFT STATION CONCEPTUAL EXHIBITDrawn By:Date:Scale:Christian Williams, PE09/21/20221"=10'SSMHRIM = 189.30IE OUT (N) = 179.15S SIDNEY GRAVITY SEWER MAIN PROFILE38 LF, 15" GRAVITYSEWER AT 0.15%SSMHRIM = 189.98IE IN (S) = 179.10IE OUT (N) = 179.09295 LF, 15" GRAVITYSEWER AT 0.15%SSMHRIM = 195.13IE IN (S) = 178.63IE OUT (N) = 178.63396 LF, 15" GRAVITYSEWER AT 0.15%SSMHRIM = 198.29IE IN (S) = 178.02IE OUT (N) = 178.01EXISTING GROUND396 LF, 15" GRAVITYSEWER AT 0.15%NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS PRELIMINARY INNATURE AND IS NOT INTENDED FORCONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.EXHIBIT ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
S Sidney Gravity Sewer MainEst. 1890CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN AND PROFILESOUTH SIDNEY SEWER LIFT STATION CONCEPTUAL EXHIBITDrawn By:Date:Scale:Christian Williams, PE09/21/20221"=10'S SIDNEY GRAVITY SEWER MAIN PROFILESSMHRIM = 196.12IE IN (S) = 177.40IE OUT (N) = 177.40EXISTING GROUND396 LF, 15" GRAVITYSEWER AT 0.15%371 LF, 15" GRAVITYSEWER AT 0.15%SSMHRIM = 192.67IE IN (S) = 176.79IE OUT (E) = 176.78142 LF, 15" GRAVITYSEWER AT 0.15%5 LF, 15" GRAVITYSEWER AT 0.15%SSMHRIM = 192.67IE IN (E) = 176.60IE OUT (N) = 176.60WET WELLRIM = 192.67IE IN (S) = 176.59NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS PRELIMINARY INNATURE AND IS NOT INTENDED FORCONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.EXHIBIT ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
APPENDIX H
PUMP COMPARISON
MEMORANDUM
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • April 2024 • City of Port Orchard
Pump Comparison • Ruby Creek Lift Station • 1
Memorandum
Date:April 25, 2024
Project:Ruby Creek Lift Station
To:Jacki Brown – The City of Port Orchard
From:Jake Colberg – Consor
Reviewed By:Adam Schuyler, PE, PMP – Consor
Re:Pump Comparison
Purpose
During the Ruby Creek Lift Station preliminary design review meeting between Consor and the City of Port
Orchard (City) on April 10, 2024, a document comparing Flygt and Vaughan submersible pumps was
requested. This memorandum outlines the two preliminary pump selections and compares the benefits
and drawbacks of each.
Preliminary Pump Selections
Vaughan S4T-118 Submersible Chopper Pump
The Vaughan S4T-118 is a chopper pump which masticates solids as they pass through. This is achieved
through its sharpened and cupped impeller blades, which create a slicing effect when rotating above the
pump’s cutter bar. This slicing action makes the pump effective at dealing with ragging issues and reducing
maintenance instances caused by clogging.
Pumptech, Vaughan’s representative in the Puget Sound area, has given a budgetary price of $60,000 per
S4T-118 pump. The lead time is currently 22 weeks following submittal approval. Pumptech noted that
Vaughan tries to keep parts in stock to minimize repair times, but issues with impellers or motors can
extend rebuild times. A timeframe of four weeks was given for a typical rebuild assuming the required parts
are in stock.
Pump curves for the Vaughan S4T-118 chopper pump are shown in Figure 1, along with the Ruby Creek Lift
Station system curve. Since an installation with the chopper pumps will require a VFD, reduced speed
curves are shown. The pump operates most efficiently at 93% speed (56 Hz).
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • April 2024 • City of Port Orchard
Pump Comparison • Ruby Creek Lift Station • 2
Figure 1 | Vaughan S4T-118 Performance Curves
Flygt NP 3202 HT Submersible Solids Handling Pump
The Flygt NP 3202 HT is a solids handling pump which passes solids through its impeller. The impeller is
shaped with backswept leading edges designed to prevent solids from sticking to the impeller. As the
impeller rotates, an integral guide ring pushes solids toward the peripheral edges of the impeller, through
a relief groove, and out of the volute of the pump. This impeller geometry makes the N-Series pumps very
effective at dealing with ragging issues and reducing maintenance visits caused by clogging.
Whitney Equipment Company (Whitney), a Flygt representative in the Puget Sound area, provided a
budgetary quote of $58,130 per NP 3202 HT pump, not including accessories or startup services. The
current lead time is 14 to 18 weeks, following submittal approval. A 3-week minimum lead time was given
for a pump rebuild, though Whitney noted that service times can vary greatly from case to case.
Pump curves for the Flygt NP 3202 HT solids handling pump are shown in Figure 2, along with the Ruby
Creek Lift Station system curve. A VFD is assumed with this installation, so multiple operational speeds are
shown. The pump operates most efficiently at 96% speed (57.5 Hz).
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • April 2024 • City of Port Orchard
Pump Comparison • Ruby Creek Lift Station • 3
Figure 2 | Flygt NP 3202 HT Performance Curves
Efficiency and Energy Usage
The preliminary Vaughan selection uses a 60 Hz, 60 hp motor operating at 93% speed at the 750-gpm duty
point, which results in a pump efficiency of approximately 63%. This equates to a power usage of 35.9 hp
(26.8 kW) when in operation. Using the 222-gpm daily flowrate average from the Ruby Creek Lift Station
preliminary design report, the lift station’s total yearly volume of 117 million gallons was found, equating
to 2600 total hours of runtime at the design flowrate. From these values a yearly energy usage of 69,500
kWh was calculated, resulting in a yearly energy cost of $9,200 at Puget Sound Energy’s (PSE) current rates.
In contrast, the Flygt selection uses a 60 Hz, 45 hp motor operating at 96% speed at the 750-gpm duty point
which results in a pump efficiency of approximately 68%. This equates to a power usage of 30.6 hp (22.8
kW) when in operation. Using the 2600-hour runtime, a yearly energy usage of 59,200 kWh was calculated,
resulting in a yearly energy cost of $7,900 at PSE’s current rates.
C003-22 – Work Order 3 • April 2024 • City of Port Orchard
Pump Comparison • Ruby Creek Lift Station • 4
Summary
A comparison of the two pumps is provided as Table 1. Both pumps are well-equipped to handle the heavy
ragging expected at the Ruby Creek Lift Station, and the prices for the two pumps are generally in line with
each other. The main differentiator between the two is energy usage, with the Flygt NP 3202 HT performing
slightly more efficiently than the Vaughan S4T-118.
Figure 3 | Pump Comparison Breakdown
Vaughan S4T-116 Flygt NP 3202 HT
Budgetary Price $60,000 $58,130
Lead Times 22 weeks 14-18 weeks
Service Times 4 weeks for a typical rebuild,
with parts in stock
Minimum of 3 weeks for a
typical pump rebuild
Solids and
Ragging Handling
Capability
Very good Very good
Projected Yearly
Energy Usage 69,400 kWh per year 59,200 kWh per year
Projected Yearly
Energy Costs $9,200 per year $7,900 per year
APPENDIX I
SPECIFICATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Port Orchard – Ruby Creek Lift Station Table of Contents
C003-22 – Work Order 6 00 01 10 - 1
SECTION 00 01 10 – TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOR
RUBY CREEK LIFT STATION
FOR
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
Person
Section Responsible Title Page
00 01 01 XXX Fly Sheet XXX
00 01 07 XXX Seals Page XXX
00 01 10 XXX Table of Contents XXX
BIDDING DOCUMENTS
Advertisement for Bids XXX
Notice to Prospective Bidders XXX
Information and Checklist for Bidders XXX
Proposal XXX
Schedule of Contract Prices XXX
Bidder’s Qualification Form XXX
Bid Security XXX
Certification of Compliance with Wage Payment Statutes XXX
Supplemental Criteria Information Form XXX
Subcontractor List XXX
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
Contract XXX
Exhibit C – 5% Retainage Investment Option XXX
Savings Account Agreement XXX
Escrow Agreement XXX
Performance and Payment Bond XXX
Acknowledgment XXX
Surety Acknowledgement XXX
Maintenance/Warranty Bond XXX
Form P-1 / Notary Block XXX
Form P-2 / Notary Block XXX
Form P-2 / Notary Block XXX
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Division 01 - General Requirements
01 10 00 XXX Summary of Work XXX
01 12 16 XXX Work Sequence XXX
01 22 20 XXX Unit Price Measurement & Payment XXX
01 33 00 XXX Submittal Procedures XXX
01 45 00 XXX Quality Control XXX
City of Port Orchard – Ruby Creek Lift Station Table of Contents
C003-22 – Work Order 6 00 01 10 - 2
01 50 00 XXX Temporary Facilities and Controls XXX
01 56 39 XXX Temporary Tree & Plant Protection XXX
01 75 00 XXX Testing, Training, and Commissioning XXX
01 78 23 XXX Operation and Maintenance Data XXX
Division 02 - Existing Conditions
02 30 00 XXX Subsurface Investigation XXX
02 41 00 XXX Demolition XXX
Division 03 - Concrete
03 00 00 XXX Concrete General Requirements XXX
03 05 10 XXX Cold Weather Concreting XXX
03 05 20 XXX Hot Weather Concreting XXX
03 11 00 XXX Concrete Formwork XXX
03 15 00 XXX Concrete Accessories XXX
03 20 00 XXX Concrete Reinforcement XXX
03 30 00 XXX Cast-In-Place Concrete XXX
03 31 00 XXX Concrete Mixtures XXX
03 62 00 XXX Non-Shrink Grout XXX
Division 04 - Masonry
04 10 00 XXX Mortar and Grout XXX
04 22 00 XXX Concrete Unit Masonry XXX
Division 05 - Metals
05 12 00 XXX Structural Steel XXX
05 50 00 XXX Metal Fabrications XXX
Division 06 - Wood and Plastics
06 05 00 XXX Water Repellents XXX
06 10 00 XXX Metal Roof Panels XXX
06 16 00 XXX Flashing and Sheet Metal XXX
06 18 00 XXX Roof Hatches XXX
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protections
07 19 00 XXX Water Repellents XXX
07 41 13 XXX Metal Roof Panels XXX
07 60 00 XXX Flashing and Sheet Metal XXX
07 72 33 XXX Roof Hatches XXX
07 92 00 XXX Sealants and Caulking XXX
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
NOT USED
City of Port Orchard – Ruby Creek Lift Station Table of Contents
C003-22 – Work Order 6 00 01 10 - 3
Division 09 - Finishes
09 90 00 XXX Painting and Coating XXX
Division 10 - Specialties
NOT USED
Division 11 - Equipment
11 05 11 XXX Common Work Results for Equipment XXX
Division 12 - Furnishings
NOT USED
Division 13 - Special Construction
NOT USED
Division 21 – Fire Suppression
NOT USED
Division 22 - Plumbing
22 40 00 XXX Plumbing Fixtures XXX
Division 23 – Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
NOT USED
Division 25 – Integrated Automation
NOT USED
Division 26 - Electrical
26 05 00 XXX General Requirements for Electrical Work XXX
26 05 19 XXX Low Voltage Conductors, Wires and Cables XXX
26 05 26 XXX Grounding System XXX
26 05 29 XXX Hangers and Supports for Electrical Systems XXX
26 05 33 XXX Raceway, Boxes and Fittings XXX
26 05 43 XXX Underground Ducts and Raceways for Electrical Systems XXX
26 05 85 XXX Utility Coordination XXX
26 08 00 XXX Commissioning of Electrical Systems XXX
26 22 13 XXX Low Voltage Distribution Transformers XXX
26 24 16 XXX Panelboards XXX
26 24 19 XXX Motor Control Centers XXX
26 27 00 XXX Service and Distribution XXX
26 27 26 XXX Wiring Devices XXX
26 29 24 XXX Active Front End Variable-Frequency Controllers XXX
26 32 13 XXX Diesel-Engine Generators XXX
26 36 13 XXX Manual Transfer Switches XXX
26 36 23 XXX Automatic Transfer Switches XXX
City of Port Orchard – Ruby Creek Lift Station Table of Contents
C003-22 – Work Order 6 00 01 10 - 4
26 43 13 XXX Surge Protective Devices for Low-Voltage Electrical XXX
Power Circuits
26 50 00 XXX Luminaire XXX
Division 27 - Communications
NOT USED
Division 28 – Electronic Safety and Security
NOT USED
Division 31 - Earthwork
31 05 13 XXX Soils for Earthwork XXX
31 05 16 XXX Aggregates for Earthwork XXX
31 10 00 XXX Site Clearing XXX
31 22 13 XXX Rough Grading XXX
31 23 16 XXX Excavation XXX
31 23 17 XXX Trenching XXX
31 23 19 XXX Dewatering XXX
31 23 23 XXX Fill XXX
31 23 24 XXX Flowable Fill XXX
31 25 00 XXX Erosion and Sediment Controls XXX
31 50 00 XXX Excavation Support and Protection XXX
Division 32 - Exterior Improvements
32 11 23 XXX Aggregate Base Courses XXX
32 12 16 XXX Asphaltic Concrete Pavement XXX
32 91 13 XXX Soil Preparation XXX
32 91 21 XXX Finish Grading and Seeding XXX
32 93 00 XXX Plants XXX
Division 33 - Utilities
33 05 13 XXX Manholes XXX
33 05 17 XXX Precast Concrete Valve Vaults and Meter Boxes XXX
33 13 00 XXX Testing and Disinfection of Water Utility Piping XXX
33 30 10.13 XXX Sewer and Manhole Testing XXX
33 31 10 XXX Sanitary Utility Sewerage Piping XXX
33 41 10 XXX Storm Utility Drainage Piping XXX
Division 34 - Transportation
NOT USED
Division 40 - Process Integration
40 05 13 XXX Common Work Results for Process Piping XXX
40 05 51 XXX Common Work Results for Process Valves XXX
40 05 51.15 XXX Gate Valves XXX
City of Port Orchard – Ruby Creek Lift Station Table of Contents
C003-22 – Work Order 6 00 01 10 - 5
40 05 51.24 XXX Check Valves XXX
40 05 67.39 XXX Pressure-Relief Valves XXX
40 05 78 XXX Miscellaneous Valves XXX
40 06 70 XXX Schedule of Instrumentation for Process Systems XXX
40 61 13 XXX Process Control System General Provisions – sole source XXX
40 61 96.19 XXX Process Control Descriptions – Pumping XXX
40 63 43 XXX Programmable Logic Controllers XXX
40 63 43.13 XXX PLC Input/Output Modules XXX
40 67 16 XXX Free-Standing Panels XXX
40 67 33 XXX Panel Wiring XXX
40 71 13 XXX Magnetic Flow Meters XXX
40 72 43 XXX Pressure Level Measurement Devices XXX
40 73 13 XXX Pressure Gauges XXX
40 80 00 XXX Commissioning of Process Systems XXX
Division 41 – Material Processing and Handling Equipment
NOT USED
Division 43 – Process Gas & Liquid Handling
43 21 00 XXX Liquid Pumps XXX
43 21 39 XXX Submersible Sewage Pumps XXX
DRAWINGS
See Sheet G-1 for Drawing Index
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
END OF SECTION