table of contents location pg. 1 ii. description of

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. LOCATION PG. 1

II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PG. 1

III. PREDEVELOPMENT SITE CONDITIONS PG. 3

IV. UPSTREAM ANALYSIS PG. 4

V. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS PG. 4

VI. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES PG. 8

VII. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS PG. 8

VIII. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

1. INFILTRATION POND SIZING PG. 8 2. UPSTREAM BASIN ANALYSIS BYPASS SIZING PG. 10 3. STORMATER PIPE FLOW ANALYSIS PG. 19

IX. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PG. 20

X. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL PG. 20

FIGURES

FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP PG. 2

FIGURE 2 DOWN STREAM MAPS PG. 6-7

FIGURE 3 SOILS MAP ONSITE PG. 10

FIGURE 4 PREDEVELOPED BASIN MAP PG. 11

FIGURE 5 POSTDEVELOPED BASIN MAP PG. 12

FIGURE 6 OFFSITE BASIN MAP PG. 14

FIGURE 7 SOILS MAP & KEY OFFSITE PG. 15-16

EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 1 MANNINGS STORM CONVEYANCE SIZING PG. 17-18

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 WWHM PRELIMINARY REPORT INFILTRATION POND

ATTACHMENT 2 WWHM PRELIMINARY REPORT OFFSITE BASIN

ATTACHMENT 3 AES GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

ATTACHMENT 4 KRAZAN GEOTECHNICAL LETTER POND INFILTRATION

ATTACHMENT 5 SIGNIFICANT TREE REPORT

1

I. LOCATION

The proposed development is a 19.56-acre site is in the Northwest quarter of Section 10, Township 26 North, Range 1 East, W.M., in the City of Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington. Parcel# 102601-2-004-2005 is on the west side of State Route 3, north of Finn Hill Road, and borders the east boundary of Vinland Elementary School. (See Figure 1 – Vicinity Map). The site is within city limits of Poulsbo. Site access is from Finn Hill Road, then north on Urdahl Road to its northern terminus. The site is directly north.

II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The project proposes to create 81 single family detached residences on 81 lots. The site is within Poulsbo city limits and zoned ‘RL’, Residential Low density, 4-5 Dwelling units per acre. The project will be constructed in a single phase, and is subject to the requirements of PRD (Planned Residential Development) code section 18.260 of Poulsbo Municipal Code Access to the site includes connection to residential collectors Reliance and Malbec Streets at the southeast and southwest corners of the project, connection to local residential Ashby Avenue also at the southwest corner of the plat. Provisions for future connectivity are also being provided by extending Reliance through the project to connect westerly, extending local access Spencer Avenue to connect westerly, and extend local access Swenson Street to connect to the westerly and easterly. Reliance is envisioned as a sweeping neighborhood collector with 12’ lanes and 30’ overall paved width within 50-foot ROW. Sidewalks are proposed on one side only, with a meandering walking path on the opposite side through naturally vegetated forest. Malbec will be extended only about 100-feet and will match the existing construction. Other streets within the project will be constructed to local access standard but will include City Engineering mandated sidewalks on both sides. Swenson Street will have cul-de-sacs each end, with a temporary culdesac offsite on the west. Spencer Avenue will also have a temporary offsite culdesac on the west end. Easements for the offsite culdesacs will be provided. Reciprocal culdesac easements will also be provided benefitting the property to the west should that project (Swenson Plat) be constructed first. Malbec ROW and proposed Lot 64 have been laid out to provide potential street connectivity the Vinland Elementary school near the southwest corner of the project. Parking will be provided on one side. Utilities will include water and fire protection, sanitary sewer, communications, and storm water mitigation facilities. Connections to water and sewer will be made with Westwood Crossing utilities at Ashby Avenue and Reliance Streets. Sanitary sewer is provided by City of Poulsbo; water is provided by Kitsap Public Utility District.

2

The storm drainage system will consist of a regional infiltration pond facility in located at the southern low point of the site. Catch basins and conveyance piping will catch and collect street and driveway runoff and direct to the facility. Secondary storm connections will be provided to each lot frontage for future connections to roof runoff piping. At the infiltration pond, gravelly sandy glacial outwash soils have been found at depth of approximately 14-feet below ground surface. The pond bottom elevation will be constructed within these native materials. Final design may include import and placement of a well-draining gravelly material to raise the bottom elevation a few feet as necessary to lessen the overall pond depth. Water quality will be provided by an 18” layer of amended soil placed in the pond bottom to provide enhanced stormwater treatment. The amended soil material will be in accordance with SWMMWW Vol III, SSC-6, Soil Physical and Chemical Suitability for Treatment. Pre-treatment devices will be installed at each pond inlet to provide oil spill and particulate control, equal to Contech CDS5668-10-C and CDS3035-6-C.

For stormwater modeling and estimating runoff, each lot was assumed to have 3,300 sf impervious roof area and 600 sf of impervious driveway (Actual house footprints based on the PRD House Fit Plan will range from 1,390 sf to 2,597 sf). Portions of some lots around the exterior of the site will have tree retention easements designed to retain existing vegetation. The remainder of each lot will be lawn and landscape. Additional permits and regulatory steps required for this project will include

Preliminary Plat approval by Hearing Examiner Grading Permit issued by City of Poulsbo NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit Final Plat Approval by Poulsbo City Council

4

Storm pond inflow will utilize bubble-up style catch basins to minimize disturbance of soil amendment layers, to be located at the west and east ends of the pond. An overflow pipe system will connect to existing storm of Westwood Crossing. III. PRE-DEVELOPMENT SITE CONDITIONS The site is currently developed with single family residence with two garage/shop outbuildings and a small shed. The house was constructed in 1915, is unoccupied and in poor condition. Water is provided by a well centrally located near the south property line. Sewage disposal is septic. Site vegetation is mostly forested, except for about 3 acres of buildings, lawns and gardens located adjacent to existing buildings. Vegetation is almost exclusively coniferous and include a mix of hemlock, Douglas-fir, pine, and cedar. Deciduous trees make up only about 6-percent of all trees, and include alder, birch, cherry, madrone, and apple. Underbrush consists of thick salal and evergreen huckleberry. The site was logged in the early 2000’s of most timber and is currently regenerating with young timber. See Attachment 5 - Significant Tree Inventory Report by American Forest Management, February 2019. Site topography is gently rolling with a general north to south declivity. The average slope on site is about 7%, and ranges from nearly flat to just over 15% in the upper northeast portion on the site. The site is within a Census Urbanized Area. No drainage features or critical areas have been identified on site or in general vicinity. Drainage. The site lies within the headwaters of the Johnson Creek Basin. There are two minor sub-basins on site, the North Basin and South Basin, with flows combining within a few hundred yards offsite of the southeast property corner. The North basin is the largest and encompasses the northern two-thirds of the site. A broad shallow swale about 450’ wide enters the property at the approximate mid-point of the north property line, flows southerly for about 160 feet, then angles southeasterly about 500 feet where it exits the property just north of the mid-point of east property line. The broad swale discharge point is a developed 2.5-acre property that is mostly wooded. No visible flows or channels exist in the North basin, any runoff is sheet flow or subsurface flow. The South basin includes the remainder of the parcel which naturally discharges as sheet or subsurface flow, southerly then to the east. The natural drainage course is difficult to detect with the existing gentle rolling topography and historic grading activities, but appears to follow the existing gravel driveway east to the southeast corner of the property, continue east about 250’ more or less on the north side of Reliance Street, then veer south. There is no visible evidence of surface or channel flows within the South basin. Soils. The soils on site are reported by Natural Resources Conservations Service as Poulsbo gravelly loam, 6-15%, with a very small sliver of Poulsbo-Ragnar complex, 6-15%, in the northwest corner.

5

A subsurface exploration, geologic hazard and preliminary geotechnical investigation was performed in 2006 by Associated Earth Sciences for the plat of Nordic Heights for Quadrant Corporation. That investigation included many deep excavations on the Spencer property as well as the 10-acre parcel just north of the school, evaluated potential geohazards, and provided recommendations for development. Of note was identification of glacial outwash soils at 9’ depth at the south end of the Spencer property identified as a potential location for storm infiltration (see Attachment 3). In 2019 Krazan and Associates performed their own geotechnical exploration and confirmed earlier findings. Infiltration testing was also performed with resulting design long-term infiltration rate provided (See Attachment 4). Critical Areas. The northern 75% of the site is listed as a Category II critical Aquifer Recharge Area. There are no other critical areas listed for this site. Zoning. The north boundary of the site is coincident with northern city limits. Existing development surrounding the parcel includes Vinland Elementary school and an undeveloped 20-acre tract (Spencer) to the west; developed rural residential 2.5-acres parcels to the north; developed 2.5 and 10-acre parcels to the east; and the developed plat of Westwood Crossing to the south, currently in the construction phase. Land use and basin areas are shown in the Pre and Post Developed Condition Basin Maps. See Figures 4 & 5 below. IV. UPSTREAM ANALYSIS Two potential areas for potential offsite run-on from adjacent upstream properties, including about 14 acres centrally located at the north property line, and l5 acres evenly spread along the west property line (includes Vinland Elementary and the Swenson property. The area to the north is developed 2.5-acres tracts within Kitsap County Rural Area, and mostly forested. A WWHM analysis was performed on the offsite basin, resulting in a stormwater bypass system design to keep upstream runoff separate from project runoff. The bypass will discharge in its natural path on Tract A and will include trashrack bars on the pipe end and heavy rock or gabion basket outlet protection for energy dissipation. The school property area to the west includes the eastern 150 feet of school district property which is mostly wooded with limited impacts expected from any run-on. To the northwest is the Swenson parcel with more infiltrative Poulsbo-Ragnar soil type, run-on also appears to be very limited. A basin analysis was not conducted do the broad run-on area from the west.

6

V. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS The project lies entirely within the Johnson Creek Drainage basin. The downstream path consists of closed conveyance system through developed properties with ultimate discharge to Johnson Creek. An overflow will be constructed from the onsite bioretention pond to an existing CB Type 1 located in Westwood Street, within the plat of Westwood Crossing. The catch basin discharges through a 12” storm pipe into the detention pond of Westwood Crossing, a city-owned and maintained facility. The Westwood detention pond contains a controlled outlet and overflow system consisting of 18” pipes and catchbasins. An 18” pipe system carries runoff south 560 feet along Urdahl Road, then crosses under the roadway easterly and into the plat of Liberty Hill and through an easement to Windmill Loop NW. The system continues south in Windmill about 250 feet, then turns east for 500 feet and combines with the Liberty Hill Plat detention pond discharge. From there, a 30” storm pipe conveys flow east about 200 feet and ultimate discharges into Johnson Creek (See Figure 2 – Downstream Map). Technically there should not be any Spencer pond overflow since the facility is sized to fully infiltrate. The 2014 SWMMWW provides little guidance for infiltration pond overflow design, other than to say all pond overflows should be sized to handle the 100-year event – a very unlikely scenario here since the spencer infiltration pond will not go from 100 percent to 0 percent infiltration if properly maintained. That said, an overflow system will be provided by a connection to the Westwood pond to handle at least a portion of the flows, as limited by conveyance piping between the two ponds. Analysis Approach: The impact of the Spencer Pond overflow on Westwood was analyzed by examining existing 12” diam and proposed conveyance piping between the two ponds to determine the limiting overflow flow rate. Then, use the overflow flow rate to determine the added rise in water level on the Westwood pond, and ability of the outlet structures to accommodate the additional flows during a 100-year storm event. The Westwood pond is a new facility constructed within the last few years in conformance with the 2005 SWMMWW (data from Contour Engineering Inc, Stormwater Site Plan for Westwood Crossing, October 2016 revision, and as-built construction drawings). Discharges are restricted by control 54-inch diam catch basin control structure containing a 2.40” diam orifice, a slot weir, and an 18” diam riser pipe. The overflow consists of a 48-inch diam catch basin structure with a birdcage lid set at elevation 358.42 feet. All outlet pipes are 18” diameter. With an infiltration pond overflow elevation 369.0, there is about 1.6 feet of fall from Spencer pond to the existing Type 1 CB in Westwood Crossing. About 204 LF of 12” conveyance pipe sloped at 0.8% will be needed for the connection, with a Manning’s Equation flow rate of 3.5 CFS. The 100-year flow rate for Westwood is 5.12 CFS, and combined flows with Spencer overflow will be 8.5 CFS. Ignoring the Westwood control structure (for simplicity and conservativeness) and only considering the 48” Type 2 overflow structure, riser inflow curves (Attached) anticipate a rise of 0.34’ in water level within the pond. The pond has a design top of berm elevation of 360.0 feet, and can accommodate the added rise and still maintain 1.3 feet of freeboard.

7

RISER INFLOW CURVE

Figure II-4.2.21 Riser Inflow Curves

D E P A R T M E N T O F

ECOLOGY

State of Washington

Please see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html for copyright notice including permissions,

limitation of liability, and disclaimer.

Figure II-4.2.21

Riser Inflow Curves

Revised November 2015

2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington

Volume II - Chapter 4 - Page 394

Jeff

Line

Jeff

Typewritten Text

8.5 CFS w/ Spencer

Jeff

Line

Jeff

Typewritten Text

Existing Westwood 5.1 CFS

Jeff

Line

Jeff

Typewritten Text

0.35' of head above overflow rim.

Jeff

Polygon

Printed: Tuesday. Sep 24, 2019

** This map is not a substitute for field survey **

Map Scale: 1 : 24,000

0 500 1000ft

Kitsap County Parcel Search Print https://ags.kitsapgov.com/psearch/printFrm.html?extent=1184004,27750...

1 of 1 9/24/2019, 12:11 PM

10

VI. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES The project will be constructed in one phase. The discovery of semi-deep glacial outwash sands and gravels on the southern portion of the site will be used for infiltration. The stormwater management strategies selected for this project includes the following elements. The site will be analyzed as a single large basin. Stormwater Quantity mitigation will be provided by an infiltration pond facility located at

the lowest elevation area in the plat near the southeast corner of the project. Water quality enhancement will be by amended soils within the infiltration pond. Secondary storm drain systems will be used to collect roof and pervious area runoff and

redirect to the infiltration facilities. Offsite flows from the north will be captured and bypass though the project for discharge

through a level spreader device in Tract A on the east side of the project.

VII. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS The project is vested under stormwater rules in effect in 2019. Therefore, the Department of Ecology 2014 Storm Water Management Manual for Western Washington defines technical requirements. The project exceeds all Thresholds for New Development, including creation of more

than 5,000 square feet of new hard surface, disturbance of 7,000 square feet, and conversion of ¾ acres vegetation to lawn or landscaped area; therefore the project is subject to Minimum Requirements 1-9.

Stormwater Flow Control will be provided by an on-site infiltration facility designed to developed discharge durations to predeveloped durations for the range of pre-developed discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow. Pre-treatment of stormwater prior to discharge into the pond is required. An Ecology-approved GLUD device such as Contech CDS for spill control and to remove heavier particulates.

Stormwater Quality Mitigation will be provided by an 18” layer of amended soil.

SWMMWW Volume V Chapter V-2 outlines the water quality selection process, and Figure V-2.2.1 Treatment Facility Selection Flow Chart (attached) shows how the treatment method was derived. The project will use infiltration to groundwater and not to surface receiving waters; an oil control facility is not required for residential sites with ADT <15,000; the infiltration soil itself likely is not chemically suitable (SSC-6) for providing pollutant removal; phosphorous control is not required since not discharging to impaired waters; and none of the thresholds for enhanced treatment are exceeded. In

11

accordance with the Selection Flowchart, basic treatment will be used. The area surrounding the project is listed on county GIS maps as Category II aquifer recharge area, but the pond area itself is not. There is known elevated levels of nitrates in wells north and uphill of the site.

The amended soil is designed to provide enhanced level of treatment while meeting or exceeding the 91% of total runoff volume performance standard as estimated through WWHM continuous runoff model. Since amended soils will be used in the infiltration facility, 100% treatment will result. Amended soils would also be appropriate to provide a high level of groundwater protection

Figure V-2.1.1 Treatment Facility Selection Flow Chart

D E P A R T M E N T O F

ECOLOGY

State of Washington

Please see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html for copyright notice including permissions,

limitation of liability, and disclaimer.

Figure V-2.1.1

Treatment Facility Selection Flow Chart

Revised December 2015

Step 1: Identify

Pollutants of Concern

and Perform Off-site

Analysis to Determine

Receiving Waters

Step 2: Determine if

an Oil Control Facility

is Required


Infiltration for

Pollutant Removal is

Practicable


Phosphorus Control

is Required


Enhanced Treatment

is Required

Step 6: Apply a Basic

Treatment Facility

• Biofiltration Swales

• Filter Strip

• Basic Wetpond

• Wetvault

• Treatment Wetlands

• Combined

Detention/Wetpool

• Sand Filters

• Bioretention

• Media Filter Drain

• Emerging Tech.

Apply Pretreatment

• Presettling Basin

• Any Basic Treatment

BMP

• Emerging Tech.

Apply Infiltration

• Infiltration Basin

• Infiltration Trench

• Bioretention

Apply Oil Control Facility

• API Separator

• CP Separator

• Linear Sand Filter

• Emerging Tech.

Apply Phosphorus Control Facility

• Large Sand Filter

• Large Wetpond*

• Media Filter

• Two Facility Treatment Train

• Emerging Tech.*

Apply an Enhanced Treatment Facility

• Large Sand Filter

• Treatment Wetland

• Compost-amended Vegetated Filter

Strip

• Two Facility Treatment Train

• Bioretention

• Media Filter Drain

• Emerging Tech.

*When Phosphorus Control and Enhanced treatment are required, the Large Wetpond and certain types of emerging

technologies will not meet both types of treatment requirements. A different or an additional treatment facility will be required

to meet Enhanced treatment.

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington

Volume V - Chapter 2 - Page 775

jeff

Rectangle

jeff

Rectangle

jeff

Rectangle

jeff

Rectangle

jeff

Rectangle

jeff

Rectangle

jeff

Line

13

VIII. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS There were two analysis performed for this project: for the onsite infiltration pond, and for the northern offsite run-on bypass system. 1. INFILTRATION POND SIZING The location of the proposed bioretention pond is feasible in accordance with the Site Suitability Criteria (SSC) established in DOE Manual Section 3.3.7, as follows:

SSC 1 – Setbacks: The nearest well to the proposed facility is approximately 850’ ESE. The onsite existing well (and septic facilities) located proximal to the bioretention pond will be abandoned in accordance with Kitsap County requirements.

SSC 2 - Groundwater Protection Area: The proposed facility is not located in a wellhead protection area (per Kitsap health district Melina Knoop), and it is outside of a nearby Category II Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (occupies the northern 75% of the project site – the bioretention pond is in the south end).

SSC 3 – High Vehicle Traffic Area: The site is not commercial or industrial, nor will it have >1000 ADT (per Gibson Traffic Analysis).

SSC 4 – Soil Infiltration/Drawdown. Measured initial infiltration rates exceed 9 in/hr. The long-term infiltration rate of 4 In/Hr exceeds the 3 in/hr recommended. However, the site is not within a sole-source aquifer. Pond drawdown is expected within 16 hours

SSC 5 – Depth to impermeable layers: No impermeable layers were found within 3-feet of the proposed facility subgrade.

SSC 6 – Soil Physical and Chemical Properties: An amended soil layer 18-inches thick designed to meet criteria listed will be provided.

SSC 7 – Seepage: There are no known seepage issues in the nearby development of Westwood Crossing to the south. The nearest residential structures will be approximately 90-feet from the pond and have foundation elevations about 10-feet above the pond design maximum water surface.

SSC 8 – Cold Climate and Roadway Deicers: Kitsap County and certain incorporated areas use a 23.3% solution of sodium chloride for road deicing. Although generally safe there is potential for the solution to be washed off roadways and enter infiltration facilities. Applications are generally limited to a few occasions per year.

The infiltration analysis is based on the geologic investigation by Associated Earth Sciences in 2006 for The Quadrant Corporation (See Attachment 3). The analysis investigated soils for this parcel (and the twenty-acre parcel to the west - Swenson parcel). Suitable infiltration was found along the southern border, at a depth of approximately 14 feet below existing ground surface. Subsequent infiltration tests were performed in two locations by Krazan & Associates in 2019 to quantify long-term infiltration rates for pond design. Small PIT tests were performed by Krazan & Associates Inc. in September 2019 and calculated a long-term infiltration rate of 4.5 In/Hr (See Attachment 4). For modeling in WWHM, the infiltration rate of the standard SWMMWW amended soil with 12 inches per hour was used, and with a safety factor of 4 applied.

14

The pond bottom elevation of 361.5 was determined based on geologic soils exploration, with a depth anticipated to penetrate the underlying pervious soils layer by approximately one foot. During construction it may be necessary to over-excavate to ensure full exposure into outwash soils. The pond bottom may also be raised a few feet to promote downstream flow by importing a layer of clean, free draining granular. Preliminary grading with 2:1 pond interior pond slope resulted in a pond bottom area of 23,830 SF. Subsequent WWHM modeling resulted in a peak depth of 4.88 feet. Final design will likely decrease the pond footprint while increasing the depth to near 6.0 feet, promoting more efficient use of the pond tract and improving overflow conveyance hydraulics. The complete report is included in Attachment 1.

9

Cus

tom

Soi

l Res

ourc

e R

epor

tSo

il M

ap

528990052900005290100529020052903005290400

528990052900005290100529020052903005290400

5242

0052

4300

5244

0052

4500

5246

0052

4700

5248

0052

4900

5250

0052

5100

5242

0052

4300

5244

0052

4500

5246

0052

4700

5248

0052

4900

5250

0052

5100

47° 4

6' 2

'' N122° 40' 37'' W

47° 4

6' 2

'' N

122° 39' 50'' W

47° 4

5' 4

2'' N

122° 40' 37'' W

47° 4

5' 4

2'' N

122° 39' 50'' W

N

Map

pro

ject

ion:

Web

Mer

cato

r C

orne

r coo

rdin

ates

: WGS

84

Edge

tics

: UTM

Zon

e 10

N W

GS84

020

040

080

012

00Feet

050

100

200

300Met

ers

Map

Sca

le: 1

:4,4

40 if p

rinte

d on

A la

ndsc

ape

(11"

x 8

.5")

shee

t.

Soi

l Map

may

not

be

valid

at

this

sca

le.

Jeff

Line

Jeff

Line

Jeff

Line

Jeff

Line

18

2. UPSTREAM BASIN ANALYSIS

The offsite analysis portion of the storm report described the upstream basin north of the Spencer Plat which contribute run-on. A separate WWHM analysis was run on the 14-acre upstream basin to size a storm bypass that will ultimately capture the upstream and discharge into its natural point of discharge on the east side of the site. The upstream basin is in rural Kitsap county and is zoned 1 DU/5 acre. Aerial images of the basin show mostly wooded tracts developed with single family residences. Figure 6 – Upstream Basin Map shows the runoff areas. Soils in the basin are almost exclusively classified by Soil Conservation Service as Poulsbo-Ragnar complex with minor amounts of Poulsbo gravelly sandy loam. Forested areas were modeled as Type A/B soils and lawns modeled as Type C soils. Figure 7 – Offsite Soil Map identifies the soil mapping. WWHM modeling concluded a 100-year return period flow rate of 5.18 CFS. See Attachment 2.

9

Custom Soil Resource ReportSoil Map

5290

310

5290

380

5290

450

5290

520

5290

590

5290

660

5290

730

5290

800

5290

870

5290

310

5290

380

5290

450

5290

520

5290

590

5290

660

5290

730

5290

800

5290

870

524580 524650 524720 524790 524860 524930 525000

524580 524650 524720 524790 524860 524930 525000

47° 46' 15'' N12

2° 4

0' 1

9'' W

47° 46' 15'' N

122°

39'

58'' W

47° 45' 55'' N

122°

40'

19'' W

47° 45' 55'' N

122°

39'

58'' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS840 100 200 400 600

Feet0 40 80 160 240

MetersMap Scale: 1:2,910 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

39 Poulsbo gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes

0.8 1.7%

40 Poulsbo gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes

6.9 15.7%

43 Poulsbo-Ragnar complex, 6 to 15 percent slopes

36.4 82.6%

Totals for Area of Interest 44.1 100.0%

Map Unit DescriptionsThe map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or

Custom Soil Resource Report

11

22

3. CONVEYANCE PIPE SIZING

The capacity of the pipe systems was determined using Manning’s Equation for full pipe flow while omitting entrance and exit losses. Design flows for capacity were taken from the WWHM model for the 100-year post-developed flow. Formula parameters included using an “n=0.012” for ADS N-12 pipe, and standard 12” & 18” pipe sizes. Manning’s Equations is expressed as follows: Q = 1.486/n * A * R^.6667 * s^.5 Exhibit 1 – Pipe Capacity Worksheet shows calculated flows for several pipes within the plat. Reliance and Ashby are two separate conveyance systems discharging to the pond, therefore separate calculations were run for mainline sizing. A 12” is adequate for Reliance, however 18” or even a 24” will be needed for the Ashby system due to shallow gradients. The offsite Basin calculation shows an 18” at 0.8% is adequate For the 100-year 5.18 CFS design flow rate. Site grading is a little too flat to use 12-inch pipes. The Ashby Basin was further broken down to estimate where the mainline pipe transitions from 12 to 18-inches. Most of the Ashby grading is relatively flat with pipe slopes of 0.8%, therefore 18-inch pipe will be used in lower reaches. Side pipes and connection pipes at intersection will be 12-inches. Pond overflow pipe was sized based on the diameter of the existing 12-inch pipe connection in Westwood Crossing, and proposed grading and pipe slopes needed to make the connection. The existing pipe slope is 7.5%, which is adequate for about 10.6 CFS. Piping from the overflow inlet to the connection with existing downstream piping is to be constructed at 0.8%, with a capacity of about 4 CFS, or about 37% of the post developed 100-year pond inflow. As there is no outlet control structure to maintain or get plugged during a peak storm event, the overflow capacity is acceptable.

Pipe Capacity Worksheet Spencer Plat Reliance Basin Pipe System Oct 30, 2020

Typ Pipe Size (in): 12" CPEP CPEP

Design Flow (cfs): 3.82 (100-yr Post Developed)

Assumes full pipe flow - target flow rate 15% over wwhm (~3.38 cfs)

Mannings Pipe Flow Calculator

Mannings n 0.012 '(Q = 1.486/n * A * R^.6667 * s^.5)

Pipe Diam (Ft) 1.50 1.7671

Hyd Rad 0.3750 Q (cfs) = 4.41

Slope (Ft/Ft) 0.0015 V (fps) 2.49

Result: 12" Min slope 1.0%

18" Min slope 0.015%

Ashby Basin Mainline Pipe





Mannings n 0.012 '(Q = 1.486/n * A * R^.6667 * s^.5)

Pipe Diam (Ft) 1.50 1.7671

Hyd Rad 0.3750 Q (cfs) = 15.27

Slope (Ft/Ft) 0.0180 V (fps) 8.64


18" Min slope 1.8%

24" Min slope .4%

Offsite Basin Bypass Pipe System





Mannings n 0.012 '(Q = 1.486/n * A * R^.6667 * s^.5)

Pipe Diam (Ft) 1.50 1.7671

Hyd Rad 0.3750 Q (cfs) = 5.96

Slope (Ft/Ft) 0.0027 V (fps) 3.37


18" Min slope 0.27% (most pipe runs are 0.8%)

Ashby SubBasin Mainline Pipe(South of Swenson)





Mannings n 0.012 '(Q = 1.486/n * A * R^.6667 * s^.5)

Pipe Diam (Ft) 1.50 1.7671

Hyd Rad 0.3750 Q (cfs) = 10.79

Slope (Ft/Ft) 0.0090 V (fps) 6.11


18" Min slope 0.90%

Ashby SubBasin Mainline Pipe (North of Swenson)





Mannings n 0.012 '(Q = 1.486/n * A * R^.6667 * s^.5)

Pipe Diam (Ft) 1.00 0.7854

Hyd Rad 0.2500 Q (cfs) = 3.97

Slope (Ft/Ft) 0.0106 V (fps) 5.05


18" Min slope 0.12%

Pond Overflow Pipe System

Exist Westwood Pipe Size (in): 12" CPEP CPEP



Mannings n 0.012 '(Q = 1.486/n * A * R^.6667 * s^.5)

Pipe Diam (Ft) 1.00 0.7854

Hyd Rad 0.2500 Q (cfs) = 10.60

Slope (Ft/Ft) 0.0755 V (fps) 13.50

Capacity existing 12" pipe @ 7.55% connecting to Westwood pond ~ 10.6 CFS

Pond Overflow Size (in): 12" CPEP CPEP

100- Yr WWHM Flow (cfs): 19.09 (100-yr Post Developed)


Mannings n 0.012 '(Q = 1.486/n * A * R^.6667 * s^.5)

Pipe Diam (Ft) 1.00 0.7854

Hyd Rad 0.2500 Q (cfs) = 5.46

Slope (Ft/Ft) 0.0200 V (fps) 6.95

Result: Capacity Proposed 12" pipe @ 2.0% connecting to Westwood pond ~ 5.46 CFS

(Upsizing pipe to 18" would increase capacity to ~16 cfs, but general policy is to NOT

step down pipe sizes in a run)

25

IX. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL During construction it is possible to have erosion if heavy rainfall occurs. If left unchecked this could result in sedimentation of stormwater facilities within the plat of Westwood Crossing and ultimately Johnson Creek. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan will be submitted to The City of Poulsbo. The plan will be in accordance with the Kitsap County Stormwater Management Manual. The plan will utilize Best Management Practices throughout construction. This could include vegetation retention, straw earth covering, filter fabric fences, stabilized construction entrances, sediment traps, sediment ponds, stormwater ponds, riprap, hydroseeding, and other BMP’s. X. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL The Operation and Maintenance Manual will be prepared and submitted along with the “as-built” construction plans as required by city ordinance.

2

ATTACHMENT 1 – WWHM PRELIMINARY INFILTRATION POND

WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ Project Name: Spencer Plat Site Name: Spencer Plat Site Address: City : Report Date: 9/9/2020 Gage : Quilcene Data Start : 1948/10/01 Data End : 2009/09/30 Precip Scale: 0.80 Version Date: 2018/10/10 Version : 4.2.16 ___________________________________________________________________ Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year ___________________________________________________________________ High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year ___________________________________________________________________ PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat 8.106 C, Forest, Mod 10.417 C, Forest, Steep 1.034 Pervious Total 19.557 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS MOD 0.102 Impervious Total 0.102 Basin Total 19.659 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No

GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat .969 C, Forest, Mod 1.853 C, Pasture, Flat 3.311 C, Lawn, Flat 1.04 C, Lawn, Mod .33 Pervious Total 7.503 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 1.501 ROADS MOD 1.399 ROOF TOPS FLAT 6.136 DRIVEWAYS FLAT 1.127 SIDEWALKS FLAT 0.454 SIDEWALKS MOD 0.454 POND 1.086 Impervious Total 12.157 Basin Total 19.66 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Surface retention 1 Surface retention 1 ___________________________________________________________________ Name : Bioretention 1 Bottom Length: 155.10 ft. Bottom Width: 155.40 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: SMMWW 12 in/hr Material thickness of second layer: 0 Material type for second layer: Sand Material thickness of third layer: 0 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Infiltration On Infiltration rate: 4.5 Infiltration safety factor: 1 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): 3428.979 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 0 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): 3428.979 Percent Infiltrated: 100 Total Precip Applied to Facility: 133.768 Total Evap From Facility: 46.523 Underdrain not used Discharge Structure Riser Height: 6 ft. Riser Diameter: 24 in.

Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 ___________________________________________________________________ Bioretention 1 Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.5858 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0934 0.5857 0.0237 0.0000 0.0021 0.1868 0.5836 0.0474 0.0000 0.0434 0.2802 0.5816 0.0713 0.0000 0.1212 0.3736 0.5796 0.0952 0.0000 0.2519 0.4670 0.5775 0.1192 0.0000 0.4456 0.5604 0.5755 0.1434 0.0000 0.7118 0.6538 0.5735 0.1675 0.0000 1.0594 0.7473 0.5714 0.1918 0.0000 1.4973 0.8407 0.5694 0.2162 0.0000 2.0343 0.9341 0.5674 0.2406 0.0000 2.5107 1.0275 0.5654 0.2652 0.0000 2.5107 1.1209 0.5633 0.2898 0.0000 2.5107 1.2143 0.5613 0.3145 0.0000 2.5107 1.3077 0.5593 0.3393 0.0000 2.5107 1.4011 0.5573 0.3642 0.0000 2.5107 1.4945 0.5553 0.3892 0.0000 2.5107 1.5000 0.5533 0.3906 0.0000 2.5107 Surface retention 1 Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) To Amended(cfs) Wetted Surface 1.5000 0.5858 0.3906 0.0000 1.6738 0.0000 1.5934 0.5879 0.4455 0.0000 1.6738 0.0000 1.6868 0.5899 0.5005 0.0000 1.8822 0.0000 1.7802 0.5920 0.5557 0.0000 1.9865 0.0000 1.8736 0.5940 0.6111 0.0000 2.0907 0.0000 1.9670 0.5961 0.6666 0.0000 2.1949 0.0000 2.0604 0.5982 0.7224 0.0000 2.2992 0.0000 2.1538 0.6002 0.7784 0.0000 2.4034 0.0000 2.2473 0.6023 0.8346 0.0000 2.5076 0.0000 2.3407 0.6044 0.8909 0.0000 2.6118 0.0000 2.4341 0.6065 0.9475 0.0000 2.7161 0.0000 2.5275 0.6086 1.0042 0.0000 2.8203 0.0000 2.6209 0.6106 1.0611 0.0000 2.9245 0.0000 2.7143 0.6127 1.1183 0.0000 3.0288 0.0000 2.8077 0.6148 1.1756 0.0000 3.1330 0.0000 2.9011 0.6169 1.2331 0.0000 3.2372 0.0000 2.9945 0.6190 1.2909 0.0000 3.3414 0.0000 3.0879 0.6211 1.3488 0.0000 3.4457 0.0000 3.1813 0.6232 1.4069 0.0000 3.5499 0.0000 3.2747 0.6253 1.4652 0.0000 3.6541 0.0000 3.3681 0.6274 1.5237 0.0000 3.7584 0.0000 3.4615 0.6296 1.5824 0.0000 3.8626 0.0000 3.5549 0.6317 1.6413 0.0000 3.9668 0.0000 3.6484 0.6338 1.7004 0.0000 4.0710 0.0000 3.7418 0.6359 1.7597 0.0000 4.1753 0.0000 3.8352 0.6381 1.8192 0.0000 4.2795 0.0000 3.9286 0.6402 1.8789 0.0000 4.3837 0.0000

4.0220 0.6423 1.9388 0.0000 4.4880 0.0000 4.1154 0.6445 1.9989 0.0000 4.5922 0.0000 4.2088 0.6466 2.0592 0.0000 4.6964 0.0000 4.3022 0.6487 2.1197 0.0000 4.8006 0.0000 4.3956 0.6509 2.1804 0.0000 4.9049 0.0000 4.4890 0.6530 2.2413 0.0000 5.0091 0.0000 4.5824 0.6552 2.3024 0.0000 5.1133 0.0000 4.6758 0.6574 2.3637 0.0000 5.2176 0.0000 4.7692 0.6595 2.4252 0.0000 5.3218 0.0000 4.8626 0.6617 2.4869 0.0000 5.4260 0.0000 4.9560 0.6638 2.5488 0.0000 5.5302 0.0000 5.0495 0.6660 2.6109 0.0000 5.6345 0.0000 5.1429 0.6682 2.6733 0.0000 5.7387 0.0000 5.2363 0.6704 2.7358 0.0000 5.8429 0.0000 5.3297 0.6725 2.7985 0.0000 5.9472 0.0000 5.4231 0.6747 2.8614 0.0000 6.0514 0.0000 5.5165 0.6769 2.9245 0.0000 6.1556 0.0000 5.6099 0.6791 2.9879 0.0000 6.2598 0.0000 5.7033 0.6813 3.0514 0.0000 6.3641 0.0000 5.7967 0.6835 3.1151 0.0000 6.4683 0.0000 5.8901 0.6857 3.1791 0.0000 6.5725 0.0000 5.9835 0.6879 3.2432 0.0000 6.6768 0.0000 6.0769 0.6901 3.3076 0.0000 6.7810 0.0000 6.1703 0.6923 3.3722 0.0000 6.8852 0.0000 6.2637 0.6945 3.4369 0.0000 6.9894 0.0000 6.3571 0.6967 3.5019 0.0000 7.0937 0.0000 6.4505 0.6989 3.5671 0.0000 7.1979 0.0000 6.5440 0.7012 3.6325 0.0000 7.3021 0.0000 6.6374 0.7034 3.6981 0.0000 7.4064 0.0000 6.7308 0.7056 3.7639 0.0000 7.5106 0.0000 6.8242 0.7078 3.8299 0.0000 7.6148 0.0000 6.9176 0.7101 3.8961 0.0000 7.7190 0.0000 7.0110 0.7123 3.9625 0.0000 7.8233 0.0000 7.1044 0.7146 4.0292 0.0000 7.9275 0.0000 7.1978 0.7168 4.0960 0.0000 8.0317 0.0000 7.2912 0.7190 4.1631 0.0000 8.1360 0.0000 7.3846 0.7213 4.2304 0.0000 8.2402 0.0000 7.4780 0.7236 4.2978 0.0000 8.3444 0.0000 7.5714 0.7258 4.3655 0.4049 8.4486 0.0000 7.6648 0.7281 4.4334 1.4150 8.5529 0.0000 7.7582 0.7303 4.5015 2.7508 8.6571 0.0000 7.8516 0.7326 4.5699 4.2925 8.7613 0.0000 7.9451 0.7349 4.6384 5.9280 8.8656 0.0000 8.0385 0.7371 4.7071 7.5423 8.9698 0.0000 8.1319 0.7394 4.7761 9.0245 9.0740 0.0000 8.2253 0.7417 4.8453 10.282 9.1782 0.0000 8.3187 0.7440 4.9147 11.260 9.2825 0.0000 8.4121 0.7463 4.9843 11.966 9.3867 0.0000 8.5000 0.7484 5.0500 12.633 9.4848 0.0000 ___________________________________________________________________ Name : Surface retention 1 Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Bioretention 1 ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________ ANALYSIS RESULTS Stream Protection Duration ___________________________________________________________________ Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:19.557 Total Impervious Area:0.102 ___________________________________________________________________ Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:7.503 Total Impervious Area:12.157 ___________________________________________________________________ Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 1.539955 5 year 2.624318 10 year 3.508822 25 year 4.826246 50 year 5.959705 100 year 7.229344 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 2.865 0.000 1950 0.924 0.000 1951 2.066 0.000 1952 0.950 0.000 1953 1.281 0.000 1954 3.208 0.000 1955 2.605 0.000 1956 13.647 0.000 1957 2.234 0.000 1958 3.243 0.000 1959 2.774 0.000 1960 1.561 0.000 1961 4.252 0.000 1962 1.067 0.000 1963 1.442 0.000

1964 1.158 0.000 1965 0.726 0.000 1966 3.612 0.000 1967 2.061 0.000 1968 2.168 0.000 1969 1.623 0.000 1970 1.730 0.000 1971 2.692 0.000 1972 2.372 0.000 1973 1.361 0.000 1974 1.895 0.000 1975 1.920 0.000 1976 2.314 0.000 1977 1.126 0.000 1978 1.885 0.000 1979 1.533 0.000 1980 1.100 0.000 1981 0.918 0.000 1982 0.748 0.000 1983 1.652 0.000 1984 0.663 0.000 1985 0.360 0.000 1986 1.580 0.000 1987 1.358 0.000 1988 1.078 0.000 1989 0.674 0.000 1990 0.681 0.000 1991 1.377 0.000 1992 1.710 0.000 1993 0.837 0.000 1994 2.025 0.000 1995 1.804 0.000 1996 2.264 0.000 1997 1.575 0.000 1998 1.840 0.000 1999 2.842 0.000 2000 0.821 0.000 2001 0.403 0.000 2002 4.485 0.000 2003 2.518 0.000 2004 0.730 0.000 2005 1.314 0.000 2006 2.494 0.000 2007 1.622 0.000 2008 1.842 0.000 2009 0.598 0.000 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 13.6471 0.0000 2 4.4853 0.0000 3 4.2520 0.0000 4 3.6116 0.0000 5 3.2435 0.0000 6 3.2077 0.0000

7 2.8654 0.0000 8 2.8421 0.0000 9 2.7743 0.0000 10 2.6918 0.0000 11 2.6054 0.0000 12 2.5185 0.0000 13 2.4944 0.0000 14 2.3720 0.0000 15 2.3137 0.0000 16 2.2645 0.0000 17 2.2337 0.0000 18 2.1677 0.0000 19 2.0660 0.0000 20 2.0611 0.0000 21 2.0250 0.0000 22 1.9197 0.0000 23 1.8947 0.0000 24 1.8855 0.0000 25 1.8418 0.0000 26 1.8399 0.0000 27 1.8045 0.0000 28 1.7302 0.0000 29 1.7101 0.0000 30 1.6522 0.0000 31 1.6226 0.0000 32 1.6223 0.0000 33 1.5796 0.0000 34 1.5755 0.0000 35 1.5612 0.0000 36 1.5331 0.0000 37 1.4416 0.0000 38 1.3769 0.0000 39 1.3610 0.0000 40 1.3581 0.0000 41 1.3137 0.0000 42 1.2815 0.0000 43 1.1582 0.0000 44 1.1257 0.0000 45 1.1002 0.0000 46 1.0780 0.0000 47 1.0674 0.0000 48 0.9503 0.0000 49 0.9236 0.0000 50 0.9179 0.0000 51 0.8368 0.0000 52 0.8212 0.0000 53 0.7479 0.0000 54 0.7297 0.0000 55 0.7263 0.0000 56 0.6806 0.0000 57 0.6736 0.0000 58 0.6626 0.0000 59 0.5985 0.0000 60 0.4028 0.0000 61 0.3604 0.0000 ___________________________________________________________________

Stream Protection Duration POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.7700 13227 0 0 Pass 0.8224 10799 0 0 Pass 0.8748 8819 0 0 Pass 0.9272 7187 0 0 Pass 0.9797 5749 0 0 Pass 1.0321 4622 0 0 Pass 1.0845 3705 0 0 Pass 1.1369 2984 0 0 Pass 1.1893 2319 0 0 Pass 1.2418 1820 0 0 Pass 1.2942 1420 0 0 Pass 1.3466 1131 0 0 Pass 1.3990 890 0 0 Pass 1.4515 736 0 0 Pass 1.5039 637 0 0 Pass 1.5563 546 0 0 Pass 1.6087 479 0 0 Pass 1.6611 395 0 0 Pass 1.7136 328 0 0 Pass 1.7660 245 0 0 Pass 1.8184 194 0 0 Pass 1.8708 150 0 0 Pass 1.9233 102 0 0 Pass 1.9757 82 0 0 Pass 2.0281 62 0 0 Pass 2.0805 46 0 0 Pass 2.1329 28 0 0 Pass 2.1854 24 0 0 Pass 2.2378 20 0 0 Pass 2.2902 18 0 0 Pass 2.3426 17 0 0 Pass 2.3950 16 0 0 Pass 2.4475 16 0 0 Pass 2.4999 15 0 0 Pass 2.5523 13 0 0 Pass 2.6047 12 0 0 Pass 2.6572 11 0 0 Pass 2.7096 10 0 0 Pass 2.7620 10 0 0 Pass 2.8144 9 0 0 Pass 2.8668 7 0 0 Pass 2.9193 7 0 0 Pass 2.9717 7 0 0 Pass 3.0241 7 0 0 Pass 3.0765 7 0 0 Pass 3.1289 7 0 0 Pass 3.1814 7 0 0 Pass 3.2338 6 0 0 Pass 3.2862 5 0 0 Pass 3.3386 5 0 0 Pass

3.3911 5 0 0 Pass 3.4435 5 0 0 Pass 3.4959 5 0 0 Pass 3.5483 5 0 0 Pass 3.6007 5 0 0 Pass 3.6532 4 0 0 Pass 3.7056 4 0 0 Pass 3.7580 4 0 0 Pass 3.8104 4 0 0 Pass 3.8628 4 0 0 Pass 3.9153 4 0 0 Pass 3.9677 4 0 0 Pass 4.0201 4 0 0 Pass 4.0725 4 0 0 Pass 4.1250 4 0 0 Pass 4.1774 4 0 0 Pass 4.2298 4 0 0 Pass 4.2822 3 0 0 Pass 4.3346 3 0 0 Pass 4.3871 3 0 0 Pass 4.4395 3 0 0 Pass 4.4919 2 0 0 Pass 4.5443 2 0 0 Pass 4.5967 2 0 0 Pass 4.6492 2 0 0 Pass 4.7016 2 0 0 Pass 4.7540 2 0 0 Pass 4.8064 2 0 0 Pass 4.8589 2 0 0 Pass 4.9113 2 0 0 Pass 4.9637 2 0 0 Pass 5.0161 2 0 0 Pass 5.0685 2 0 0 Pass 5.1210 2 0 0 Pass 5.1734 2 0 0 Pass 5.2258 2 0 0 Pass 5.2782 2 0 0 Pass 5.3306 2 0 0 Pass 5.3831 2 0 0 Pass 5.4355 1 0 0 Pass 5.4879 1 0 0 Pass 5.5403 1 0 0 Pass 5.5928 1 0 0 Pass 5.6452 1 0 0 Pass 5.6976 1 0 0 Pass 5.7500 1 0 0 Pass 5.8024 1 0 0 Pass 5.8549 1 0 0 Pass 5.9073 1 0 0 Pass 5.9597 1 0 0 Pass _____________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs.

Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. ___________________________________________________________________ LID Report LID Technique Used for Total Volume Volume Infiltration Cumulative Percent Water Quality Percent Comment Treatment? Needs Through Volume Volume Volume Water Quality Treatment Facility (ac-ft.) Infiltration Infiltrated Treated (ac-ft) (ac-ft) Credit retention 1 POC N 3120.37 N 100.00 Total Volume Infiltrated 3120.37 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0% No Treat. Credit Compliance with LID Standard 8 Duration Analysis Result = Passed ___________________________________________________________________ Perlnd and Implnd Changes No changes have been made. ___________________________________________________________________ This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2020; All Rights Reserved.

3

ATTACHMENT 2 – WWHM PRELIMINARY REPORT OFFSITE BASIN

WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ Project Name: 831 Offsite Basin Runon Site Name: Spencer Offsite N Site Address: City : Report Date: 1/8/2020 Gage : Quilcene Data Start : 1948/10/01 Data End : 2009/09/30 Precip Scale: 0.80 Version Date: 2018/10/10 Version : 4.2.16 ___________________________________________________________________ Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year ___________________________________________________________________ High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year ___________________________________________________________________ PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Forest, Mod 10.717 C, Lawn, Mod 1.047 Pervious Total 11.764 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS MOD 0.909 DRIVEWAYS FLAT 1.255 Impervious Total 2.164 Basin Total 13.928 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No

GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Forest, Mod 10.717 C, Lawn, Mod 1.047 Pervious Total 11.764 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS MOD 0.909 DRIVEWAYS FLAT 1.255 Impervious Total 2.164 Basin Total 13.928 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ANALYSIS RESULTS Stream Protection Duration ___________________________________________________________________ Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:11.764 Total Impervious Area:2.164 ___________________________________________________________________ Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:11.764 Total Impervious Area:2.164 ___________________________________________________________________ Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 1.677587 5 year 2.393185 10 year 2.949654 25 year 3.754458 50 year 4.432962 100 year 5.183609 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 1.677587 5 year 2.393185

10 year 2.949654 25 year 3.754458 50 year 4.432962 100 year 5.183609 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 2.856 2.856 1950 1.406 1.406 1951 2.574 2.574 1952 1.500 1.500 1953 1.298 1.298 1954 2.694 2.694 1955 2.408 2.408 1956 7.988 7.988 1957 2.052 2.052 1958 2.463 2.463 1959 2.083 2.083 1960 1.178 1.178 1961 4.326 4.326 1962 1.102 1.102 1963 1.641 1.641 1964 1.504 1.504 1965 0.809 0.809 1966 2.633 2.633 1967 2.235 2.235 1968 2.418 2.418 1969 1.505 1.505 1970 1.821 1.821 1971 2.981 2.981 1972 2.574 2.574 1973 1.206 1.206 1974 1.636 1.636 1975 2.047 2.047 1976 2.280 2.280 1977 1.045 1.045 1978 1.415 1.415 1979 1.496 1.496 1980 1.363 1.363 1981 1.242 1.242 1982 1.432 1.432 1983 1.975 1.975 1984 0.988 0.988 1985 1.336 1.336 1986 1.484 1.484 1987 1.659 1.659 1988 1.322 1.322 1989 0.982 0.982 1990 0.960 0.960 1991 1.373 1.373 1992 1.419 1.419 1993 1.173 1.173 1994 1.770 1.770 1995 1.506 1.506 1996 2.300 2.300

1997 1.359 1.359 1998 1.715 1.715 1999 2.142 2.142 2000 1.360 1.360 2001 1.760 1.760 2002 3.240 3.240 2003 2.466 2.466 2004 1.493 1.493 2005 1.877 1.877 2006 2.266 2.266 2007 2.334 2.334 2008 1.804 1.804 2009 1.073 1.073 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 7.9875 7.9875 2 4.3259 4.3259 3 3.2403 3.2403 4 2.9809 2.9809 5 2.8562 2.8562 6 2.6938 2.6938 7 2.6332 2.6332 8 2.5741 2.5741 9 2.5736 2.5736 10 2.4655 2.4655 11 2.4631 2.4631 12 2.4184 2.4184 13 2.4076 2.4076 14 2.3343 2.3343 15 2.3004 2.3004 16 2.2798 2.2798 17 2.2657 2.2657 18 2.2348 2.2348 19 2.1419 2.1419 20 2.0831 2.0831 21 2.0519 2.0519 22 2.0466 2.0466 23 1.9753 1.9753 24 1.8769 1.8769 25 1.8210 1.8210 26 1.8042 1.8042 27 1.7697 1.7697 28 1.7603 1.7603 29 1.7150 1.7150 30 1.6593 1.6593 31 1.6410 1.6410 32 1.6362 1.6362 33 1.5058 1.5058 34 1.5049 1.5049 35 1.5045 1.5045 36 1.4998 1.4998 37 1.4963 1.4963 38 1.4926 1.4926 39 1.4836 1.4836

40 1.4323 1.4323 41 1.4188 1.4188 42 1.4150 1.4150 43 1.4063 1.4063 44 1.3726 1.3726 45 1.3627 1.3627 46 1.3600 1.3600 47 1.3588 1.3588 48 1.3365 1.3365 49 1.3223 1.3223 50 1.2977 1.2977 51 1.2419 1.2419 52 1.2060 1.2060 53 1.1784 1.1784 54 1.1726 1.1726 55 1.1019 1.1019 56 1.0731 1.0731 57 1.0452 1.0452 58 0.9881 0.9881 59 0.9819 0.9819 60 0.9599 0.9599 61 0.8094 0.8094 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.8388 1046 1046 100 Pass 0.8751 912 912 100 Pass 0.9114 803 803 100 Pass 0.9477 694 694 100 Pass 0.9840 613 613 100 Pass 1.0203 544 544 100 Pass 1.0566 476 476 100 Pass 1.0929 426 426 100 Pass 1.1292 372 372 100 Pass 1.1655 337 337 100 Pass 1.2018 295 295 100 Pass 1.2381 267 267 100 Pass 1.2745 245 245 100 Pass 1.3108 215 215 100 Pass 1.3471 193 193 100 Pass 1.3834 168 168 100 Pass 1.4197 148 148 100 Pass 1.4560 137 137 100 Pass 1.4923 123 123 100 Pass 1.5286 111 111 100 Pass 1.5649 100 100 100 Pass 1.6012 93 93 100 Pass 1.6375 91 91 100 Pass 1.6738 80 80 100 Pass 1.7101 71 71 100 Pass 1.7464 67 67 100 Pass

1.7827 60 60 100 Pass 1.8190 52 52 100 Pass 1.8553 45 45 100 Pass 1.8916 42 42 100 Pass 1.9279 36 36 100 Pass 1.9642 36 36 100 Pass 2.0005 35 35 100 Pass 2.0368 34 34 100 Pass 2.0732 32 32 100 Pass 2.1095 30 30 100 Pass 2.1458 29 29 100 Pass 2.1821 27 27 100 Pass 2.2184 24 24 100 Pass 2.2547 23 23 100 Pass 2.2910 20 20 100 Pass 2.3273 19 19 100 Pass 2.3636 18 18 100 Pass 2.3999 17 17 100 Pass 2.4362 14 14 100 Pass 2.4725 12 12 100 Pass 2.5088 12 12 100 Pass 2.5451 12 12 100 Pass 2.5814 10 10 100 Pass 2.6177 9 9 100 Pass 2.6540 8 8 100 Pass 2.6903 8 8 100 Pass 2.7266 6 6 100 Pass 2.7629 6 6 100 Pass 2.7992 6 6 100 Pass 2.8356 5 5 100 Pass 2.8719 4 4 100 Pass 2.9082 4 4 100 Pass 2.9445 4 4 100 Pass 2.9808 4 4 100 Pass 3.0171 3 3 100 Pass 3.0534 3 3 100 Pass 3.0897 3 3 100 Pass 3.1260 3 3 100 Pass 3.1623 3 3 100 Pass 3.1986 3 3 100 Pass 3.2349 3 3 100 Pass 3.2712 2 2 100 Pass 3.3075 2 2 100 Pass 3.3438 2 2 100 Pass 3.3801 2 2 100 Pass 3.4164 2 2 100 Pass 3.4527 2 2 100 Pass 3.4890 2 2 100 Pass 3.5253 2 2 100 Pass 3.5616 2 2 100 Pass 3.5980 2 2 100 Pass 3.6343 2 2 100 Pass 3.6706 2 2 100 Pass 3.7069 2 2 100 Pass 3.7432 2 2 100 Pass 3.7795 2 2 100 Pass 3.8158 2 2 100 Pass

3.8521 2 2 100 Pass 3.8884 2 2 100 Pass 3.9247 2 2 100 Pass 3.9610 2 2 100 Pass 3.9973 2 2 100 Pass 4.0336 2 2 100 Pass 4.0699 2 2 100 Pass 4.1062 2 2 100 Pass 4.1425 2 2 100 Pass 4.1788 2 2 100 Pass 4.2151 2 2 100 Pass 4.2514 2 2 100 Pass 4.2877 2 2 100 Pass 4.3240 2 2 100 Pass 4.3604 1 1 100 Pass 4.3967 1 1 100 Pass 4.4330 1 1 100 Pass _____________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. ___________________________________________________________________ LID Report LID Technique Used for Total Volume Volume Infiltration Cumulative Percent Water Quality Percent Comment Treatment? Needs Through Volume Volume Volume Water Quality Treatment Facility (ac-ft.) Infiltration Infiltrated Treated (ac-ft) (ac-ft) Credit Total Volume Infiltrated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% No Treat. Credit Compliance with LID Standard 8 Duration Analysis Result = Passed ___________________________________________________________________ Perlnd and Implnd Changes No changes have been made. ___________________________________________________________________ This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2020; All Rights Reserved.

ATTACHMENT 3 – AES GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

ATTACHMENT 4 – KRAZAN GEOTECHNICAL LETTER POND INFILTRATON

Spencer Plat Infiltration Pond Design

Krazan AssocDec 16, 2019

Grain Size Analysis per DoE SWMMWW 2014 Section 3.3.6 (3)Design Infilt

CFV CFt CFm CFT D10 D60 D90 fines log10(Ksat)= cm/sec in/hr Rate in/hrTP‐1 0.65 0.4 0.9 0.234 0.1326 0.3986 0.6236 0.07 ‐1.47 0.0342 48.49 11.35TP‐2 0.65 0.4 0.9 0.234 0.2361 0.4342 0.6625 0.02 ‐1.17 0.0684 96.91 22.68

0.9 0 ‐1.57 0.0269 38.15 0.000.9 0 ‐1.57 0.0269 38.15 0.000.9 0 ‐1.57 0.0269 38.15 0.000.9 0 ‐1.57 0.0269 38.15 0.000.9 0 ‐1.57 0.0269 38.15 0.00

Short Term DesignAverage 47.94 3.78Median 38.15 0.00

High 96.91 22.68Low 38.15 0.00

Short Term DesignAverage 19.66 4.60Median 14.80 3.46

High 60.00 14.04Low 7.30 1.71

*This equation gives results in cm/sec

CFT=CFVxCFtxCFm

Short Term Infilt Rate

In‐Situ Testing Statistics

Design Infiltration Statistics

log 𝐾 1.57 1.90𝐷 0.015𝐷 0.013𝐷 2.08𝑓

ATTACHMENT 5 – SIGNIFICANT TREE REPORT

11415 NE 128th St., Suite 110, Kirkland, WA 98034 | Phone: 425.820.3420 | Fax: 425.820.3437 | americanforestmanagement.com

Significant Tree Inventory Report

Spencer Plat

Poulsbo, WA

February 19, 2019

Prepared by:

American Forest Management, Inc.

American Forest Management, Inc. 2/19/2019

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 2. Description ............................................................................................................... 1 3. Methodology ............................................................................................................ 1 4. Observations ........................................................................................................... 1 4. Significant Tree Inventory ........................................................................................ 2 5. Tree Retention Summary ......................................................................................... 3

Supporting Information Tree Inventory Map Tree Inventory Map with Site Plan Backdrop

Spencer Plat – Significant Tree Inventory

Page 1 American Forest Management, Inc. 2/19/2019

1. Introduction American Forest Management Inc. was contacted by Timothy Witten with Team 4 Engineering and asked to conduct an inventory of significant trees on the proposed Spencer Plat in Poulsbo, WA. Our assignment is to perform an inventory of significant trees within the ownership and to report on the number of significant trees; and the general condition of the subject trees found therein. The purpose of the report is to estimate the number of significant trees to develop a baseline for tree retention calculations. Date of Field Examination: February 14, 2019

2. Description The study area encompasses approximately 20 acres. The area includes Kitsap County parcel 102601-2-004-2005, with a physical address of 21989 Urdahl Road. There is currently one house structure on the property with multiple outbuildings. The majority of the property was logged in the early 2000’s. Approximately 90% of the timber was harvested leaving scattered residual trees. There are groupings of older residual trees on the east portion of the property, totaling a few acres. For the purposes of this report, a significant tree is considered any tree greater than 10” DBH (diameter at breast height, 4 ½’ above ground).

3. Methodology The portion of the property that was logged over in the early 2000’s contains predominantly non-significant trees, or trees less than 10 inches in diameter. We used historical aerial imagery taken in 2003 to map the residual trees left after the timber harvest. This was done using a technique called heads-up digitizing. We then performed a thorough field reconnaissance to verify the accuracy of the mapping. The produced map is geo-referenced. We used the Avenza PDF Map application to verify the locations of residual significant trees. The initial mapping was fairly accurate, however a fair portion of the residual trees left after harvest have since died, mostly in the western portion of the property We made edits to the maps in the field and later corrected the significant tree locations using ArcInfo GIS. The residual groupings of trees located in the eastern portions of the property were counted, by area. Subject areas are shown on the attached map. These areas were delineated based on tree density and size of trees. We collected species and size information for significant trees. Dead trees were not counted.

4. Observations Much of the ownership, 16.23 GIS acres, was logged roughly 15 years ago (Area 7). Scattered trees and small groupings of trees were retained during that timber harvest. These include primarily smaller Douglas fir with a moderate component of Western red cedar and minor component of Western hemlock and Western white pine. Residual significant trees are small and mostly in the 10” to 15” diameter range. There is considerable non-significant natural regeneration of Douglas fir and red alder in the areas that were harvested. The Douglas fir is in fairly good condition. No indicators of root disease were identified on the property. The cedar is also in fairly good condition and of normal vigor. The hemlock is in poor condition overall. Lots of hemlock mortality was observed. The pine is in fair to poor condition. Much of the pine is infected with white pine blister rust. A large area of recently dead pine was observed in the northwest portion of the site. The mapped areas on the east portion of the property are primarily comprised of Douglas fir. These areas total 3.33 GIS Acres. Areas 1 and 2 have a moderate component of Western red cedar. Most areas have a minor component of Western hemlock, pacific madrone and Western white pine. There are a few scattered deciduous trees amongst the areas to include bigleaf maple, cottonwood and Scouler’s willow.



No concerning forest health conditions were observed in the residual treed areas. Trees are displaying normal vigor. Some of the hemlock is in decline, likely from past summer drought conditions.

4. Significant Tree Inventory The plot data is summarized in the tables below by Area. The areas are shown on the attached map.

Area 1 - 0.87 AcresDiameter (inches) Total by

Species 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 24-25 26-27 28-29 30-32 SpeciesDouglas-fir 25 15 14 16 4 2 1 2 1 80Western Red Cedar 6 3 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 23W. White Pine 1 2 1 1 5Bigleaf Maple 1 1Pacific madrone 1 2 3Scouler's willow 1 1Total by Diameter 32 21 21 21 7 4 1 2 0 3 1 113

Area 2 - 0.92 acresDiameter (inches) Total by

Species 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 24-25 26-27 28-29 30-32 SpeciesDouglas-fir 23 28 23 25 10 6 5 1 1 1 3 126Western Hemlock 1 2 1 1 5Western Red Cedar 8 2 4 1 3 18Pacific madrone 1 1 2Total by Diameter 32 31 29 27 11 7 5 4 1 1 3 151


Species 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 24-25 26-27 28-29 30-32 SpeciesDouglas-fir 17 17 14 15 9 5 3 2 3 85Western Hemlock 2 2 4Western Red Cedar 1 1 2Pacific madrone 1 1Total by Diameter 19 20 15 15 9 5 0 3 2 1 3 92


Species 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 24-25 26-27 28-29 30-32 SpeciesDouglas-fir 37 11 4 1 53Western Hemlock 2 2Western Red Cedar 1 1 2W. White Pine 1 1 2 4Total by Diameter 40 13 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61


Species 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 24-25 26-27 28-29 30-32 SpeciesDouglas-fir 1 3 9 8 2 2 25Pacific madrone 1 1Cottonwood 1 1 2Total by Diameter 2 3 9 9 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 28


Species 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 24-25 26-27 28-29 30-32 SpeciesDouglas-fir 21 10 5 3 1 1 41Western Red Cedar 2 2 2 1 7W. White Pine 1 2 1 4Total by Diameter 24 14 6 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 52



Area 7 – 16.23 has an estimated total of 952 significant trees. Summary of Counted Areas 497 significant trees over 3.33 acres = 149 trees per acre

5. Tree Retention Summary Area 1 contains 113 significant trees. Area 2 contains 151 significant trees. Area 3 contains 92 significant trees. Area 4 contains 61 significant trees. Area 5 contains 28 significant trees. Area 6 contains 52 significant trees. Area 7 contains 952 significant trees. The total number of estimated significant trees over the entire property = 1,449 City Code requires the retention of 25% of significant trees. Trees required for retention = 363 Estimated Retention by Area West 25-foot Perimeter Buffer – Area 3 (0.18 acres) = 23 Trees West 25-foot Perimeter Buffer – Area 4 (0.17 acres) = 25 Trees West Perimeter Buffer – Area 6 (0.12 acres) = 17 Trees North 25-foot Perimeter Buffer – Area 7 - Estimate of 42 Trees East 25-foot Perimeter Buffer – Area 7 - Estimate of 16 Trees Tract A – 50-foot Perimeter Buffer = Estimate of 28 Trees Tract F – Estimate of 8 Trees

Total Estimated Sum of Retained Trees = 159 There are many non-significant size trees within the proposed retention area. Per the retention code below, B2, the review authority may allow these to count toward the retention requirement. These non-significant trees would satisfy the requirements as outlined in subsection A below.

18.180.030 Retention required. A. In applying the requirement for retention of trees, the review authority shall consider the preservation of trees in any of the following circumstances as priorities: 1. Trees located within healthy, vegetated groups and stands, rather than as isolated trees scattered throughout the site. 2. Trees that have a reasonable chance of survival once the site is developed. 3. Trees that can be incorporated into required landscaping and setback areas.



4. Trees adjacent to required critical area buffers. 5. Trees having a land stability function. 6. Trees that can be incorporated into a perimeter buffer or screen the site from adjacent properties. 7. Trees that can be incorporated into required open space and/or recreational amenity areas or tracts. 8. Trees that will not pose a threat to persons or properties. 9. Conifers which provide for superior ability to intercept stormwater during high rain events over deciduous trees. B. Tree Retention Requirement. 1. At least twenty-five percent of the existing trees which are ten inches in diameter or greater measured four feet six inches above grade, and meet the priorities in subsection A of this section, shall be retained. 2. The review authority may approve retention of trees which do not meet the size requirement above as a contribution toward the sum of the diameter inches required if a group of trees and its associated undergrowth can be preserved and falls within one of the priorities identified in subsection A of this section. (Ord. 2016-20 § 2 (Att. A (part)), 2016; Ord. 2013-04 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2013)

!.!. !.

!. !.

!.

!.

!. !. !.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!. !.!.!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!. !.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!. !.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!. !. !.

!.

!. !.!.

!.!.

!.!. !.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !.!. !.

!. !.!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.!. !.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!. !.

!.!.

!. !.!.

!. !.!. !.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!. !.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!. !.!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!. !.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !. !.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!. !. !.

!.!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!. !.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!. !. !.

!. !. !.

!. !.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!. !. !.

!.!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!. !.

!.!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.!.!. !.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!. !.

!.

!.!. !.!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!. !. !.

!.!.!.

!. !.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!. !.

!.

!.!. !.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!. !. !.

!. !.

!. !.

!.!.

!. !.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!. !.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.!. !.

!.

!.

!.!.!. !.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!. !.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.!. !.

!.

!.

!. !. !.!.

!.!. !. !.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!. !.!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.!.!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.!.

!. !.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

77

22

6611

55

33

44

¢

Spencer PlatSec 9 - T 26 N, R 1 E, Kitsap County

0 200 Feet1 inch = 200 feet Map date: 2/15/2019

TREE LOCATIONS

!. Tree (10" dia.)Cover type boundary

table of contents location pg. 1 ii. description of

Documents